The Catholic Controversy
Saint Francis De Sales
Index
1. The Authority of the Church
2. The Doctrine of Purgatory
3. The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture
4. The Church Mission
5. The Papacy
HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
CHAPTER I: That we need some other rule besides the Word of God.
Once when Absalom wished to form a faction against his good father, he sat in the way near the gate, and said to all who went by: There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, and I might do them justice. (2 Kings xv.). Thus did he undermine the loyalty of the Israelites. But how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distract the people from obedience to the Church, and to lead Christians into revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France: There is no one appointed by the Lord to hear and resolve differences concerning faith and religion; the Church has no. power in this matter!" If you consider well, Christians, you will see that whoever holds this language wishes to be judge himself, though he does not openly say so, more cunning than Absalom. I have seen one of the most recent books of Theodore Beza, entitled: Of the true, essential and visible marks of the true Catholic Church; he seems to me to aim at making himself, with his colleagues, judge of all the differences which are between us; he says that the conclusion of all his argument is that "the true Christ is the only true and perpetual mark of the Catholic Church,"-understanding by true Christ, he says, Christ as he has most perfectly declared himself from the beginning, whether in the Prophetic or Apostolic writings, in what belongs to our salvation. Further on he says: "This was what I had to say on the true, sole, and essential mark of the true Church, which is the written Word, Prophetic and Apostolic, well and rightly ministered." Higher up he had admitted that there were great difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, but not in things, which touch faith. In the margin he places this warning, which he has put almost everywhere in the text: "The interpretation of Scripture must not be drawn elsewhere than from the Scripture itself, by comparing passages one with another, and adapting them to the analogy of the faith." And in the Epistle to the King of France: " We ask that the appeal be made to the holy canonical Scriptures, and that, if there be any doubt as to the interpretation of them, the correspondence and relation which should exist among these passages of Scripture and the articles of faith, be the judge." He there receives the Fathers as of authority just as far as they should find their foundation in the Scriptures. He continues: "As to the point of doctrine we cannot appeal to any irreproachable judge save the Lord himself, who has declared all his counsel concerning our salvation by the Apostles and the Prophets." He says again that "his party are not such as would disavow a single Council worthy of the name, general or particular, ancient or later, (take note)-" provided," says he, "that the touchstone, which is the word of God, be used to try it." That, in one word, is what all these reformers want--to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen: but we say that our difference is not there; it is here, that in the disagreements, which we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say: but we do not ask. how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but- who shall be the judge? For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the faith, we find by this passage: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God: you say, on your side that this passage: The kings of the nations lord it over them..but you not so (Luke xxii.), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority): No one can lay another foundation, &c. (1 Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the faith makes you detest a chief minister. The two of us follow one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in this question -namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord -and yet I have arrived at the affirmative and you, you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me.
I quite admit, be it said in passing, that he who shall enquire of Theodore Beza will say that you have reasoned better than I, but on what does he rely for this judgment except on what seems good to himself, according to the prejudgment he has formed of the matter long ago? -and he may say what he likes, for who has made him judge between you and me?
Recognize, Christians, the spirit of division: your people send you to the Scriptures; -we are there before you came into the world, and what we believe, we find there clear and plain. But, -it must be properly understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole to the Creed; -we are at this now fifteen hundred years and more. You are mistaken, answers Luther. Who told you so? Scripture. What Scripture? Such and such, collated so, and fitted to the Creed. On the contrary, say I, it is you, Luther, who are mistaken: the Scripture tells me so, in such and such a passage, nicely joined and adjusted to such and such a Scripture, and to the articles of the faith. I am not in doubt, as to whether we must give belief to the holy Word; -who knows not that it is in the supreme degree of certitude? What exercises me is the understanding of this Scripture -the consequences and conclusions drawn from it, which being different beyond and very often contradictory on the same point, so that each one chooses his own, one here the other there-who shall make me see truth through so many vanities? Who shall give me to see this Scripture in its native color? For the neck of this dove changes its appearance as often as those who look upon it change position and distance. The Scripture is a most holy and infallible touchstone; every proposition, which stands this test I accept as most faithful and sound. But what am I to do, when I have in my hands this proposition: the natural body of our Lord is really, substantially and actually in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. I have it touched at every angle and on every side, by the express and purest word of God, and by the Apostles' Creed. There is no place when I do not rub it a hundred times, if you like. And the more I examine it the finer gold and purer metal do I recognize it to be made of. You say that having done the same you find base metal in it. What do you want me to do? All these masters have handled it already, and all have come to the same decision as I, and with such assurance, that in general assemblies of the craft, they have turned out all who said differently. Good heavens! who shall resolve our doubts? We must not speak again of the touchstone or it will be said: The wicked walk about (in circuitu) (Ps. xi. 9). We must have some one to take it up, and to test the piece himself; then he must give judgment, and we must submit, both of us, and argue no more. Otherwise each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care lest with regard to these words we be drawing the Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If the salt hath lost its savor, with what shall it be salted? (Matt. v. 13). If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide?
Ah! whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds and of the tide, instead of giving us a skilful pilot perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and compass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. Let him have placed therein the most excellent compass and the most correct chart in the world, what use are these if no one knows how to gain from them some infallible rule for directing the ship? Of what use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to move it as the ship's course requires? But if every one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks good, who sees not that we are lost?
It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe; it is our glosses, our conclusions, understandings, interpretations, conjectures, additions, and other such workings of man's brain, which, being unable to be quiet, is ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do not want a judge to decide between us and God, as he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man such as Calvin, Luther, Beza, and another such as Eckius, Fisher, More; for we do not ask whether God understands the Scripture better than we do, but whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augustine or S. Cyprian. S. Hilary says excellently (Lib. 2 de Trin. xviii.) "Heresy is in the understanding, not in the Scripture, and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words." and S. Augustine (In Joan. Tr. xviii, i.): "Heresies arise simply from this, that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptuously given forth." It is a true Michol's game; it is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes of David (1 Kings xix.) He who looks at it thinks he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but he is mistaken; it is not there. The words are there, but not the meaning. "The Scriptures," says S. Jerome, ( Adv. Lucif. 28. ) "consist not in the reading but in the understanding:" that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. "If the world last long ?said Luther once by good hap (Contr. Zwin. et. Oecol), it will be again necessary, on account of the different interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of the faith we should receive the Councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge." He acknowledges that formerly they were received, and that afterwards they will have to be.
I have dwelt on this at length, but when it is well understood, we have no small means of determining a most holy deliberation.
I say as much of Traditions; for if each one will bring forward Traditions, and we have no judge on earth to make in the last resort the difference between those which are to be received and those which are not, where, I pray you, shall we be? We have clear examples. Calvin finds that the Apocalypse is to be received, Luther denies it; the same with the Epistle of S. James. Who shall reform these opinions of the reformers? Either the one or the other is ill formed, who shall put it right? Here is a second necessity, which we have of another rule besides the Word of God.
There is, however, a very great difference between the first rules and this one. For the first rule, which is the Word of God, is a rule infallible in itself, and most sufficient to regulate all the understandings in the world. The second is not properly a rule of itself, but only in so far as it applies the first and proposes to us the right doctrine contained in the Holy Word. In the same way the laws are said to be a rule in civil causes. The judge is not so of himself, since his judging is conditioned by the ruling of the law; yet he is, and may well be called, a rule, because the application of the laws being subject to variety, when he has once made it we must conform to it.
The Holy Word then is the first law of our faith; there remains the application of this rule, which being able to receive as many forms as there are brains in the world, in spite of all the analogies of the faith, there is need further of a second rule to regulate this application. There must be doctrine and there must be some one to propose it. The doctrine is in the Holy Word, but who shall propose it? The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this: the Word of God is infallible; the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore Baptism is necessary for salvation. The 1st Proposition cannot be gainsayed, we are at variance with Calvin about the 2nd;- who shall reconcile us? Who shall resolve our doubt? If he who has authority to propose can err in his proposition all has to be done over again. There must therefore be some infallible authority in whose propounding we are obliged to acquiesce. The Word of God cannot err, He who proposes it cannot err; thus shall all be perfectly assured.
CHAPTER II. THAT THE CHURCH IS AN INFALLIBLE GUIDE FOR OUR FAITH.
THAT THE TRUE CHURCH IS VISIBLE. DEFINITION OF THE CHURCH.
Now is it not reasonable that no private individual should attribute to himself this infallible judgment on the interpretation or explanation of the Holy Word? -otherwise, where should we be? Who would be willing to submit to the yoke of a private individual? Why of one rather than of another? Let him talk as much as he will of analogy, of enthusiasm, of the Lord, of the Spirit,-all this shall never so bind my understanding as that, if I must sail at hazard, I will not jump into the vessel of my own judgment, rather than that of another, let him talk Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Tartar, Moorish, and whatever you like. If we are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to run it rather by following his own fancy, than by slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther? Everybody shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously about amongst opinions the most diverse possible; and, indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties, and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.
I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever heard this doubted of?
All that our adversaries can say is that this infallibility is only true of the invisible Church. But they arrive at this their opinion of the invisibility of the Church by two roads; for some say it is invisible because it consists only of persons elect and predestinate: the others attribute this invisibility to the rareness and scattering of the believers and faithful. Of these the first consider the Church to be invisible at all times, the others say that this invisibility has lasted about a thousand years, more or less; that is, from S. Gregory to Luther, during which time the papal authority was peaceably established among Christians for they say that during this time there were some true Christians in secret, who did not manifest their intentions, and were satisfied with thus serving God in concealment. This theology is imagination and guesswork; so that others have preferred to say, that during those thousand years the Church was neither visible nor invisible, but altogether effaced and suffocated by impiety and idolatry. Permit me, I beseech you, to say the truth freely; all these words are the incoherencies of fever, they are but dreams had while awake, and not worth the dream Nabuchodonosor had while asleep. And they are entirely contrary to it if we believe Daniel's interpretation (Dan. ii); for Nabuchodonosor saw a stone cut out of a mountain without hands which went rolling till it overthrew the great statue, and so increased that having become a mountain it filled the whole earth: this Daniel understood of the Kingdom of Our Lord, which shall last for ever. If it be as a mountain, and a mountain so large as to fill the whole earth, how shall it be invisible or secret? And if it last forever, how shall it have failed a thousand years? And it is certainly of the Kingdom of the Church militant that this passage is to be understood; for that of the triumphant will fill heaven, not earth only, and will not arise during the time of the other Kingdoms, as Daniel's interpretation says, but after the consummation of the world. Add to this that to be cut from the mountain without hands, belongs to the temporal generation of Our Lord, according to which he has been conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and engendered of her own substance without work of man, by the sole benediction of the Holy Ghost. Either then Daniel has badly prophesied, or the adversaries of the Catholic Church have done so when they have said the Church was invisible, hidden and destroyed. In God's name have patience; we will go in order and briefly, while showing the vanity of those opinions. But we must, before all things, say what the Church is.
Church comes from the Greek word meaning to call. Church then signifies an assembly, or company of persons called. Synagogue means a flock, to speak properly. The assembly of the Jews was called Synagogue, that of Christians is called Church: because the Jews were as a flock of animals, assembled and herded by fear; Christians are brought together by the Word of God, called together in the union of charity, by the preaching of the Apostles and their successors. Wherefore S. Augustine has said (In Ps. LXXXI) that the Church is named from convocation, the synagogue from flock, because to be convoked belongs more to men, to be driven together refers rather to cattle. Now it is with good reason that we call the Christian people the Church, or convocation, because the first benefit God does to a man whom he is about to receive into grace is to call him to the Church. Those whom he predestinated them he also called, said S. Paul to the Roman (viii.30); - that is the first effect of his predestination: and to the Colossians (iii. 15): Let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body. To be called in one body is to be called in the Church, and in those comparisons which Our Lord makes, in S. Matthew (xx. xxii.), of the vineyard and the banquet to the Church, the workmen in the vineyard and the guests at the banquet, he names the called and invited ones: Many, says he, are called, but few are chosen. The Athenians called the assemblage of the citizens the church, an assemblage of strangers was called by another name-diaklesis. Whence the word Church belongs properly to Christians, who are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and domestics of God (Eph. ii. 19) You see whence is taken the word Church, and here is its definition:(from Ephes. v. 27; John xi. 52; S. Cyprian de unit Eccl.; Ephes. iv. 4; Matt. xvi.; Heb. vii. 11; Ephes. iv. 11, 12). The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same Christian faith; in the participation of the same Sacraments and Sacrifice; and in obedience to one same Vicar and Lieutenant-general on earth of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and successor of S. Peter; under the charge of lawful Bishops.
CHAPTER III.THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ONE. MARK THE FIRST. IT IS UNDER ONE VISIBLE HEAD; THAT OF THE PROTESTANTS IS NOT.
I will not dwell long on this point. You know that all we Catholics acknowledge the Pope as Vicar of Our Lord. The universal Church acknowledged him lately at Trent, when she addressed herself to him for confirmation of what she had resolved, and when she received his deputies as the ordinary and legitimate presiding body of 'the Council. I should lose time also [to prove that] you have no visible head; you admit it. You have a supreme Consistory, like those of Berne, Geneva, Zurich and the rest, which depend on no other. You are so far from consenting to recognize a universal head, that you have not even a provincial head. Your ministers are one as good as another, and have no prerogative in the Consistory, yea, are inferior in knowledge and in vote to the president who is no minister. As for your bishops or superintendents, you are not satisfied with lowering them to the rank of ministers, but have made them inferior, so as to leave nothing in its proper place.
The English hold their queen as head of their church, contrary to the pure Word of God. Not that they are mad enough, so far as I know, to consider her head of the Catholic Church, but only of those unhappy countries.
In short, there is no one head over all others in spiritual things, either amongst you or amongst the rest of those who make profession of opposing the Pope.
How many times and in how many places is the Church, as well militant as triumphant, both in Old and New Testament, called house and family! It would seem to me lost time to search this out, since it is so common in the Scriptures that he who has read them will never question it, and he who has not read them will find, as soon as he reads them, this form of speech in a manner everywhere. It is of the Church that S. Paul says to his dear Timothy (I. iii. 15): That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church, ..the pillar and ground of the truth. It is of her that David says: Blessed are they who dwell in thy house, O Lord (Ps. lxxxiii. 5). It is of her that the angel said: He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever (Luke i. 32). It is of her that Our Lord said: In my Father's house there are many mansions (John xiv. 2). The kingdom of heaven is like to a master of a family, in Matthew, chapter 20, and in a hundred thousand other places.
Now the Church being a house and a family, the Master thereof can doubtless be but one, Jesus Christ: and so is it called house of God. But this Master and householder ascending to the right hand of God, having left many servants in his house, would leave one of them who should be servant-in-chief, and to whom the others should be responsible; wherefore Christ said: Who (thinkest thou) is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his family (Matt. xxiv. 45). In truth, if there were not a foreman in a shop, think how the business would be done-or if there were not a king in a kingdom, a captain in a ship, a father in a family-in fact it would no longer be a family. But hear Our Lord in S. Matthew (xii.): Every city or house divided. against itself shall not stand. Never can a province be well governed by itself, above all if it be large. I ask you, gentlemen so wise, who will have no head in the Church, can you give me an example of any government of importance in which all the particular governments are not reduced to one? We may pass over the Macedonians, Babylonians, Jews, Medes, Persians, Arabians, Syrians, French, Spaniards, English, and a vast number of eminent states, in regard to which the matter is evident; but let us come to republics. Tell me, where have you ever seen any great province which has governed itself? Nowhere. The chief part of the world was at one time in the Roman Republic, but a single Rome governed; a single Athens, Carthage, and so of the other ancient republics; a single Venice, a single Genoa, a single Lucerne, Fribourg and the rest. You will never find that the single parts of some notable and great province have set to work to govern themselves. But it was, is, and will be necessary that one man alone, or one single body of men residing in one place, or one single town, or some small portion of a province, has governed the province if the rest of the province were large. You, gentlemen, who delight in history, I am assured of your suffrages; you will not let me be contradicted. But supposing (which is most false) that some particular province was self-governed, how can this be said of the Christian Church, which is so universal that it comprehends all the world? How could it be one if it governed itself? And if not, there would be need to have a council of all the bishoprics always standing-and who would convoke it? It would be necessary for all the bishops to be absent; and how could that be ? And if all the bishops were equal, who would call them together? And how great a difficulty would it be, if there were some doubt in a matter of faith, to assemble a council! It cannot then possibly be that the whole Church and each part thereof should govern itself, without dependence of one part on the other.
Now, since I have sufficiently proved that one part should depend on another, I ask which part it is on which the dependence should be, whether a province, or a city, or an assembly, or a single person? If a province, where is it? It is not England, for when a city, it must be one of the Patriarchal ones: now of the Patriarchal cities there are but five, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Which of the five?-all are pagan except Rome. If then it must be a city, it is Rome; if an assembly, it is that at Rome. But no; it is not a province, not a town, not a simple and perpetual assembly; it is a single man, established head over all the Church: A faithful and prudent servant whom the Lord hath appointed. Let us conclude then that Our Lord, when leaving this world, in order to leave all his Church united, left one single governor and lieutenant-general, to whom we are to have recourse in all our necessities.
Which being so, I say to you that this servant general, this dispenser and governor, this chief steward of the house of Our Lord is S. Peter, who on this account can truly say: O Lord, for I am thy servant(Ps. cxx. 16), and not only servant but doubly so: I am thy servant, because they who rule well are worthy of double honor (1.Tim. v. 17). And not only thy servant, but also son of the handmaid. When there is some servant of the family kin he is trusted the more, and the keys of the house are willingly entrusted to him. It is therefore not without cause that I introduce S. Peter saying: O Lord, for I am thy servant, &c. For he is a good and faithful servant, to whom, as to a servant of the same kin, the Master has given the keys: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. S. Luke shows us clearly that S. Peter is this servant; for after having related that Our Lord had said by way of warning to his disciples (Luke xii.): Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching: Amen I say to you, that he will gird himself , and make them sit down to meat, and passing will minister to them:-.S. Peter alone asked Our Lord Dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all? Our Lord answering S. Peter does not say: Who (thinkest thou) are the faithful servants? -as he had said: Blessed...are those servants,-but: Who (thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward whom his Lord setteth over his family to give them their measure of wheat in due season? And in fact Theophylact here says that S. Peter asked this question as having the supreme charge of the Church, and S. Ambrose in the 7th book on S. Luke, says that the first words, blessed, &c. refer to all, but the second, who, thinkest thou, refer to the bishops, and much more properly to the supreme bishop. Our Lord, then, answers S. Peter as meaning to say: what I have said in general applies to all, but to thee particularly: for whom dost thou think to be the prudent and faithful servant?
And truly, if we sift this parable a little, who can be the servant who is to distribute the bread except S. Peter, to whom the charge of feeding the others has been given: feed my sheep? When the master of the house goes out he gives the keys to the chief steward and procurator; and, is it not to S. Peter that Our Lord said: I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Everything has reference to the governor, and the rest of the officers depend on him for their authority, as all the building does upon the foundation; thus S. Peter is called the stone on which the Church is founded: Thou art- Cephas, and upon this rock &c Now Cephas means a stone in Syriac as well as in Hebrew; but the Latin translator has said Petrus, because in Greek there is neTpos, which also means stone, like petra. And Our Lord in S. Matthew chapter vii., says that the wise man builds and founds his house on the rock, supra ,petram(note the pronoun hanc). Whereof the devil, the father of lies, the ape of Our Lord, has wished to make a sort of imitation, founding his miserable heresy principally in a diocese of S. Peter (Geneva), and in a Rochelle (little rock).
Further, Our Lord requires that this servant should be prudent and faithful. And St. Peter truly has these two qualities; for how could prudence be wanting to him, since neither flesh nor blood directs him but the heavenly Father? And how could fidelity fail him, since Our Lord said: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not (Luke xxii. 32)?- and he, we must believe, was heard for his reverence (Heb. v. 7) And that he was heard he gives an excellent testimony when he adds: And thou being converted, confirm thy brethren.. As if he would say : I have prayed for thee, and therefore be the confirmer of the others, because for the others I have only prayed that they may have a secure refuge in thee. Let us then conclude that as Our Lord was one day to quit his Church as regards his corporal and visible being, he left a visible lieutenant and vicar general, namely S. Peter, who could therefore rightly say: O Lord, for I am thy servant.
You will say to me: Our Lord is not dead, and moreover is always with his Church, why then do you give him a vicar? I answer you that not being dead he has no successor but only a vicar; and moreover that he truly assists his Church in all things and everywhere by his invisible favour, but, in order not to make a visible body without a visible head, he has willed further to assist it in the person of a visible lieutenant, by means of whom, besides invisible favours, he perpetually administers his Church, and in a manner suitable to the sweetness of his providence. You will tell me, again, that there is no other foundation than Our Lord in the Church: No one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (I Cor. iii. 11) I grant you that as well the Church militant as the triumphant is supported and founded on Our Lord, as on the principal foundation but Isaias has foretold to us that in the Church there were to be two foundations. In chapter xxviii.: Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation. I know how a great personage explains it, but it seems to me that that passage of Isaias ought certainly to be interpreted without going outside .chapter xvi of St .Matthew in the Gospel of to-day [probably S. Peter's Chair, Jan . or Feb. 1596]. There then Isaias, complaining of the Jews and of their prophets, in the person of Our Lord, because they would not believe:-Command, command again; expect, expect again, and what follows,-adds: Therefore thus saith the Lord: and hence it was the Lord who said Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion. He says in the foundations, because although the other Apostles were foundations of the Church: (And the wall of the city, says the Apocalypse (xxi. 14), had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb:- and elsewhere: Built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20): -and the Psalmist (lxxvi.): The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains). Yet, amongst all, there is one who by excellence and in the highest sense is called stone and foundation, and it is he to whom Our Lord said: Thou art Cephas, that is, stone, tried stone. Listen to St. Matthew: he declares that Our Lord will lay a tried stone; -what trying would you have other than this: whom do men say that the Son of man is? A hard question, which St. Peter, explaining the secret and difficult mystery of the communication of idioms, answers so much to the point that more could not be, and gives proof that he is truly a stone, saying: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. Isaias continues and says: a precious stone; hear the esteem in which Our Lord holds St. Peter: Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona :-corner stone; Our Lord does not say that he will build only a wall of the church, but the whole,-My Church; he is then a corner-stone:-founded in the foundation; he shall be a foundation, but not first: for there will be another foundation-Christ himself being the chief corner-stone. See how Isaias explains St. Matthew, and St. Matthew Isaias.
I should never end if I would say all that comes to my mind when I have this subject before me. Now let us see the conclusion of it all. The true Church ought to have a visible head in its government and administration ; yours has none, therefore it is not the true church. On the other hand, there is in the world one true Church and lawful, which has a visible head: no one has [but ours], therefore ours is the true Church. Let us pass on.
CHAPTER IV. UNITY OF THE CHURCH (continued).
OF THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH IN DOCTRINE AND BELIEF. THE TRUE CHURCH MUST BE ONE IN ITS DOCTRINE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS UNITED IN BELIEF, THE SOCALLED REFORMED CHURCH IS NOT.
Is Jesus Christ divided? No, surely, for he is the God of peace, not of dissension, as S. Paul taught throughout the Church. It cannot then be that the true Church should be in dissension or division of belief and opinion, for God would no longer be its Author or Spouse, and, like a kingdom divided against itself, it would be brought to desolation. As soon as God takes a people to himself, as he has done the Church, he gives it unity of heart and of path the Church is but one body, of which all the faithful are members, compacted and united together by all its joints; there is but one spirit animating this body: God is in his holy place: who maketh men of one manner to dwell in a house (Ps. ixvii. 7); therefore the true Church of God must be united, fastened and joined together in one same doctrine and belief.
It is necessary, says S. Irenmus (iii. 3) that all the faithful should come together and unite themselves to the Roman Church [on account of] its superior ruling power. She is the mother of their sacerdotal dignity, says Julius I. (ad Euseb.) "She is the commencement of the unity of the priesthood, she is the bond of unity," says S. Cyprian (Ep. 5 5). Again: "We are not ignorant that there is but one God, one Christ and Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit, one pastoral office (episcopatus) in the Catholic Church " (de un. Ec. iv.). The good Optatus also said to the Donatists (ii. 2, 3) : " Thou canst not deny that thou knowest that in the city of Rome the chief chair has been first granted to S. Peter, in which sat the chief of the Apostles, S. Peter, whence he was called Cephas ; the chair in which the unity of the whole was preserved, in order that the other Apostles might not seek to put forward and maintain each his own, and that henceforward he might be a schismatic who would set up another chair against this one chair. Therefore in this one chair, which is the first of its prerogatives, was first seated S. Peter." These are almost the words of this ancient and holy doctor; and every Catholic of this age is of the same conviction. We hold the Roman Church to be our refuge in all our difficulties; we all are her humble children, and receive our food from the milk of her breasts; we are all branches of this most fruitful stock, and draw no sap of doctrine save from this root. This is what clothes us all with the same livery of belief; for knowing that there is one chief and lieutenant general in the Church, what he decides and determines with the other prelates of the Church when he is seated in the chair of Peter to teach Christendom, serves as law and measure to our belief. Let there be error everywhere throughout the world, yet you will see the same faith in Catholics. And if there be any difference of opinion, either it will not be in things belonging to the faith, or else, as soon as ever a General Council or the Roman See shall have determined it, you will see every one submit to their decision. Our understandings do not stray away from one another in their belief, but keep most closely united and linked together by the bond of the superior authority of the Church, to which each one gives in with all humility, steadying his faith thereon, as upon the pillar and ground of truth. Our Catholic Church has but one language and one same form of words throughout the whole earth.
On the contrary, gentlemen, your first ministers had no sooner got on their feet, they had no sooner begun to build a tower of doctrine and science which was visibly to reach the heavens, and to acquire them the great and magnificent reputation of reformers, than God, wishing to traverse this ambitious design, permitted amongst them such a diversity of language and belief, that they began to contradict one another so violently that all their undertaking became a miserable Babel and confusion. What contradictions has not Luther's reformation produced! I should never end if I would put them all on this paper. He who would see them should read that little book of Frederick Staphyl's de concordid discordi, and Sanders, Book 7 of his Risible Monarchy, and Gabriel de Preau, in the Lives of Heretics: I will only say what you cannot be ignorant of, and what I now see before my eyes. primate, a name which Calvin so greatly detests: the Puritans in England hold as an article of faith that it is not lawful to preach, baptize, pray, in the Churches which were formerly Catholic, but they are not so squeamish in these parts. And note my saying that they make it an article of faith, for they suffer both prison and banishment rather than give it up. Is it not well known that at Geneva they consider it a superstition to keep any saint's day? -yet in Switzerland some are kept; and you keep one of Our Lady. The point is not that some keep them and others do not, for this would be no contradiction in religious belief, but that what you and some of the Swiss observe the others condemn as contrary to the purity of religion. Are you not aware that one of your greatest ministers teaches that the body of our Lord is as far from the Lord's Supper as heaven is from earth, and are you not likewise aware that this is held to be false by many others? Has not one of your ministers lately confessed the reality of Christ's body in the Supper, and do not the rest deny it? Can you deny me that as regards Justification you are as much divided against one another as you are against us:-witness that anonymous controversialist. In a word, each man has his own language, and out of as many Huguenots as I have spoken to I have never found two of the same belief.
But the worst is, you are not able to come to an agreement:-for where will you find a trusted arbitrator? You have no head upon earth to address yourselves to in your difficulties; you believe that the very Church can err herself and lead others into error: you would not put your soul into such unsafe hands; indeed, you hold her in small account. The Scripture cannot be your arbiter, for it is concerning the Scripture that you are in litigation, some of you being determined to have it understood in one way, some in another. Your discords and your disputes are interminable, unless you give in to the authority of the Church. Witness the Colloquies of Lunehourg, of Malbron, of Montbeliard, and that of Berne recently. Witness Titman, Heshusius and Erastus, to whom I add Brenz and Bullinger. Take the great division there is amongst you about the number of the Sacraments. Now, and ordinarily amongst you, only two are taught; Calvin made three, adding to Baptism and the Supper, Order; Luther here puts Penance for the third, then says there is but one : in the end, the Protestants, at the Colloquy of Ratisbonne, at which Calvin assisted, as Beza testifies in his life, confessed that there were seven Sacraments. How is it you are divided about the article of the almightiness of God? -one party denying that a body can by the divine power be in two places, others denying absolute almightiness; others make no such denials. But if I would show you the great contradictions amongst those whom Beza acknowledges to be glorious reformers of the Church, namely, Jerome of Prague, John Hus, Wycliff, Luther, Bucer, CEcolampadius, Zuingle, Pomeranius and the rest, I should never come to an end Luther can sufficiently inform you as to the good harmony there is amongst them, in the lamentation which he makes against the Zuinglians and Sacramentarians, whom he calls Absaloms and Judases, and fanatic spirits (in the year 1527).
His deceased Highness of most happy memory, Emmanuel [of Savoy], related to the learned Anthony Possevin, that at the Colloquy of Cormasse ,when the Protestants were asked for their profession of faith, they all one after the other departed from the assembly, as being unable to agree together. That great prince, most worthy of trust, relates this as having been present there. All this division has its foundation in the contempt which you have for a visible head on earth, because, not being bound as to the interpretation of God's Word by any superior authority, each one takes the side which seems good to him. This is what the wise man says, that among the proud there are always contentions (Proverbs xiii. 10), which is a true mark of heresy. Those who are divided into several parties cannot be called by the name of Church, because, as S. Chrysostom says, the name of Christ is a name of agreement and concord. But as for us, we all have the same canon of the Scriptures, one same head, one like rule for interpreting them; you have a diversity of canon, and in the understanding you have as many heads and rules as you are persons. We all sound the trumpet of one single Gideon, and have all one same spirit of faith in the Lord, and in his Vicar, the sword of the decisions of God and the Church, according to the words of the Apostles:It hath seemed good o the Holy Ghost and to us (Acts xv. 28). Thisunity of language amongst us is a true sign that we are the army of the Lord, and you can but be acknowledged as Madianites, whose opinions are only cries and shouts: each in your own fashion you slash at one another, cutting one another's throats, and cutting your own throats by your dissensions, as God says by Isaias (xix.) :The Egyptians shall fight against the Egyptians . . . and the spirit of Egypt shall be broken. And S. Augustine says that as Donatus had tried to divide Christ, so he himself was by a daily separation of his party divided within himself.
This mark [of unity] alone ought to make you quit your pretended church, for he who is not with God is against God. God is not in your church, for he only inhabits a place of peace, and in your church there is neither peace nor concord.
CHAPTER V. OF THE SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH: SECOND MARK.
THE Church of Our Lord is holy; this is an article of faith. Our Lord has given himself for it, that he may sanctify it. It is a holy nation ,says S. Peter (I. ii. 9) The bridegroom is holy, and the bride holy. She is holy as being dedicated to God, as the Elders under the ancient synagogue were called holy on this account alone; she is holy again because the Spirit who informs her is holy, and because she is the mystical body of a head who is called most holy; she is holy, moreover, because all her actions, interior and exterior, are holy; she neither believes nor hopes nor loves but holily; in her prayers, sermons, sacraments, sacrifices, she is holy. But this Church has her interior sanctity, according to the word of David (Ps. xliv. 14): All the glory of the King?s daughter is within; she has also her exterior sanctity in golden borders clothed about with varities (Ib.). The interior sanctity cannot be seen; the exterior cannot serve as a mark, because all the sects vaunt it, and because it is hard to recognise the true prayer, preaching and administration of the Sacraments; but beyond this there are signs by which God makes his Church known, which are as it were perfumes and odours; as the Spouse says in the Canticles (iv. 11): The smell of thy garments as the smell of frankincense. Thus can we by the scent of these odours and perfumes run after and find the true Church and the trace of the son of the unicorn[probably a reference to Psalm xxviii. 6]
CHAPTER VI. SECOND MARK (continued). THE TRUE CHURCH OUGHT TO BE RESPLENDENT IN MIRACLES.
THE Church then has milk and honey under her tongue and in her heart, which is interior sanctity, and which we cannot see: she is richly fght with a fair robe, beautifully bordered with varieties, which are her exterior sanctities, which can be seen. But because the sects and heresies disguise their clothing, and by false stuffs make them look like hers, she has, besides that, perfumes and odours which are her own, and these are certain signs and shinings of her sanctity, which are so peculiarly hers, that no other society can boast of having them, particularly in our age.
For, first, she shines in miracles, which are a most sweet odour and perfume, and are express signs of the presence of the immortal God with her, as S. Augustine styles them. And, indeed, when Our Lord quitted this world he promised that the Church should be filled with miracles: These signs, he said, shall follow them that believe: in my. name they shall east out devils, hgy shall speak with new tongues they shall take up serpents, poison shall not hurt them, and by the imposition of hands they shall heal the sick. (Mark ult.).
Consider, I pray you, these words closely. (1) He does not say that the Apostles only would work these miracles, but simply, those who believe: (2) he does not say that every believer in particular would work miracles, but that those who believe will be followed by these signs: (3) he does not say it was only for them-ten or twenty years-but simply that miracles will follow them that believe. Our Lord, then, speaks to the Apostles only, but not for the Apostles only; he speaks of the faithful; of the body and general congregation ?of the Church; he speaks absolutely, without limitation of time; let us take his holy words in the extent which Our Lord has given them. The believers are in the Church, the believers are followed by miracles, therefore in the Church there are miracles: there are believers in all times, the believers are followed by miracles, therefore in all times there are miracles.
But let us examine a little why the power of miracles was left in the Church. There is no doubt it was to confirm the Gospel preaching; for S. Mark so testifies, and S. Paul, who says that God gave testimony by miracles to the faith which they announced (I Cor. ii. 4). God placed these instruments in the hand of Moses, that he might be believed: wherefore Our Lord said that if he had not done miracles the Jews . would not have been obliged to believe him. Well now, must not the Church ever fight with infidelity? -and why then would you take away from her this good stick which God has put into her hand? I am well aware that she has not so much need of it as at the beginning; now that the holy plant of the faith has taken firm and good root, one need not water it so often; but, all the same, to wish to have the effect altogether taken away, the necessity and cause remaining intact, is poor philosophy.
Besides, I beg you to show me at what period the visible Church may have been without miracles, from the time that it began until this presen? In the time of the Apostles there were miracles beyond number; you know that well. After that time, who knows not the miracles, related by Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, worked by the prayers of the legion of Christian soldiers who were in his army, which on this account was called thundering? Who knows not the miracles of S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, S. Martin, S. Anthony, S. Nicholas, S. Hilarion, and the wonders concerning Theodosius and Constantine, for which we have authors of irreproachable authority - Eusebius, Rufinus, S. Jerome, Basil, Sulpicius, Athanasius? Who knows not again what happened at the Invention of the Holy Cross, and in the time of Julian the Apostate? In the time of SS. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, many miracles were seen, which they themselves relate why then would you have the same Church now cease from miracles? What reason would there be? In truth, what we have always seen, in all varieties of times, accompanying the Church, we cannot do otherwise than call a property of the Church.
The true Church then makes her sanctity appear by miracles. And if God made so admirable the Propitiatory, and his Sinai, and his Burning Bush, because he wished to speak with men, why shall he not have made miraculous this his Church in which he wills to dwell for ever?
CHAPTER VII. SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (continued). THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS ACCOMPANIED WITH MIRACLES, THE PRETENDED IS NOT.
HERE now I desire that you show yourselves reasonable, free from quibbling and from obstinacy. It is found on informations duly and authentically taken that about the commencement of this century S. Francis of Paula was renowned for undoubted miracles, such as are the raising of the dead to life. We find the same as to S. Diego of Alcala. These are not uncertain rumours, but proved, signed informations, taken in regular process of law.
Would you dare to deny the apparition of the cross granted to the valiant captain Albukerque, and to all those in his fleet, which so many historians describe, [See Raynald, ad an. 15 13] and so many persons had part in?
The devout Gaspar Berzee, in the Indies, healed the sick by simply praying to God for them in the Mass, and so suddenly that other than God's hand could not have done it.
The Blessed Francis Xavier has healed the paralysed, the deaf, the dumb, the blind, and raised a dead man to life; his body has had power to remain entire though buried with lime, as those have testified who saw it entire fifteen years after his death ; and these two died within the last forty-five years.
In Meliapor has been found a cross cut on a stone, which is considered to have been buried by the Christians in the time of S. Thomas. A wonderful but true thing !-almost every year, about the feast of this glorious Apostle, that cross sweats a quantity of blood, or liquid like blood, and changes colour, becoming white, pale, then black, and sometimes blue, brilliant and then of softer hue, and at last it returns to its natural colour: this many people have seen, and the Bishop of Cochin sent a public attestation of it to the holy Council of Trent. Miracles, therefore, are worked in the Indies, where the faith is not yet established, a whole world of which I leave on one side, in order to observe due brevity.
The good Father Louis of Granada, in his Introduction on the Creed, narrates many recent and unquestionable miracles. Amongst others he brings forward the cures which the Catholic kings of France have worked in our age, even in incurable cases of king's evil, by saying no more than these words: May God heal you; -and the king touches the person, no other disposition being required than Confession and Communion on that day.
I have read the history of the miraculous cure of James, son of Claude Andrew, of Belmont, in the bailiwick of Baulme in Burgundy. He had been helpless during eight years; after making his devotions in the Church of S. Claude, on the very day of the feast, 8th June 1588, he found himself immediately cured. Do you not call that a miracle? I am speaking of things in the neighbourhood; I have read the public act, I have spoken to the notary who took it and sent it, rightly and duly signed-Vion. Witnesses were not wanting, for there were people in crowds. But why do I stay to bring forward the miracles of our age? S. Malachy, S. Bernard, and S. Francis-were they not of our Church? You cannot deny it. Those who have written their lives are most holy and learned men, for S. Bernard himself has written that of S. Malachy, and S. Bonaventure that of S. Francis, men who lacked neither knowledge nor conscientiousness, and still many miracles are related therein. But, above all, the wonders which take place now, at our gates, in the sight of our princes and of our whole Savoy, near Mondovi, ought to close the door against all obstinacy. Now, what will you say to this? Will you say that Antichrist will do miracles? S. Paul testifies that they will be false( I Thess. ii 9.), and the greatest S. John mentions is that he will make fire descend from heaven; Satan can work miracles, indeed has done so, no doubt, but God will leave a prompt remedy with his Church; for, to those false miracles, the servants of God, Elias and Enoch, as the Apocalypse and interpreters witness, will oppose other miracles of very different make. For not only will they employ fire to punish their enemies miraculously, but will have power to shut the heavens so that there may be no rain, to change and convert the waters into blood, and to strike the earth with what chastisements they like for three days and a half: after their death they shall rise again and ascend to heaven ; the earth shall tremble at their ascension. Then, therefore, by the opposition of the true miracles, the illusions of Antichrist will be discovered; and as Moses at last made the magicians of Pharaoh confess: The finger of God is here, so Elias and Enoch will effect that their enemies shall give glory to the God of heaven: Elias will do at that time some of those holy prophet's deeds of his, which he did of old to put down the impiety of the Baalites and other professors of false religions.
I wish then to say: (1) that the miracles of Antichrist are not such as those we bring forward for the Church; and therefore it does not follow that if those are not marks of the Church these likewise are not so. The former will be proved false and be overcome by greater and more solid ones, the latter are solid, and no one can oppose to them more certain ones: (2) the wonders of Antichrist will be simply an illusion of three years and a half; but the miracles of the Church are so properly hers, that since her foundation she has always shone in miracles. The miracles of Antichrist will be unnatural, and will not endure; but in the Church they are grafted as it were naturally on her supernatural nature, and therefore they ever accompany her, to verify these words: These signs shall follow them that believe.
You will be ready to say that the Donatists worked miracles, according to S. Augustine: but they were only certain visions and revelations of which they themselves boasted, without any public testimony. Certainly the Church cannot be proved true by these private revelations ; on the contrary, these visions themselves cannot be proved or held as true save by the testimony of the Church, says the same S. Augustine. And if Vespasian healed a blind and a lame man, the doctors themselves, according to Tacitus, decided that it was a blindness and an infirmity which were not incurable: it is no marvel then if the devil was able to heal them. A Jew having been baptized went and presented himself to Paulus, a Novatian bishop, to be rebaptized, says Socrates (vii. 17); the water of the font immediately disappeared. This wonder was not to confirm the truth of Novatianism, but of holy Baptism, which it was not right to repeat. In the same manner were some wonders done amongst the Pagans, says S. Augustine, not in proof of Paganism, but of innocence, virginity, fidelity, which, wherever they are, are loved and valued by God who is the author thereof. Further, these wonders are done but rarely, and from them no conclusion can be drawn the clouds sometimes give forth light, but it is only the sun which has for its mark and property the giving of light. Let us then conclude this subject: the Church has always been accompanied by miracles, solid and certain as those of her Spouse; therefore she is the true Church: for, to use the argument of the good Nicodemus (John iii. 2) in like case, I will say: No society can do these miracles which this does, so glorious and so continual, unless God was with it. And what did our Lord say to the disciples of S. John (Matt. xi. 5): Say, the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, to show that he was the Messias. Hearing that in the Church are done such grand miracles, we must conclude that the Lord is indeed in this place (Gen. xxviii. 16). But as regards your pretended Church, I can say nothing more to it than: If it can believe, all things are possible to him that believes (Mark ix. 2 2): if it were the true Church it would be followed by miracles. You acknowledge to me that it is not your province to work miracles, nor to drive out devils; once it turned out ill with one of your great masters who wanted to try it,-so says Berzee. "Those raised up the living from the dead," says Tertullian (De Praesc. xxx.), "these make dead men out of the living." A rumour is current that one of yours has once cured a demoniac; it is however not stated when or how the person was cured, nor what witnesses there were. It is easy for apprentices to a trade to make a mistake in their first trial. Certain reports are often started amongst you to keep the simple people going, but having no author they must be without authority. Besides this, in driving out the devil we must not so much regard what is done as we must consider the manner and the form in which it is done; if it is by the rightful prayers, and invocations of the name of Jesus Christ. Again, one swallow does not make the summer; it is the perpetual and ordinary succession of miracles which is the mark of the true Church, not something accidental. But it would be fighting with a shadow and with air to refute this rumour, which is so timid and so feeble that nobody ventures to say from which side it came.
The total answer that I have got from you in this extreme necessity is that people do you a wrong when they ask miracles from you. And so they do, I agree with you; it would be turning you into ridicule, like asking a blacksmith to make an emerald or a diamond. Nor do I ask any from you: only I request you to confess frankly that you have not made your apprenticeship with the Apostles, Disciples, Martyrs and Confessors, who have been masters of the craft.
But when you say you have no need of miracles, because you do not want to establish a new faith, tell me then again whether S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Gregory, S. Ambrose and the rest preached a new doctrine. And why then were there done miracles so great and so numerous as theirs? Certainly the Gospel was better received in the world than it is at present; there were then pastors more excellent; many martyrs and miracles had gone before; but the Church was still not wanting in that gift of miracles, for the greater glory of most holy religion. Or if miracles were to cease in the Church, it would have been in the time of Constantine the Great, after the Empire had become Christian, the persecutions had ceased and Christianity been quite secured; but so far were they from ceasing then that they were multiplied on all sides.
Moreover, the doctrine which you preach has never been proclaimed, either in general or in detail; your heretical predecessors have preached it, with each of whom you agree on some points, and with all on none, as I will make clear afterwards. Where was your church eighty years ago? It has only just begun, and you call it old. Ah ! you say, we have made no new Church, we have rubbed up and cleaned the old money, which, having long lain in decayed buildings, had become discoloured, and encrusted with dirt and mould. Say that no more, I beg you, that you have the metal and the mould. Are not the faith, the Sacraments, necessary ingredients in the composition of the Church?-and you have changed everything both in the one and the other. You are then false coiners, if you do not show the power which you claim to put false stamps stamps on the King's coin. But let us not delay on this. Have you purified this Church, have you cleaned this money? Show us then the characters which it had when you say that it fell on the ground and began to get rusty. It fell, you say, in the time of S. Gregory, or a little after. You may say what you like, but at that time it had the character of miracles; -show it to us now? For if you do not show us most unmistakably the inscription of the King on your money, we will show it you on ours; ours will pass as royal and good, yours, as being light and clipped, will be sent back to the melting-pot. If you would represent to us the Church as it was in the time of S. Augustine, show it to us not only speaking well but doing well, in miracles and holy operations, as it was then. If you would say that then it was nearer than it is now, I answer that so notable an interruption as that which you pretend of nine hundred or a thousand years, makes this money so strange that unless we see on it, in large letters, the ordinary characters, the inscription and the image, we will never receive it. No, no: the ancient Church was powerful in all seasons, in adversity and prosperity, in work and in word, like her Spouse; yours has nought but talk, whether in prosperity or in adversity. At least let it now show some vestiges of the ancient mark: otherwise it will never be received as the true Church, nor as daughter of that ancient mother. If it would boast further, it must have silence imposed upon it with these holy words: If you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.(John viii. 39) The true Church of believers is to be ever accompanied by miracles; there is no Church of our age which can show them save ours; therefore ours alone is the true Church.
Note: For some of the divine miracles of the Catholic Church, please see the following links (pageso pen in a new browser window):
Eucharistic Miracles
The Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano
Incorrupt bodies of the Saints
Miracles in the life of Saint Pio (Padre Pio)
CHAPTER VIII.
SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (continued). THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY OUGHT TO BE IN THE TRUE CHURCH. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY; THE PRETENDED HAS IT NOT.
PROPHECY is a very great miracle, which consists in the certain knowledge which the human understanding has of things, without any experience or any natural reasoning, by supernatural inspiration; and therefore all that I have said of miracles in general ought to be predicated of this. The prophet Joel foretold (ii.) that in the last days, that is, in the time of the Gospel Church, as S. Peter interprets (Acts ii.), Our Lord would pour out his holy Spirit upon his servants, and that they shall prophesy; as Our Lord had said: These signs shall follow ,them that believe. Prophecy then is to be ever in the Church, where the servants of God are, and where he ever pours out his Holy Spirit.
The Angel says in the Apocalypse (xix. 10) that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy: now this testimony of the assurance of Our Lord is not only given for unbelievers, but principally for believers, St. Paul says (I Cor. xiv. 22); how then do you say that Our Lord having given it once to the Church has taken it away afterwards? The chief reason for which it was granted remaining still, the concession therefore also remains. Add, as I said of miracles, that at all times the Church has had prophets; we cannot therefore say that this is not one of her qualities and properties, and a good portion of her dowry.
Jesus Christ, ascending on high, led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men?And some indeed he gave to be apostles, and some prophets, and others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers (Eph. iv.): the apostolic, evangelic, pastoral and teaching spirit is always in the Church, and why shall the spirit of prophecy also not be left in her? It is a perfume of the garments of this Spouse.
There have been scarcely any saints in the Church who have not prophesied. I will only name these more recent ones: S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Dominic, S. Anthony of Padua, S. Bridget, S. Catherine of Siena, who were most sound Catholics. The saints of whom I spoke above are of the number, and in our age Gaspar Berzee and Francis Xavier. You would find no one of the older generation who did not repeat with full belief some prophecy of Jean Bourg ; many of them had seen and heard him: The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
And now bring forward some one of yours who has prophesied in your church. We know that the sybils were in some sort the prophetesses of the Gentiles, and almost all the Ancients speak of them. Balaam also prophesied, but it was for the true Church, and hence their prophecies did not give credit to the church in which they were made, but to the Church for whom they were made:-though I deny not that there was among the Gentiles a true Church, consisting of a few persons, maintaining by divine grace faith in a true God and the observance of the natural commandents. Witness Job, in the Old Testament, and the good Cornelius with seven other soldiers fearing God, in the New. Now where are your prophets? And if you have none be sure that you are not of that body for the edification of which the Son of God has left [them],.according to the word of S. Paul (Eph. iv.). The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. Calvin has tried, apparently, to prophesy in the preface to his Catechism of Geneva; but his prediction is so favourable to the Catholic Church that when we get its fulfilment we will be content to consider him as something of a prophet.
CHAPTER IX. SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (continued). THE TRUE CHURCH MUST PRACTISE THE PERFECTION OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.
HERE are the sublimer instructions of Our Lord and the Apostles. A rich young man was protesting that he had observed the commandments of God from his tender youth. Our Lord, who sees everything, looking upon him loved him, a sign that he was such as he had said be was, and still he gave him this counsel (Matt. xix. Mark x.): If thou wouldst be perfect, go sell all that thou hast, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come, follow me. S. Peter invites us by his example and that of his companions (Matt. xix.): Behold we have left all things and have followed thee. Our Lord returns this solemn promise: You who have followed me . . . shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that shall have left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall possess life everlasting. You see the words, now behold the example: The Son of man hath not where to lay his head (Luke ix. 58):he was entirely poor to make us rich; he lived on alms, says S. Luke-certain women ministered to him of their substance (viii. 3). In two Psalms (cviii. and xxxix.) which properly regard his person, as S. Peter [Acts ii.] and S. Paul [Heb. x.] interpret, he is called a beggar. When he sent his Apostles to preach he taught them that they should carry nothing on their journey save a staff only, that they should take neither scrip, nor bread, nor money in their purse, that they should be shod with sandals and not be furnished with two coats. I know that these instructions are not absolute commands, though the last was commanded for a time; nor do I mean to say that they were more than most wholesome counsels and advice.
Here are others similar on another subject (Matt. xix.): There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother?s womb; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that can receive it, let him receive it.
It is precisely that which had been foretold by Isaias (1vi): Let not the eunuch say: behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: They that shall keep my Sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant, I will give them in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never perish. Who sees not here that the Gospel exactly comes to fit in with prophecy? And in the Apocalypse xiv. those who sang a new canticle which no other than they could utter were those who are not defiled with women, for they are virgins: these follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. To this refer the exhortations of S. Paul (I Cor. vii.): It is good for a man not to touch a woman: now, I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I. . . . Concerning virgins I have no commandment, but I give counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord to be faithful. And here is the reason: He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to theLord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment . . . He that giveth his virgin in marriage Both well, and he that giveth her not doth better. Then speaking of the widow: Let her marry to whom she will, only in the Lord. But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel ; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. Behold the instructions of Our Lord and his Apostles, having the authority of the example of Our Lord, of Our Lady, of S. John Baptist, of S. Paul, S. John, S. James, who have all lived in virginity; and in the Old Testament, Elias and Eliseus, as the Ancients have pointed out.
Lastly, the most humble obedience of Our Lord, which is so particularly signified in the Evangelists, not only to his Father, to which he was obliged, but to S. Joseph, to his Mother, to Caesar (to whom he paid tribute), and to all creatures in his Passion:- for the love of us,He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. ii. 8): -the humility which he shows in having come to teach us, when he said (Matt. xx., Luke xxii.): The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto but to minister. . . . I am amongst you as he that serveth-are not these perpetual repetitions and expositions of that most sweet lesson (Matt. xi.): Learn from me because I am meek and humble of heart and that other (Luke ix.): If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me? He who keeps the commandments denies himself sufficiently for salvation; to humble oneself in order to be exalted is quite enough but still there remains another obedience, humility and self-abnegnation, to which the examples and instructions of Our Lord invite us. He would have us learn humility from him, and he humbles himself, not only to those whose inferior he was, in so far as he was wearing the form of a servant, but also to his actual inferiors. He desires then, that as he abased himself, never indeed against his duty but beyond duty, we also should voluntarily obey all creatures for love of him: he would have us renounce ourselves, after, his example, but he has renounced his own will so decisively that he has submitted to the cross itself, and has served his disciples and servants-witness he who finding it extraordinary said (John xiii.): Thou shalt not wash my feet for ever. What remains then save that we should recognise in his words a sweet invitation to a voluntary submission and obedience towards those to whom otherwise we have no obligation, not resting, however lightly, on our own will and judgment, according to the advice of the Wise Man (Prov. iii.), but making ourselves subjects and enslaved to God, and to men for the love of the same God. So the Rechabites are magnificently praised in Jeremias xxxv., because they obeyed their father Jonadab in things very hard and extraordinary, in which he had no authority to oblige them, such as were not to drink wine, neither they nor any of theirs, not to sow, not to plant, not to have vineyards, not to build. Fathers certainly may not so tightly fasten the hands of their posterity, unless they voluntarily consent thereto. The Rechabites however, are praised and blessed by God in approval of this voluntary obedience, by which they had renounced themselves with an extraordinary and more perfect renunciation.
Well now, let us return to our road. Such signal examples and instructions as these, in poverty, chastity, and abnegation of self, -to whom have they been left? To the Church. But why? Our Lord tells us: He who can receive, let him receive. And who can receive them? He who has the gift of God; and no one has the gift of God but he who asks for it ;-but, how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed. . . . How shall they believe . . . without a preacher ! And how can they preach unless they be sent (Rom. x.)? Now, there is no mission outside the Church, therefore the he who can receive let him receive, is addressed immediately only to the Church, or for those who are in the Church, since outside the Church it cannot be put in practice. S. Paul shows it more clearly : I speak this, he says, for your profit, not to make snares and nets for you, but to persuade you to that which is decent, and which may give you power and facility to attend upon the Lord, and to honour him without impediment.. And, in fact, the Scriptures and the examples that are therein are only for our utility and instruction; the Church then ought to use, and put into practice, these most holy counsels of her Spouse otherwise they would have been vainly and uselessly left, and proposed to her: indeed she has well known how to take them for herself, and to profit by them: -and see how.
Our Lord had no sooner ascended into heaven than every one amongst the first Christians sold his goods and brought the price to the feet of the Apostles. And S. Peter, putting in practice the first rule, said: Gold and silver have I none (Acts iii.). S. Philip had four daughters, virgins, whom Eusebius testifies to have always remained such. S. Paul kept virginity or celibacy ; so did S. John and S. James; and when S.Paul (I Tim. v.) reproves, as having damnation, certain young widows who, after they have grown wanton in Christ will marry, having damnation because they have left their first faith, -the fourth Council of Carthage (at which S. Augustine assisted) S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, with all the rest of antiquity, understand it of widows who, being vowed to God and to the observance of chastity, broke their vows, entering into the ties of marriage against the faith which previously they had given to the heavenly Spouse. From that time, then, the counsel of [being] eunuchs, and the other which S. Paul gives, were practised in the Church.
Eusebius of Coesarea records that the Apostles instituted two lives; the one according to commandment, the other according to counsel. And that so it was, evidently appears; for, on the model of the perfection of life followed and counselled by the Apostles, a countless number of Christians have so closely formed theirs, that history is full of it. Who does not know how admirable are the accounts given by Philo the Jew of the life of the first Christians at Alexandria, in the book entitled Of the Life of the Beseechers (De vita Contemplativa sive supplicium virtutibus) wherein he treats of S. Mark and his disciples, as Eusebius, Nicephorus, S. Jerome, bear witness; and amongst the rest, Epiphanius (Haer. xxix. cc. 4, 5.), who assures us that Philo, when writing of the Jessenes, was speaking of the Christians under this name, who for some time after the Ascension of Our Lord, whilst S. Mark was preaching in Egypt, were so called, either on account of the name of Jesse, from whose race Our Lord sprang, or on account of the name of Jesus, their Master's name, which they ever had in their mouth. Now he who will look at the books of Philo, will see in these Jessenes or Therapeuts (healers or servers) a most perfect renunciation of oneself, of one's flesh, of one's goods.
S. Martial, a disciple of Our Lord, in an Epistle which he wrote to the Tolosians, relates that at his preaching the blessed Valeria, wife of an earthly king, had vowed the virginity of her body and of her spirit to the celestial King. S. Denis, in his Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, says that the Apostles, his masters, called the religious of his time Therapeuts, that is, servers or adorers, on account of the special service and worship they paid to God, or monks,' on account of the union with God, in which they made progress. Behold the perfection of the Evangelic life excellently practised in this first time of the Apostles and their disciples, who, having traced this path thus straight to heaven, and ascended by it, have been followed, one after another, by many excellent Christians. S. Cyprian observed continency, and gave all his goods to the poor, as Pontius the Deacon records. The same did S. Paul, the first Hermit, S. Anthony and S. Hilarion, witness S. Athanasius and S. Jerome. S. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola-S. Ambrose is our authority-of an illustrious family in Guienne, gave all his goods to the poor, and, as if discharged from a weighty burden, said farewell to his father and his family, to serve his God more devotedly. By his example it was that S. Martin quitted all, and excited others to the same perfection. George, Patriarch of Alexandria, relates that S. Chrysostom gave up all and became a monk. Politian, an African gentleman, returning to the Emperor's court, related to S. Augustin, that in Egypt there were a great number of monasteries and religious, who manifested a great sweetness and simplicity in their manners, and that there was a monastery at Milan, outside the town, furnished with a good number of religious, living in great union and brotherhood, to whom S. Ambrose, bishop of the place, was as Abbot. He told them also that near the town of Treves, there was a monastery of good religious, in which two courtiers of the Emperor had become monks; and that two young ladies who were betrothed to these two courtiers, having heard the resolution of their spouses, similarly vowed their virginity to God, and retired from the world to live in religion, poverty, and chastity. S. Augustin himself tells all this. Possidius relates the same, and says that he had instituted a monastery ; which S. Augustine himself relates in one of his Epistles. These great Fathers have been followed by S. Gregory, Damascene, Bruno, Romuald, Bernard, Dominic, Francis, Louis, Anthony, Vincent, Thomas, Bonaventure, who having all renounced and said an eternal adieu to the world and its pomps, have presented themselves as a perfect holocaust to the living God.
Now let us conclude. These consequences seem to me inevitable. Our Lord has had these instructions and counsels of chastity, poverty, and obedience laid down in his Scriptures: he has practised them, and has had them practised in his early Church: all the Scripture and all the life of Our Lord were but an instruction for the Church which was to make profit by them, and it was then to be one of the institutions of the Church, this chastity, poverty, obedience or self-renunciation. Moreover, the Church has always put in practice these things at all times and in every season; this then is one of her properties: and what would be the use of so many exhortations if they were not to be put in practice? The true Church therefore ought to shine in the perfection of the Christian life; not so that everybody in the Church is bound to follow it; it is enough that it be found in some notable members and parts, in order that nothing may be written or counselled in vain, and that the Church may make use of all the parts of Holy Scripture.
CHAPTER X. SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (continued).
THE PERFECTION OF THE EVANGELIC LIFE IS PRACTISED IN OUR CHURCH; IN THE PRETENDED, IT IS DESPISED AND GIVEN UP.
THE Church which is now, following the voice of her Pastor and Saviour, and the track beaten by her ancestors, praises, approves, and greatly esteems the resolution of those who give themselves up to the practice of the Evangelical counsels, of whom she has a very great number. I have no doubt that if you had frequented the assemblies of the Chartreux, Camaldolese, Celestines, Minims, Capuchins, Jesuits, Theatines and numberless others, amongst whom religious discipline flourishes, you would be uncertain whether you should call them earthly angels or heavenly men, and that you would not know which to admire the more, whether in such blooming youth so perfect a chastity, or in such great knowledge so profound a humility, or in so much diversity so close a fraternity: and all, like heavenly bees, work in and compose, with the rest of Christianity, the honey of the Gospel, these by preachings, these by writings, these by meditations and prayers, these by teaching and disputations, these by the care of the sick, these by the administration of the Sacraments, under the authority of the pastors.
Who should ever detract from the glory of so many religious of all orders, and of so many secular priests, who, leaving their country, or, to say it better, their own world, have exposed themselves to the mercy of wind and tide, to get to the nations of the New World, in order to lead them to the true faith, and to enlighten them with the light of the Gospel; who, without other equipment than a lively confidence in the Providence of God, without other expectation than of labours, miseries and martyrdom, without other aim than the honour of God and the salvation of souls, here hastened amongst the Cannibals, Canarians, Negroes, Brazilians, Malays, Japanese, and other foreign nations, and made themselves prisoners there, banishing themselves from their own earthly country in order that these poor people might not be banished from the heavenly Paradise? I know that some Ministers have been thither, but they went having their means of support from men, and when these failed they returned and did no more, because an ape is always an ape, but ours remained there, in perpetual continency to fertilise the Church with these new plants, in extreme poverty to enrich these people with the Gospel, and died in bondage to place that world in Christian liberty.
But if, instead of making your profit of these examples, and refreshing your minds with the sweetness of so holy a perfume, you turn your eyes towards certain places where monastic discipline is altogether ruined, and where there remains nothing sound but the habit; -you will force me to say that you are looking for the sewers and dung heaps, not the gardens and orchards. All good Catholics regret the ill-behaviour of these people, and blame the negligence of the pastors and the uncontrollable ambition of certain persons who, being determined to have power and authority, hinder legitimate elections, and the order of discipline, in order to make the temporal goods of the Church their own. What can we do? The master has sown good seed, but the enemy has oversown cockle. The Church, at the Council of Trent, had looked to the good ordering of these things, but its ordinances are despised by those who ought to put them into execution; and so far are Catholic doctors from consenting to this evil that they consider it a great sin to enter into such disorderly monasteries as these. Judas prevented not the honour of the Apostolic order, nor Lucifer of the angelic, nor Nicholas of the diaconate; and in the same way these abominable men fought not to tarnish the righteousness of so many devout monasteries, which the Catholic Church has preserved amidst all the dissolution of this age of iron, in order that not one word of her Spouse should be in vain or fail to be put in practice.
On the contrary, gentlemen, your pretended church despises and contradicts all this as much as she can. Calvin in the 4th Book of his Institutions aims only at the abolition of the observance of the Evangelical counsel you cannot show me any effort or good will amongst your party, in which every one down to the ministers marries, every one labours to gather together riches, nobody acknowledges any other superior than force makes him submit to - an evident sign that this pretended church is not the one for which Our Lord has preached and draw the picture of so many excellent examples. For if everybody marries, what will become of the advice of S. Paul (I Cor. vii.) : It is good for a man not to touch a woman? If everybody runs after money and possessions, to whom will that word of Our Lord (Matt. vi.) be addressed: Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, or that other (Ib. xix.): Go sell all, give to the poor? If every one will govern in his turn, where shall be found the practice of that most solemn sentence (Luke ix): He who will come after me let him deny himself?
If then your Church puts itself in comparison with ours, ours will be the true Spouse, who puts in practice all the words of her Beloved, and leaves not one talent of the Scripture idle; yours will be false, who hears not the voice of the Beloved, yea, despises it. For it is not reasonable that to keep yours in credit we should make vain the least syllable of the Scriptures, which being addressed only to the true Church, would be vain and useless if in the true Church all these parts are not made use of.
CHAPTER XI. OF THE UNIVERSALITY OR CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH: THIRD MARK.
THAT great Father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most useful Memorial, says that he must before all things have a great care to believe "that which has been believed by all [always and everywhere] " . . such as the jugglers and tinkers; for the rest of the world call us Catholic; and if we add Roman, it is only to inform people of the See of that Bishop who is general and visible Pastor of the Church. And already in the time of S. Ambrose to be Roman in communion was the same thing as to be Catholic.
But as for your church, it is called everywhere Huguenot, Calvinist, Heretical, Pretended, Protestant, New, or Sacramentarian. Your church was not before these names, and these names were not before your church, because they are proper to it. Nobody calls you Catholics, you scarcely dare to do so yourselves. I am well aware that amongst you your churches call themselves Reformed, but just as much right to that name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and other offshoots of Luther, and they will never yield it to you. The name of religion is common to the Church of the Jews and of the Christians, in the Old Law and in the New; the name of Catholic is proper to the Church of Our Lord; the name of Reformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord, who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church in his blood, that it must never take other form than of his all lovely Spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. One may reform the nations in particular, but not the Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change of formation is called heresy or irreligion. The tint of Our Saviour's blood is too fair and too bright to require new colours.
Your church, then, calling itself Reformed, gives up its part in the form which the Saviour had established. But I cannot refrain from telling you what Beza, Luther, and Peter Martyr think on this. Peter Martyr calls you Lutherans, and says you are brothers to them; you are then Lutherans; Luther calls you Zwinglians and Sacramentarians; Beza calls the Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he puts them in the number of Reformed churches. See then the new names which the reformers acknowledge for one another. Your church, therefore, not having even the name of Catholic, you cannot with a good conscience say the Apostles' Creed; if you do, you judge yourselves, who, confessing the Church Catholic and universal, obstinately keep to your own, which most certainly is not such. If S. Augustine were living now, he would remain in our Church, which from immemorial time is in possession of the name of Catholic.
CHAPTER XI. OF THE UNIVERSALITY OR CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH: THIRD MARK.
THAT great Father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most useful Memorial, says that he must before all things have a great care to believe "that which has been believed by all [always and everywhere] " . . such as the jugglers and tinkers; for the rest of the world call us Catholic; and if we add Roman, it is only to inform people of the See of that Bishop who is general and visible Pastor of the Church. And already in the time of S. Ambrose to be Roman in communion was the same thing as to be Catholic.
But as for your church, it is called everywhere Huguenot, Calvinist, Heretical, Pretended, Protestant, New, or Sacramentarian. Your church was not before these names, and these names were not before your church, because they are proper to it. Nobody calls you Catholics, you scarcely dare to do so yourselves. I am well aware that amongst you your churches call themselves Reformed, but just as much right to that name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and other offshoots of Luther, and they will never yield it to you. The name of religion is common to the Church of the Jews and of the Christians, in the Old Law and in the New; the name of Catholic is proper to the Church of Our Lord; the name of Reformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord, who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church in his blood, that it must never take other form than of his all lovely Spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. One may reform the nations in particular, but not the Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change of formation is called heresy or irreligion. The tint of Our Saviour's blood is too fair and too bright to require new colours.
Your church, then, calling itself Reformed, gives up its part in the form which the Saviour had established. But I cannot refrain from telling you what Beza, Luther, and Peter Martyr think on this. Peter Martyr calls you Lutherans, and says you are brothers to them; you are then Lutherans; Luther calls you Zwinglians and Sacramentarians; Beza calls the Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he puts them in the number of Reformed churches. See then the new names which the reformers acknowledge for one another. Your church, therefore, not having even the name of Catholic, you cannot with a good conscience say the Apostles' Creed; if you do, you judge yourselves, who, confessing the Church Catholic and universal, obstinately keep to your own, which most certainly is not such. If S. Augustine were living now, he would remain in our Church, which from immemorial time is in possession of the name of Catholic.
CHAPTER XII. CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH (continued).
THE TRUE CHURCH MUST BE ANCIENT. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS MOST ANCIENT, THE PRETENDED QUITE NEW.
THE Church to be Catholic must be universal in time, and to be universal in time it must be ancient; antiquity then is a property of the Church. And in relation to heresies it. must be more ancient than any of them, and must precede all, because as Tertullian excellently says (De Praesc. xxix.): Error is a corruption of truth, truth then must precede. The good seed is sown first, the enemy who oversows cockle comes afterwards. Moses was before Abiron, Dathan, and Core; the Angels were before the devils; Lucifer stood in the light before he fell into the eternal darkness; the privation must follow the form. S. John says of heretics (I Ep. xix. 19): They went out from us; they were then within before they went out; the going out is heresy, the being within is fidelity; the Church then precedes heresy. So the coat of Our Lord was whole before it was divided. And altbough Ismael was before Isaac, that does not signify that error was before truth, but that the true shadow Judaism, was before the body, Christianity, as S. Paul says (Gal. iv.).
Tell us now, I pray you, quote the time and the place when and where our Church first appeared after the Gospel? -the author and doctor who called it together. I will use the very words of a doctor and martyr of our age (Campion, Decem Rationes, 7), and they are worthy of close attention.
"You own to us, and would not dare to do otherwise, that for a time the Roman Church was holy, Catholic, Apostolic. Certainly then, when it deserved those holy praises of the Apostle (Rom. i. xv. xvi.): Your faith is spoken of in thw whole world I make it a commemoration of you always I know that when I come to you I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of the gospel of Christ All the Churches of Christ salute you. For your obedience is published in every place; then, when S. Paul, in prison free, sowed the Gospel; when S. Peter was governing the Church assembled in Babylon; when Clement, so highly praised by the Apostle, was stationed at the rudder; when the profane Caesars, like Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Antoninus, were massacring the Bishops of Rome; yea and then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, and Innocent were holding the Apostolic helm: this on the testimony of Calvin himself, for he freely confesses that at that time they had not yet strayed from the Evangelic doctrine. Well then, when was it that Rome lost this widely renowned faith? When did it cease to be what it had been? at what time? under what bishop? by what means? by what force? by what steps did the strange religion take possession of the City and of the whole world?-what protest, what troubles, what lamentations did it evoke? How! was everybody asleep throughout the whole world, while Rome, Rome I say, was forging new Sacraments, new Sacrifices, and new doctrines? Is there not to be found one single historian, either Greek or Latin, friend or stranger, to publish or leave behind some traces of his commentaries and memoirs on so great a matter?
And, in good truth, it would be a strange hap if historians, who have been so curious to note the most trifling changes in cities and peoples had forgotten the most noteworthy of all those which can occur, that is, the change of religion in the most important city and province of the world, which are Rome and Italy.
I ask you, gentlemen, whether you know when our Church began the pretended error. Tell us frankly; for it is certain that, as S. Jerome says (Adv. Lucif. 28) "to have reduced heresy to its origin is to have refuted it." Let us trace back the course of history up to the foot of the cross; let us look on this side and on that, we shall never see that this Catholic Church has at any time changed its aspect -it is ever itself, in doctrine and in Sacraments.
We have no need against you, on this important point, of other witnesses than the eyes of our fathers and grandfathers to say when your pretended Church began. In the year 1517 Luther commenced his Tragedy: in '34. and '35 they composed an act in these parts; Zwingle and Calvin were the chief players in it. Would you have me detail by list with what fortune and deeds, by what force and violence, this reformation gained possession of Berne, Geneva, Lausanne, and other towns -what troubles and woes it brought forth? You will not find pleasure in this account; we see it, we feel it. In a word, your Church is not yet eighty years old; its author is Calvin ; its result the misery of our age. Or if you would make it older, tell us where it was before that time. Beware of saving that it existed but was invisible: for if it were not seen who can say that it existed? Besides, Luther contradicts you, who confesses sses that in the beginning he was quite alone.
Now, if Tertullian already in his time bears witness that Catholics refuted the errors of heretics by their posteriority and novelty, when the Church was only in her youth-" We are wont," says he, [De Praesc. xxx. seqq.] "to prescribe against heretics, for brevity's sake, on the argument of posteriority " -how much more right have we now? And if one of the Churches must be the true, this title falls to ours which is most ancient; and to your novelty the infamous name of heresy.
CHAPTER XIII. CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH (continued.)
THE TRUE CHURCH MUST BE PERPETUAL. OURS IS PERPETUAL, THE PRETENDED IS NOT.
ALTHOUGH the Church might be ancient, yet it would not be universal in time if it had failed at any period. The heresy of the Nicolaites is ancient but not universal, for it only lasted a very little while. And as a whirlwind which seems ready to displace the sea then suddenly is lost in itself, or as a mushroom, which is born of some noxious vapour in a night, appears and in a day is gone,-so every heresy, ancient as it may be, has at last disappeared but the Church endures perpeually.
I will say to you, as I have said above: show mea decade of years since Our Lord ascended into heaven in which decadeour Church has not existed.The reason why you find yourselves unable to say when our Church began is that it has always existed. And if you would care to make yourselves honestly clear about this, Sanders in his Visible Monarchy, and Gilbert Genebrard in his Chronology would furnish you light enough, and particularly the learned Coesar Baronius in his Annals. But if you are not willing all at once to abandon the books of your masters, and have not your eyes blinded with too excessive a passion, you will, if you look closely into the Centuries of Magdebourg, see everywhere nothing but the actions of Catholics; for, says very well a learned man of our age, if they had not collected these there they would have left one thousand five hundred years without history. I will say something on this point afterwards.
Now, as to your Church, let us suppose its lie to be truth, that it was in the time of the Apostles; it will not on that account be the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church must be universal in time: she must then always continue. But tell me, where was your Church a hundred, two hundred, three hundred years ago? Point it out you cannot, for it did not exist: therefore it is not the true Church. It existed, some one will perhaps say to me, but unknown.. Goodness of God! who cannot say the same?-Adamite, Anabaptist, everybody will take up this argument. I have already shown that the Church militant is not invisible; I have shown that she is universal in time; I will show you that, she cannot be unknown.
CHAPTER XIV. CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH (continued).
THE TRUE CHURCH OUGHT TO BE UNIVERSAL IN PLACES AND PERSONS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THUS UNIVERSAL, THE PRETENDED IS NOT.
THE universality of the Church does not require that all provinces or missions receive the Gospel at once, it is enough that they do so one after another; in such sort, however, that the Church is always seen, and is always known as that which has existed throughout the whole world or the greater part thereof; so that one may be able to say: Come let us go up into the mountain of the Lord (Is. ii. 3) For the Church shall be as the sun, says the Psalm, and the sun is not always shining equally in all countries: enough if by the end of the year there is no one who can hide from its heat (Ps. xviii.) So will it suffice that by the end of the world Our Lord's prediction be fulfilled, that it behoves that. penance, and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all. nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke ult.).
Now the Church in the time of the Apostles everywhere spread forth its branches, covered with the fruits of the Gospel, as S. Paul testifies (Rom. i.). S. Irenaeus says the same of his time, (iii. 3)' speaking of the Roman or papal Church, to which he will have all the rest of the Church subject on account of its superior authority.
Prosper speaks of our Church, not of yours, when he says (De Ingratis. 40): "In the pastoral honour, Rome, see of S. Peter, is head of the universe, which she has not reduced to her dominion by war and arms, but has acquired by religion." You see clearly that he speaks of the Church, that he acknowledged the Pope of Rome as its head. In the tiem of S. Gregory there were Catholics everywhere, as may be seen by the Epistles which he wrote to bishops of almost all nations. In the time of Gratian, Valentinian and Justinian, there were everywhere Roman Catholics, as may be seen by their laws. S. Bernard says the same of his time; and you know well that it was so in the time of Godfrey de Bouillon. Since then, the same Church has come to our age, ever Roman and papal. So that even if our Church now were much less than it is, it would not cease to be most Catholic, because it is the same Roman Church which has been, and which has possessed all the provinces of the nations, and peoples without number: -but, it is still now extended over the whole world; in Transylvania, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and throughout all Germany; in France, in Italy, in Sclavonia, in Candia, in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Malta, Corsica, in Greece, in Armenia, in Syria, and everywhere.
Shall I add to the list the Eastern and Western Indies? He who would have a compendium of these must attend a general Chapter or assembly of the Religious of S. Francis, called Observantines. He would see Religious arrive from every quarter of the world, Old and New, under the obedience of a simple, lowly, insignificant man: so that these alone would seem enough for the Church to fulfil that part of the prophecy of Malachy (i.) In every place there is sacrifice ?to my name.
On the contrary, gentlemen, the pretenders pass not the Alps on our side, nor the Pyrenees on the side of Spain; Greece knows you not; the other three parts of the world do not know who you are, and have never heard of Christians without sacrifice, without altar, without head, without cross, as you are; in Germany your comrades the Lutherans, Brentians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, eat into your portion; in England the Puritans, in France the Libertines;-how then can you be so obstinate, and continue thus apart from the rest of the world, as did the Luciferians and Donatists? I will say to you, as S. Augustine said to one of your fellows (Contra Don.): "Be good enough, I beseech you, to enlighten us on this point;-how it can be that Our Lord has lost his Church throughout the world, and has began to have none save in you alone." Surely you reduce Our Lord to too great a poverty, says S. Jerome (Contra Lucif. ). But if you say your church was already Catholic, in the time of the Apostle, show us that it existed at that time, for all the sects will say the same. How will you graft this little scion of pretended religion on that holy and ancient stock? Make your church touch by a perpetual continuation the primitive Church, for if they touch not, how can the one draw sap from the other. But this you will never do, unless you submit to the obedience of the Catholic [Church], you will never be, I say, with those who shall sing (Apoc. v. 9): Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood, from every tribe and tongue, and people and nation, and hast made us a kingdom to our God.
CHAPTER XV. CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH (continued).
THE TRUE CHURCH MUST BE FRUITFUL. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH Is FRUITFUL, THE PRETENDED BARREN.
PERHAPS you will say, at last, that after a time your church will spread its wings, and will become Catholic by process of time; but this is talking in the air. For if an Augustine, a Chrysostom, an Ambrose, a Cyprian, a Gregory, and that great multitude of excellent pastors, have not been able to manage well enough to prevent the Church from tumbling over soon after their time, how [shall] Calvin, Luther, and the rest [do so]? What likelihood is there that it should grow stronger now, under the charge of your ministers, who neither in sanctity nor in doctrine are comparable with those? If the Church in its spring, summer, and autumn has not been fruitful, how would you have one gather fruits from it in winter? If in its youth it has made no progress, how far would you have it run in its old age?
But I say further; your church is not only not Catholic, but never has been, not having the power nor the faculty of producing children, but only of stealing the offspring of others, as the partridge does. And yet it is certainly one of the properties of the Church to be fertile; it is for that, amongst other reasons, that she is called Dove. And if her Spouse, when he would belss a man, makes his wife fruitful, like a fruitful vine on the sides of his house (Psalm cxxvii.), and makes the barren woman to dwell in a house, the joyful mother of many children (Psalm cxii.), ought he not himself to have a bride who should eb fruitful, yea, according to the holy Word (Is. liv.), this desolate one should have many children, this new Jerusalem should be most populous, and have a great generation The Gentiles shall walk in thy light, says the Prophet (Ib. lx.). and kings in the glory of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round about and see; all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side: and (liii) because his soul hath laboured . . . therefore will I distribute to him very many. Now this fertility and these great nations of the Church come principally by preaching, as S. Paul says (I Cor. iv. 15): In the Gospel I have begotten you. The preaching, then, of the Church ought to be as a flame: Thy word is fiery, O Lord (Ps. cxviii. 140) And what is more active, lively, penetrating, and more quick to alter and give its form to other matters than fire?
Such was the preaching of S. Augustine in England, of S. Boniface in Germany, of S. Patrick in Ireland, of Willibrord in Frisia, of Cyril in Bohemia, of Adalbert in Poland, of Stephen in Hungary, of S. Vincent Ferrer and John Capistran; such the preaching of . . . . Francis Xavier, and a thousand others, who have overturned idolatry by holy preaching; and all were Roman Catholics.
On the contrary, our ministers have not yet converted any province from paganism, nor any country. To divide Christendom, to create factions there, to tear in pieces the robe of Our Lord, is the effect of their preachings. Christian doctrine is as a gentle rain, which makes unfruitful soil to bring forth: theirs rather resembles hail, which beats down and destroys the harvests, and makes barren the most fertile lands. Take notice of what S. Jude says: Woe to them who have perished in, the gainsaying of Core (Core was a schismatic); these are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water which are carried about by the wind : - they have the exterior of the Scriptures, but they have not the interior moisture of the Spirit:-unfruitful trees of the autumn, -which have not the leaves of the letter nor the fruit of the inner. meaning ; twice dead, -dead to charity by schism, and to faith by heresy;-plucked up by the roots, unable any more to bear fruit; aging waves of the sea, foaming out their own confusion -f disputes, contests and violent changes; wandering stars which can serve as guides to no one, and have no firmness of faith but change about in every direction. What wonder then that your preaching is sterile? You have but the bark without the sap, and how would you have it germinate? You have only the sheath without the sword, the letter without the meaning; no wonder you cannot uproot idolatry. So S. Paul (Tim. 3:9) speaking of those who separate from the Church, protests that they shall advance o further. If then your Church can in no way style itself Catholic up to this present, still less can you hope it may do so afterwards, since its preaching is so feeble, and its preachers have never undertaken, as Tertullian says (de Praesc. xlii.), the business or commission "of converting heathens, but only of perverting our own. Oh what a Church, then, which is neither one, not holy nor Catholic, and, which is worse, can have no reasonable hope whatever that it will ever become so.
The Doctrine of Purgatory
by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church
Extracted from the "Catholic Controversy" (originally published by Burns and Oates, London 1886)
Translated by Rev. Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.
FROM THE AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPTS AT ROME AND AT ANNECY
INTRODUCTION
The Catholic Church has been accused in our age of superstition in the prayer which she makes for the faithful departed, inasmuch as by this she supposes two truths which, it is maintained, do not exist, namely: that the departed are in punishment and need, and that they can be helped. Whereas, the departed are either damned or saved; the damned are in pain, but it is irremediable; and the saved enjoy perfect bliss: so the latter have no need and the former have no means of receiving help; wherefore it is useless to pray to God for the departed. Such is the summing up of the accusation. It ought surely to suffice anybody who wishes to frame a right judgment of this accusation to know that the accusers were private persons and the accused the universal body of the Church. But still, as the temper of our age has led to the submitting all things, however sacred, religious, and authoritative they may be, to the control and censure of everybody, many persons of honour and eminence have taken the cause of the Church in hand to defend it, considering that they could not better employ their piety and learning than in the defence of her, at whose hands they had received all their spiritual good, -Baptism, Christian doctrine, and the Scriptures themselves. Their reasons are so convincing that if they were properly balanced and weighed against those of the accusers their validity would at once be recognised. But unhappily, sentence has been given without the party being heard. Have we not reason, all we who are domestics and children of the Church, to make ourselves appellants, and to complain of the partiality of the judges, leaving on one side for the present their incompetence? We appeal then from the judges not instructed to themselves instructed, and from judgments given, the parties not heard, to judgments, parties heard. Let us beg all those who wish to judge of this difference to consider our allegations and proofs so much the more attentively as there is question not of the condemnation of the accused party who cannot be condemned by her inferiors, but of the condemnation or salvation of the judges.
CHAPTER I.
OF THE NAME OF PURGATORY.
WE maintain, then, that we may pray for the faithful departed, and that the prayers and good works of the living greatly relieve them and are profitable to them -for this reason, that all those who die in the grace of God, and consequently in the number of the elect, do not go to Paradise at the very first moment, but many go to Purgatory, where they suffer a temporal punishment, from which our prayers and good works can help and serve to deliver them. There lies the point of our difference.
We agree that the blood of Our Redeemer is the true purgatory of souls; for in it are cleansed all the souls in the world; whence S. Paul speaks of it, in the 1st of Hebrews, as making purgation of sins. Tribuations also are a purgatory, by which our souls are rendered pure, as gold is refined in the furnace. The furnace trieth the potter's vessels, and the trial of affliction just men.(Ecclus. xxvii) Penance and contrition again form a certain purgatory, as David said of old in the 50th Psalm: Thou shalt wash me, 0 Lord, with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. It is well known also that Baptism in which our sins are washed away can be again called a purgatory, as everything can be that serves to purge away our offences: but here we take Purgatory for a place in which after this life the souls which leave this world before they have been perfectly cleansed from the stains which they have contracted since nothing can enter Paradise which is not pure and undefiled-are detained in order to be washed and purified. And if one would know why this place is called simply Purgatory more than are the other means of purgation above-named, the answer will be, that it is because in that place nothing takes place but the purgation of the stains which remain at the time of departure out of this world, whereas in Baptism, Penance, tribulations, and the rest, not only is the soul purged from its imperfections, but it is further enriched with many graces and perfections ; whence the name of Purgatory has been limited to that place in the other world which, properly speaking, is for no purpose but the purification of souls. And agreeing as to the blood of Our Lord, we so fully acknowledge the virtue thereof, that we protest by all our prayers that the purgation of souls, whether in this world or in the other, is made solely by its application:-more jealous of the honour due to this precious medicine than those who so highly value it that they undervalue the using of it. Therefore by Purgatory we understand a place where souls for a time are purged of the spots and imperfections they carry with them from this mortal life.
CHAPTER II.
OF THOSE WHO HAVE DENIED PURGATORY: AND OF THE MEANS OF PROVING IT.
IT is not an opinion adopted lightly-this article of Purgatory. The Church has long maintained this belief to all and against all, and it seems that the first who impugned it was Aerius, an Arian heretic, as S. Epiphanius testifies (Haer. 75), and S. Augustine (Haar. 53), and Socrates (ii. 35) -about twelve hundred years ago. Afterwards came certain persons who called themselves Apostolics, in the time of S. Bernard. Then the Petrobusians, about five hundred years back, who also denied this same article, as S. Bernard (sermons 65 and 66 on the Cant. of Cant. and ep. 241) and S. Peter of Cluny (epp. I, 2, and elsewhere) record. This same opinion of the Petrobusians was followed by the Vaudois, about the year 1170, as Guidon says in his Summa; and some Greeks were suspected on this matter, justifying themselves in the Council of Florence, and in their apology presented to the Council of Basle. In fine, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and those of their party, have altogether denied the truth of Purgatory: for although Luther, in disputatione Lipsica, says that he firmly believed, yea certainly knew, that there was a Purgatory, still he afterwards retracted this in the book, De Abroganda Missa Privata. And it is the custom of all the factions of our age to laugh at Purgatory, and despise prayers for the dead. But the Catholic Church has strongly opposed all these, each in its time, having in her hand the Holy Scripture, out of which our forefathers have drawn many good reasons.
For (I.) she has proved that alms, prayers, and other holy actions can help the departed: whence it follows that there is a Purgatory, for those in hell can have no help in their pains, and into Paradise, all good being there, we can convey none of ours for those who are therein; wherefore it is for those who are in a third place, which we call Purgatory. (2.) She has proved that in the other world some of the departed have been delivered from their punishments and sins; and since this cannot be done either in hell or in Paradise, it follows that there is a Purgatory. (3,) She has proved that many souls, before arriving in Paradise, passed through a place of punishment, which can only be Purgatory. (4 .) Proving that the souls below the earth gave honour and reverence to Our Lord, she at the same time proved Purgatory, since this cannot be understood of those poor wretches who are in hell. (5.) By many other passages, with a variety of consequences, but all very apposite. In these one ought so much the more to defer to our doctors, because the passages which they allege now have been brought forward for the same purpose by those great ancient fathers, without our having to make new interpretations in order to defend this holy article; which sufficiently shows how candidly we act in this matter: whereas our adversaries draw conclusions from the Holy Scripture which have never been thought of before, but are quite freshly started simply to oppose the Church.
So our reasons will be in this order, (1.) We will quote the passages of Holy Scripture, then (2.) Councils, (3.) ancient Fathers, (4.) all sorts of authors. Afterwards we will bring forward reasons, and at last we will take up the arguments of the opposite party and will show them not to be sound. Thus shall we conclude by the belief of the Catholic Church. It will remain for the reader to avoid looking at things through the medium of passion, to think attentively over the soundness of our proofs, and to throw himself at the feet of the divine goodness, crying out in all humility with David: Give me understanding and I will search thy law, and I will keep it with my whole heart.(Psalm cxviii. 34) And then I doubt not that such men will return into the bosom of their grandmother the Church Catholic.
CHAPTER III.
OF SOME PASSAGES OF THE SCRIPTURE IN WHICH MENTION IS MADE OF A PURGATION AFTER THIS LIFE, AND OF A TIME AND A PLACE FOR IT.
THIS first argument is irrefragable. There is a time and a place of purgation for souls after this mortal life. Therefore there is a Purgatory; since hell cannot allow any purgation, and Paradise can receive nothing which needs purgation. Now that there is a time and place of purgation after this life, here is the proof.
(1.) In Psalm lxv. 12: We have passed through fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a refreshment.
This place is brought in proof of purgatory by Origen (Hom. 2 5 in Numeros), and by S. Ambrose (in Ps. xxxvi., and in sermon 3 on Ps. cxviii.), where he expounds the water of Baptism, and the fire of Purgatory.
[2.]In Isaias (iv. 4]: If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Sion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning.
This purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burning is understood of Purgatory by S. Augustine, in the 20th Book of the City of God, ch. 25. And in fact this interpretation is favoured by the words preceding, in which mention is made of the salvation of men, and also by the end of the chapter, where the repose of the blessed is spoken of; wherefore that which is said- the Lord shall wash away the filth- is to be understood of the purgation necessary for this salvation.And since it is said that this purgation is to be made in the spirit of heat and of burning, it cannot well be understood save of Purgatory and its fire.
(3). In Micheas, in the 7th chapter 8,9: Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light. I will bear the wrath of the Lord. because I have sinned against him, until he judge my cause and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice.
This passage was already applied to the proof of Purgatory amongst Catholics from the time of S. Jerome, 1200 years ago, as the same S. Jerome witnesses by the last chapter of Isaias ; where he says that the when I shall sit in darkness . . . I will bear the wrath of the Lord . . . until He judge my cause- cannot be understood of any pain so properly as of that of Purgatory.
[4] In Zachary (ix. 11): Thou also by the blood thy testament hast sent forth thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water. The pit from which these prisoners are drawn is the Purgatory from which Our Lord delivered them in his descent into hell, and cannot be understood of Limbo, where the Fathers were before the resurrection of Our Lord in Abraham's bosom, because there was water of consolation there, as may be seen in Luke xvi. Whence S. Augustine, in the 90th Epistle, to Evodius, says that Our Lord visited those who were being tormented in hell, that is, in Purgatory, and that he delivered them from it; whence it follows that there is a place where the faithful are held prisoners and whence they can be delivered.
(5.) In Malachy (iii. 3): And he shall sit refining and cleansing the silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and shall refine them as gold and as, silver, &c.
This place is expounded of a purifying punishment by Origen (Hom. 6 on Exodus), S. Ambrose (on Ps. xxxvi.), St. Augustine (de civ. Dei xx. 2 5), and S. Jerome (on this place). We are quite aware that they understand it of a purgation which will be at the end of the world by the general fire and conflagration, in which will be purged away the remains of the sins of those who will be found alive; but we still are able to draw from this a good argument for our Purgatory. For if persons at that time have need of purgation before receiving the effects of the benediction of the supreme Judge, why shall not those also have need of it who die before that time, since some of these may be found at death to have remains of their imperfections. In truth if Paradise cannot receive any stains at that time, neither will it receive them any better at present. S. Irenaeus in this connection, in chapter 29 of Book V., says that because the militant Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace of the Spouse, and will no longer have time for purgation, her faults and stains will there and then be purged away by this fire which will precede the judgment. (6.) I leave on one side the passage of Psalm xxxvii. -0 Lord. rebuke me not in throe indignation nor chastise me in thy wrath:-which S. Augustine interprets of hell and Purgatory in such sense that to be rebuked in indignation refers to the eternal pains, and to be chastised in wrath refers to Purgatory.
CHAPTER IV.
OF ANOTHER PASSAGE OUT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, TO THIS EFFECT.
IN the 1st Corinthians ( iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of the Lord shall declare (every man's work), because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he hims&shall be saved, vet so as by fire.
This passage has always been held as one of the important and difficult ones of the whole Scripture. Now in it, as is easily seen by one who considers the whole chapter, the Apostle uses two similitudes. The first is of an architect who with solid materials builds a valuable house on a rock: the second is of one who on the same foundation erects a house of boards, reeds, straw. Let us now imagine that a fire breaks out in both the houses. That which is of solid material will be out of danger, and the other will be burnt to ashes. And if the architect be in the first he will be whole and safe; if he be in the second, he must, if he would escape, rush through fire and flame, and shall be saved yet so that he will bear the marks of having been in fire: he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. The foundation spoken of in this similitude is Our Lord, of whom S. Paul says: I have planted . . . and as a wise architect I have laid the foundation: . . . and then afterwards : For no one can lay another foundation but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. The architects are-the preachers and doctors of the Gospel, as may be known by considering attentively the words of this whole chapter. And as S. Ambrose interprets, and also Sedulius on this place, the day of the Lord which is spoken of means the day of -judgment, which in the Scripture is ordinarily called the day of the Lord, as in Joel ii : the day of the Lord ; in Sophonias i: the day of the Lord is near; and in the word that follows in our passage: the day of the Lord shall declare it; for it is on that day that all the actions of the world will be declared in fire. When the Apostle says it shall be revealed by fire; he sufficiently shows that it is the last day of judgment; [as] in the Second to the Thessalonians i.: when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with the a ngels of his power, in a flame of glory;and in Psalm xcvi.: fire shall qo before his face.
The fire by which the architect is saved-he himself shall be saved yet so as by fire-can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory.
For when the Apostle says he shall be saved, he excludes the fire of hell in which no one can be saved; and when he says he shall be saved by fire, and speaks only of him who has built on the foundation, wood, straw, stubble, he shows that he is not speaking of the fire which will precede the day of judgment, since by this will pass not only those who shall have built with these light materials, but also those who shall have built in gold, silver, &c. All this interpretation, besides that it agrees very well with the text, is also most authentic, as having been followed with common consent by the ancient Fathers. S. Cyprian (Bk. iv. ep. 2) seems to make allusion to this passage. S. Ambrose, on this place, S. Jerome on the 4th -of Amos, S. Augustine on Psalm xxxvi., S. Gregory (Dial. iv. 39), Rupert (in Gen. iii. 32), and the rest, are all express on the point; and of the Greeks, Origen in the 6th Homily on Exodus, Ecumenius on this passage (where he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by S. Thomas in the I st Opusculum contra errores Groec.
It may be said that in this interpretation there is an equivocation and impropriety, inasmuch as the fire spoken of is taken now for that of Purgatory, now for that which will precede the day of judgment. We answer that it is a graceful manner of speech, by the contrasting these two fires. For notice the meaning of the sentence : the day of the Lord shall have light from the fire which will go before it, and as this day shall be lighted up by the fire, so this same day by the judgment shall cast light on the merit and defect of each work; and as each work shall be brought clearly out, so the workers who will have worked with imperfection shall be saved by the fire of Purgatory. But besides this, if we should say that S. Paul uses the same word in different senses in the same passage it would be no new thing, for he employs words in this way in other places, but so properly that this serves as an ornament to his language: as in the 2d of Corinthians, 5th chapter Him who knew no sin for us he hath made sin :-where who sees not that sin in the first part is taken in its proper sense, for iniquity ; and the second time figuratively, for him who bears the penalty of sin ?
It may be said again that it is not said that he will be saved by fire, but as by fire, and that therefore we cannot conclude there is a Purgatorial fire. I answer that there is a true similitude in this passage. For the Apostle means to say that he whose works are not absolutely solid will be saved like the architect who escapes from the fire, but at the same time not without passing through the fire; a fire of a different quality from that which burns in this world. It is enough that from this passage we evidently conclude that many who will gain possession of the kingdom of paradise will pass through fire: now this will not be the fire of hell, nor the fire which will precede the judgment; it will therefore be the fire of Purgatory. The passage is difficult and troublesome, but well considered it gives us a manifest conclusion for our contention; -so that we have here two places by which we can learn that after this life there are a time and a place of purgation.
CHAPTER V.
OF SOME OTHER PASSAGES BY WHICH PRAYER, ALMS, DEEDS AND HOLY ACTIONS FOR THE DEPARTED ARE AUTHORISED.
THE second argument which we draw from the Holy Word in favour of Purgatory is taken from the Second of the Machabees, chapter xii.; where the Scripture relates that Judas Machabaeus sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand drachms of silver for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, and afterwards it says: It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought tray for the dead that they may be loosed from sins. For thus do we argue. It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins; therefore after death there will be time and place for the remission of sins; but this place cannot be either hell or Paradise, therefore it is Purgatory. This argument is so correct that to answer it our adversaries deny the authority of the Book of Machabees, and hold it to be apocryphal, but in reality this is for lack of any other answer. For this book has been held as authentic and sacred by the third Council of Carthage , which was held about 1200 years ago, and at which S. Augustine assisted, as Prosper says (in Chron.); and by Innocent I. in the Epistle to Exuperius ; and by S. Augustine in the 18th Book of the City of God, c. 36,-whose words are these: "It is the Catholic Church which holds these books canonical, and not the Jews; " and by the same S. Augustine, in the book De Doctrina Christiana, chap. viii.; and by Damasus, in the decree on the canonical books which he made in a council of seventy bishops; and by many other Fathers whom it would be long to cite. So that to answer by denying the authority of the book, is to deny at the same time the authority of antiquity.
We know how many things are alleged in support of this negation, which things for the most part only show the difficulty there is in the Scriptures, not any falsehood in them. It only seems to me necessary to answer one or two objections that are made. They first say that the prayer was made to show the kind feeling those persons had towards the departed, not as if they thought the dead had need of prayer: but this the Scripture contradicts by those words: that they nzay be loosed from sins. Secondly, they object that it is a manifest error to pray for the resurrection of the dead before the judgment ; because this is to presuppose either that souls rise again and consequently die, or that bodies do not rise again unless by means of the prayers and good actions of the living, which would be against the article I believe in the resurrection of the dead: now that these errors are presupposed in this place of the Machabees appears by these words _For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. The answer is that in this place they do not pray for the resurrection either of the soul or of the body, but only for the deliverance of souls. In this they presuppose the immortality of the soul. For if they had believed that the soul was dead with the body they would not have striven to further their release. And because among the Jews the belief in the immortality of the soul and the belief in the resurrection of bodies were so connected together that he who denied one denied the other; -to show that Judas Machabaeus believed the immortality of the soul, it is said that he believed the resurrection of bodies. And in the same way the Apostle proves the resurrection of bodies by the immortality of the soul, although it might be that the soul was immortal without the resurrection of bodies. The following occurs in the I st of Corinthians, chapter xv.: What doth it profit me if the dead rise not again ? Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die. Now it would not at all follow that we might thus let ourselves run riot, even if there was no resurrection: for the soul, which would remain in existence, would suffer the penalty due to sins, and would receive the guerdon of her virtues. S. Paul then in this place takes the resurrection of the dead as equivalent to the immortality of the soul. There is therefore no ground for refusing the testimony of the Machabees in proof of a just belief. But if, in the very last resort, we would take it as the testimony of a simple but great historian- which cannot be refused us- we must at least confess that the ancient synagogue believed in Purgatory, since all that army was so prompt to pray for the departed.
And truly we have marks of this devotion in other Scriptures which ought to make easier to us the reception of the passage which we have just adduced. In Tobias, chap. iv.: Lay out thy bread and thy wine on the burial of a just man; and do not eat or drink thereof with the wicked. Certainly this wine and bread was not placed on the tomb save for the poor, in order that the soul of the deceased might be helped thereby, as the interpreters say commonly on this passage. It will perhaps be said that this Book is apocryphal, but all antiquity has always held it in credit. And indeed the custom of putting meat for the poor on sepulchres is very ancient even in the Catholic Church. For S. Chrysostom, who lived more than twelve hundred years ago, in the 32d Homily on the Book of S. Matthew, speaks of it thus: "Why on your friends' death do you call together the poor? Why for them do you beseech the priests to pray?" And what are we to think of the fasts and austerities which the ancients practised after the death of their friends? The men of Jabes Galaad, after the death of Saul, fasted seven days over him. David and his men did the same, over the same Saul, and Jonathan, and those who followed him, as we see in this [last] chapter of 1st Kings, and in the 1st chapter of 2nd Kings. One cannot think that it was for any other purpose than to help the souls of the departed; -for to what else can one refer the fast of seven days? So David, who, in the 2nd Kings, chapter xii., fasted and prayed for his sick son, after his death ceased to fast, showing that when he fasted it was to obtain help for the sick child, which, when it died, dying young and innocent, had no need of help; wherefore David ceased fasting. Bede, more than 700 years ago, interprets thus the end of the 1st Book of Kings (in Sam. L. iv. a io.). So that in the ancient Church, the custom already was to help by prayer and holy deeds the souls of the departed:- which clearly implies a faith in Purgatory.
And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly in the 1st of Corinthians chap xv., appealing to it as praiseworthy and right. What shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not again at all? Why then are they baptized for them? This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, fast, for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances ; as in S. Luke, chap xii., where Our Lord speaking of his Passion says: I have a baptism wherewith I am to be baptized and how am I straitened until it be accomplished!-and in S. Mark. chap x., he says : Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of; or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized? -in which places Our Lord calls pains and afflictions baptism. This then is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of S. Paul resembles that of Machabees quoted above: It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again. They may twist and transform this text with as many interpretations as they like, and there will be none to properly fit into the Holy Letter except this.
But [secondly] it must not be said that the baptism of which S. Paul speaks is only a baptism of grief and tears, and not of fasts, prayers, and other works. For thus understood his conclusion would be very false. The conclusion he means to draw is that if the dead rise not again, and if the soul is mortal, in vain do we afflict ourselves for the dead. But, I pray you, should we not have more occasion to afflict ourselves by sadness for the death of friends if they rise no more - losing all hope of ever seeing them again - than if they do rise? He refers then to the voluntary afflictions which they undertook to impetrate the repose of the departed, which, questionless, would be undergone in vain if souls were mortal and the dead rose not again. Wherein we must keep in mind what was said above, that the article of the resurrection of the dead and that of the immortality of the soul were so joined together in the belief of the Jews that he who acknowledged the one acknowledged the other, and he who denied the one denied the other. It appears then by these words of S. Paul that prayer, fasting, and other holy afflictions were practised for the departed. Now it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did S. Ephrem expound it twelve hundred years ago, and so did the Fathers who disputed against the Petrobusians.
The same can one deduce from the words of the Good Thief, in S. Luke, chap. xxiii. when, addressing Our Lord, he said: Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. For why should he have recommended himself, he who was about to die, unless he had believed that souls after death could be succoured and helped? S. Augustine (Contra Jul., B. vi.) proves [from] this passage that sins are pardoned in the other world.
CHAPTER VI.
OF CERTAIN OTHER PLACES QF SCRIPTURE BY WHICH WE PROVE THAT SOME SINS CAN BE PARDONED IN THE OTHER WORLD.
IF there are some sins that can be pardoned in the other world it is neither in hell nor in heaven, therefore it is in Purgatory. Now, that there are sins which are pardoned in the other world we prove, firstly, by the passage of S. Matthew in chap. xii., where Our Lord says that there is a sin which cannot be forgiven either in this world or in the next: therefore there are sins which can be forgiven in the other world. For if there were no sins which could be forgiven in the other world, it was not now necessary to attribute this property of not being. able to be forgiven in the next world to one sort of sins, but it sufficed to say it could not be forgiven in this world. When Our Lord had said to Pilate : My kingdom is not of this world, in S. John, chap. xviii., Pilate drew this conclusion: Art thou a king, then? Which conclusion was approved by Our Lord, who assented thereto. So when he said that there is one sin which cannot be forgiven in the other world, it follows very properly that there are others which can. They try to say that these words, neither in this world nor in the world to come, only signify, for ever, or, never; as S. Mark says in chap. iii., shall never have forgiveness. That is quite true ; but our reason loses none of its force on that account. For either S. Matthew has properly expressed Our Lord's meaning or he has not: one would not dare to say he has not, and if he has, it still follows that there are sins which can be forgiven in the other world, since Our Lord has said that there is one which cannot be forgiven in the other world.
And please tell me - if S. Peter had said in S. John, chap. xiii.: Thou shalt never wash my feet either in this world or in the other, would he not have spoken [properly], since in the other world they might be washed ?-and indeed he does say: thou shalt not wash my feet for ever. We must not believe then that S. Matthew would have expressed the intention of Our Lord by these words neither in this world nor in the next , if in the next there cannot be remission. We should laugh at a man who said: I will not marry either in this world or in the next, as if he supposed that in the next one could marry. He then who says a sin cannot be forgiven either in this world or in the next, implies that there may be remission of some sins in this world and also in the other. I am well aware that our adversaries try by various interpretations to parry this blow, but it is so well struck that they cannot escape from it, unless by starting a new doctrine. And in good truth it is far better, with the ancient Fathers, to understand properly and with all possible reverence the words of Our Lord, than, in order to found a new doctrine, to make them confused and ill-chosen. S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei, lib. xxi., c. 24), S. Gregory (Hom. 7, de Dec., c. 39), Bede (in Marc. iii.), S. Bernard (Hom. 66 in Cant.), and those who have written against the Petrobusians, have used this passage in our sense, with such assurance that S. Bernard to declare this truth brings forward nothing more, so much account does he make of this.
In S. Matthew (v.), and in S. Luke (xii.): Make an agreement with thy adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest perhaps the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou pay the last farthing.
Origen, S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, and S. Augustine say that the way which is meant in the whilst thou art in the way is no other than the passage of the present life: the adversary will be our own conscience, which ever -fights against us and for us, that is, it ever resists our bad inclinations and our old Adam for our salvation, as S. Ambrose expounds, [and] Bede, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, and S. Bernard. Lastly. the judge is without doubt Our Lord in S. John (v.): The Father has given all judgment to the Son. The prison again, is hell or the place of punishment in the other world, in which, as in a large jail, there are many buildings; one for those who are damned, which is as it were for criminals, the other for those in Purgatory, which is as it were for debt. The farthing, of which it is said thou shalt not go out from thence till thou pay the last farthing, are little sins and infirmities, as the farthing is the smallest money one can owe.
Now let us consider a little where this repayment of which Our Lord speaks - till thou pay the last farthing-is to be made. And (1.) we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in Purgatory: Tertullian (Lib. de Anima c. x.), Cyprian (Epist., lib. iv. 2), Origen (Horn. 3 5 on this place of Luke), with Emissenus (Hom. 3 de Epiph.), S. Ambrose (in Luc. xii.), S. Jerome (in Matt. v.), S. Bernard (serm. de obitu Huberti).
(2.) When it is said till thou pay the last farthing, is it not implied that one can pay it, and that one can so diminish the debt that there only remains at length its last farthing ? But just as when it is said in the Psalm (cix.): Sit at my right hand until I make thy enemies, &c., it properly follows that at length he will make his enemies his footstool; so when he says thou shah not go out till thou pay, he shows that at length he will pay or will be able to pay.
(3.) Who sees not that in S. Luke the comparison is drawn, not from a murderer or some criminal, who can have no hope of escape, but from a debtor who is thrown into prison till payment, and when this is made is at once let out? This then is the meaning of Our Lord, that whilst we are in this world we should try by penitence and its fruits to pay, according to the power which we have by the blood of the Redeemer, the penalty to which our sins have subjected us; since if we wait till death we shall not have such good terms in Purgatory, when we shall be treated with severity of justice.
All this seems to have been also said by Our Lord in the 5th of S. Matthew, where he says: He who is angry with his brother shall be guilty of the judgment; and he who shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty of the council ; but he who shall say, thou fool, shall be guilty of hell fire: now it is only the third sort of offence which is punished with hell; therefore in the judgment of God after this life there are other pains which are not eternal or infernal, -these are the pains of Purgatory. One may say that the pains will be suffered in this world; but S. Augustine and the other Fathers understand them for the other world. And again may it not be that a man should die on the first or second offence which is spoken of here? And when will such a one pay the penalty due to his offence ? Or if you will have that he pays them not, what place will you give him for his retreat after this world? You will not assign him hell, unless you would add to the sentence of Our Lord, who does not assign hell as a penalty save to those who shall have committed the third offence. Lodge him in Paradise you must not, because the nature of that heavenly place rejects all sorts of imperfections. Allege not here the mercy of the Judge, because he declares in this place that he intends also to use justice. Do then as the ancient Fathers did, and say that there is a place where they will be purified, and then they will go to heaven above.
In S. Luke, in the 16th chapter, it is written Make unto yourselves friends of the mammon of iniquity, that when you shall fail they may receive you into eternal tabernacles. To fail, what is it but to die? -and the friends, who are they but the Saints ? The interpreters all understand it so; whence two things follow, -that the Saints can help men departed, and that the departed can be helped by the Saints. For in what other way can one understand these words: make to yourselves friends who may receive you? They cannot be understood of alms, for many times the alms is good and holy and yet acquires us not friends who can receive us into eternal tabernacles, as when it is given to bad people with a holy and right intention. Thus is this passage expounded by S. Ambrose, and by S. Augustine (de Civ. Dei xii. 27). But the parable Our Lord is using is too clear to allow us any doubt of this interpretation; for the similitude is taken from a steward who, being dismissed from his office and reduced to poverty, begged help from his friends, and Our Lord likens the dismissal unto death, and the help begged from friends unto the help one receives after death from those to whom one has given alms. This help cannot be received by those who are in Paradise or in hell, it is then by those who are in Purgatory.
CHAPTER VII.
OF SOME OTHER PLACES FROM WHICH BY VARIOUS CONSEQUENCES IS DEDUCED THE TRUTH OF PURGATORY.
S.PAUL to the Philippians (ii.) says these words: That in the name of Jesus every knee may bow, of things in heaven, of things on earth and of things under the earth (infernorum). In heaven we find the Saints on their knees, bending them at the name of the Redeemer. On earth we find many such in the militant Church, but in hell where shall we find any of them ? David despairs of finding any when he says: Who shall confess to thee in hell? (Ps.vi.)So Ezechias in Isaias (xxxviii.):For neither shall hell confess to thee. To which that also ought to be referred which David sings elsewhere (xlix. 16): But to the sinner God hath_ said: Why dost thou declare my justice and take my covenant in thy mouth? For if God will receive no praise from the obstinate sinner, how should he permit the wretched damned to this this holy office. S. Augustine makes great account of this place for this purpose in the 12th book on Genesis (xxxiii.). There is a similar passage in the Apocalypse (v.): Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof? And no man was able neither in heaven, nor in earth, nor under the earth. And further down in the same chapter: And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth. I heard all saying: To him that sitteth upon the throne and to the Lamb, benediction and honour and glory and power for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said Amen. Does he not hereby uphold a Church, in which God is praised under the earth? And what else can it be but that of Purgatory?
CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE COUNCILS WHICH HAVE RECEIVED PURGATORY AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH.
AERIUS, as I have said above, was the first to teach against Catholics that the prayers they offered for the dead were superstitious. He still has followers in our age in this point. Our Lord in his gospel (Matt. xviii.) furnishes us our rule of action on such occasions. If thy brother shall o ffend thee . . . tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Let us hear then what the Church says on this matter, in Africa, at the 3d Council Of Carthage (c. 29), and at the 4th (c. 79); in Spain, at the Council of Braga (cc. 34, 39); in France, at the Council of Chalons (de cons. d. 2, Can. visum est), and at the 2nd Council of Orleans (c. 14); in Germany, at the Council of Worms (c. 20); in Italy, at the 6th Council under Symmachus; in Greece, as may be seen in their synods, collected by Martin of Braga (c. 69). And by all these Councils you will see that the Church approves of prayer for the departed, and consequently of Purgatory. Afterwards, what she had defined by parts she defined in her general body at the Council of Lateran under Innocent III. (c. 66), at the Council of Florence in which all nations assisted (Sess. ult.), and lastly at the Council of Trent (Sess. 25).
But what more holy answer from the Church would one have than that which is contained in all her Masses? Examine the Liturgies of S. James, S. Basil, S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, which all the Oriental Christians still use; you will there see the commemoration of the dead, almost as it is seen in ours. If Peter Martyr, one of the learned men belonging to the adverse party, confesses, on the 3d chapter of the 1st of Corinthians, that the whole Church has followed this opinion, I have no need to dwell on this proof. He says it has erred and failed,-ah ! who would believe that ! Who art thou that judgest the Church of God? If any one hear not the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. The Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. If the salt lose its savour wherewith shall it be salted; if the Church err by whom shall she be set right ? If the Church, the faithful guardian of truth, lose the truth, by whom shall the truth be found? If Christ cast off the Church, whom will he receive,-he who admits no one but through the Church? And if the Church can err, can you not also, 0 Peter Martyr, fall into error? -without doubt: I will then rather believe that you have erred than the Church.
CHAPTER IX.
OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS TO THE TRUTH OF PURGATORY.
IT is a beautiful thing, and one full of all consolation, to see the perfect correspondence which the present Church has with the ancient, particularly in belief. Let us mention what makes to our purpose concerning Purgatory.All the ancient Fathers have believed in it, and have testified that it was of Apostolic faith. Here are the authors we have for it. Among the disciples of the Apostles, S. Clement and S. Denis. Afterwards, S. Athanasius, S. Basil, S. Gregory Nazianzen, Ephrem, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Gregory Nyssen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Origen, Boethius, Hilary, that is, all antiquity as far back as 1200 years ago, which was the time before which these Fathers lived. It would have been easy for me to bring forward their testimonies, which are accurately collected in the books of our Catholics; -of Canisius, in his Catechism, of Sanders On the Visible Monarchy, of Genebrard in his Chronology, of Bellarmine in his Controversy on Purgatory, of Stapleton in his Promptuary. But particularly let those who would see at length and faithfully quoted the passages of the ancient Fathers, take up the work of Canisius, revised by Buzaeus.
Certainly, however, Calvin spares us this trouble, in Book iii. of his Institutions (c. 5, ~I0), where he thus speaks: "More than 1300 years ago it was received that prayers should be offered for the dead;" and afterwards he adds: "But all, I confess, were dragged into error." We need not then seek out the names and the localities of the ancient Fathers to prove Purgatory, since in reckoning their value Calvin puts them at zero. What likelihood that one single Calvin should be infallible and that all antiquity should have gone wrong! It is said that the ancient Fathers have believed in Purgatory to accommodate themselves to the vulgar. A fine excuse! was it not for the Fathers to correct the people's error if they saw them erring, not to keep it up and give in to it? This excuse then is but to accuse the Ancients. But how shall we say the Fathers have not honestly believed in Purgatory, since Aerius, as I have said before, was held to be a heretic because he denied it? It is a shame to see the audacity with which Calvin treats S. Augustine, because he prayed and got prayers for his mother S. Monica; and the only pretext he brings forward is that S. Augustine, in Book 21 of the de Civitate seems to doubt about the fire of Purgatory. But this is nothing to the purpose; for it is true that S. Augustine says one may doubt of the fire and of the nature thereof, but not of Purgatory. Now whether the purgation is made by fire or otherwise, whether or no the fire have the same qualities as that of hell, still there ceases not to be a purgation and a Purgatory. He puts not then Purgatory in question but the quality of it; as will never be denied by those who will look how he speaks of it in chapters 16 and 24 of the same Book of the de Civitate, and in the work De Curd Pro Mortins Agenda, and a thousand other places. See then how we are in the track of the holy and ancient Fathers, as to this article of Purgatory.
CHAPTER X.
OF TWO PRINCIPAL REASONS, AND OF THE TESTIMONY OF OUTSIDERS IN FAVOUR OF PURGATORY.
HERE are two invincible proofs of Purgatory. The first:- there are sins which are light in comparison with others, and which do not make man guilty of hell. If then a man die in them, what will become of him? Paradise receives nothing defiled (Apoc. xxi): hell is too extreme a penalty, it is not deserved by his sin: it must then be owned that he will stay in a Purgatory, where he will be duly purified, and afterwards go to heaven. Now that there are sins which do not make man deserving of hell, Our Saviour says in Matthew (v.): Whosoever is angry with his brother shall be guilty of the judgment ; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be guilty of the council ; and whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be guilty of hell fire (gehennce ignis). What, I pray you, is it to be guilty of the gehenna of fire but to be guilty of hell? Now this penalty is deserved by those only who call their brother, thou fool. Those who get angry, and those who express their anger in words not injurious and defamatory, are not in the same rank; but one deserves judgment, that is, that his anger should be brought under judgment, like the idle word (Matt. xii.) of which Our Lord says man shall render an account in the day of judgment,- account must be rendered of it: the second deserves the council, that is, deserves to be deliberated about whether he shall be condemned or not (for Our Lord accommodates himself to men's way of speaking) the third alone is the one who, without question, infallibly shall be condemned. Therefore the first and second kinds of sin do not make man deserving of eternal death, but of a temporal correction; and therefore if a man die with these, by accident or otherwise, he must undergo the judgment of a temporal punishment, and when his soul is purged thereby he will go to heaven, to be with the blessed. Of these sins the Wise Man speaks (Prov xxiv.): The just shall fall seven times a day: for the just cannot sin, so long as he is just, with a sin which deserves damnation: it means then that he falls into sins to which damnation is not due, which Catholics call venial, and these can be purged away in the other world in Purgatory.
The second reason is, that after the pardon of sin there remains part of the penalty due to it. As for example, in the 2nd of Kings, chap. xii., the sin is forgiven to David, the Prophet saying to him: The Lord hath also taken away thy sin: not thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme for this thing, thy child shall die the death.
The Protestant Violation of Holy Scripture
by Saint Francis de Sales (1567-1622), Bishop and Doctor of the Church
Extracted from Article 1 of the "Catholic Controversy" (originally published by Burns and Oates, London 1886)
Translated by Rev. Henry Benedict Mackey, O.S.B.
FROM THE AUTOGRAPH MANUSCRIPTS AT ROME AND AT ANNECY
CHAPTER I.
THE SCRIPTURE IS A TRUE RULE OF CHRISTIAN FAITH
I well know, thank God, that Tradition was before all Scripture, since a good part of Scripture itself is only Tradition reduced to writing, with an infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. But, since the authority of Scripture is more easily received by the reformers than that of Tradition, I begin with the former in order to get a better entrance for my argument.
Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains, and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it: for if Our Lord Himself has sent the Jews to it to strengthen their faith, it must be a most safe standard. The Sadducees erred because they did not understand the Scriptures; they would have done better to attend to them, as to a light shining in a dark place , according to the advice of St. Peter, who having himself heard the voice of the Father in the Transfiguration of the Son, bases himself more firmly on the testimony of the Prophets than on this experience. When God says to Josue: Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth, He shows clearly that He willed him to have it always in his mind, and to let no persuasion enter which should be contrary to it. But I am losing time; this disputation would be needed against free-thinkers (les Libertins), we are agreed on this point, and those who are so mad as to contradict it, can only rest their contradiction on the Scripture itself, contradicting themselves before contradicting the Scripture, using it in the very protestation which they make that they will not use it.
CHAPTER II.
HOW JEALOUS WE SHOULD BE OF THEIR INTEGRITY.
On this point, again, I will scarcely delay. The Holy Scripture is called the Book of the Old and of the New Testament. When a notary has drawn a contract or other deed, when a testament is confirmed by the death of the testator, there must not be added, withdrawn, or altered, one single word under penalty of falsification. Are not the Holy Scriptures the true testament of the eternal God, drawn by the notaries deputed for this purpose, duly sealed and signed with his blood, confirmed by death? Being such, how can we alter even the smallest point without impiety? A testament, says the great Ulpian, is a just expression of our will as to what we would have done after our death. Our Lord by the Holy Scriptures shows us what we must believe, hope for, love, and do, and this by a true expression of His will; if we add, take away, or change, it will no longer be the true expression of God's will. For Our Lord having duly expressed in Scripture His will, if we add anything of our own we shall make the statement go beyond the will of our testator, if we take anything away we shall make it fall short, if we make changes in it we shall set it awry, and it will no longer correspond to the will of the author, nor be a correct statement. When two things exactly correspond, he who changes the one destroys the equality and the correspondence between them. If it be a true statement, whatever right have we to alter it? Our Lord puts a value on the iotas, yea, the mere little points and accents of His Holy words. How jealous then is he of their integrity, and what punishment shall they not deserve who violate this integrity! Brethren, says S. Paul, (Gal. Iii 15, 16) (I speak after the manenr of man), yet a man's testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it. And to show how important it is to learn the Scripture in its exactness he gives an example. To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He says not and to his seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy seed, who is Christ. See, I beg you, how the change from singular to plural would have spoilt the mysterious meaning of this word.
The Ephrathites [Ephraimites] said Sibboleth, not forgetting a single letter, but because they did not pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them at the fords of the Jordan (Judges xii. 6). The simple difference of pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere transposition of one single point on the letter scin caused the ambiguity, and changing the janin into semol, instead of an ear of wheat expressed a weight or a burden. Whosoever alters or adds the slightest accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man, and deserves th edeath of him who dares to mingle thr profane with the sacred.
The Arians, as S. Augustine tells us (De doc. Chris. iii.2), corrupted this sentence of S. John i.1: In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum: by simply changing a point. For they read it thus: Et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat. Verbum hoc, &c.: instead of: Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum:. They placed the full stop after the erat, instead of after the verbum. They so acted for fear of having to grant that the Word was God; so little is required to change the sense of God's Word. When one is handling glass beads, if two or three are lost, it is a small matter, but if they were oriental pearls the loss would be great. The better the wine the more it suffers from the mixture of a foreign flavour, and the exquisite symmetry of a great picture will not bear the admixture of new colours. Such is the conscientiousness with which we ought to regard and handle the sacred deposit of the Scriptures.
CHAPTER III.
WHAT ARE THE SACRED BOOKS OF THE WORD OF GOD.
The Council of Trent gives these books as sacred, divine and canonical: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four Books of Kings, two of the Paralipomenon, two of Esdras ( a first, and a second, which is called of Nehemias), Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, one hundred and fifty Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom ,Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharius, Malachy, two of Machabees, first and second: of the New Testament, four Gospels, -S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John,-the Acts of the Apostles by S. Luke, fourteen Epistles of S. Paul,-to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews,-two of S. Peter, three of S. John, one of S. James, one of S. Jude, and the Apocalypse. The same books were received at the Council of Florence, and long before that at the third Council of Carthage about twelve hundred years
These books are divided into two ranks. For of some, both of the Old and of the New Testament, it was never doubted but that they were sacred and canonical: others there are about whose authority the ancient Fathers doubted for a time, but afterwards they were placed with those of the first rank.
Those of the first rank in the Old Testament are the five of Moses, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras and Nehemias, Job, one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the four greater Prophets, the twelve lesser Prophets. These were formed into the canon by the great synod at which Esdras was present. and to which he was scribe ; and no one ever doubted of their authority without being at once considered a heretic, as our learned Genebrard, fully proves in his Chronology (Ad ann. 3638). The second rank contains the following Esther, Baruch, a part of Daniel (the history of Susanna, the Canticle of the Three Children, and the history of the death of the dragon in the fourteenth chapter Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees 1 and 2. And as to these there is a great probability in the opinion of the same Doctor Genebrard (Ib. seqq. Et ad ann. 3860. He quotes S. Epiph., de mens. et pond., and Josephus, contra App. ii. S. Epiph speaks only of Baruch.) that in the meeting which was held at Jerusalem to send the seventy-two interpreters into Egypt, these books, which were not in existence when Esdras made the first canon, were placed on the canon, at least tacitly, because they were sent with the others to be translated except the Machabees, which were received in another meeting afterwards, wherein the preceding were again approved. But however the case may be, as the second canon was not made so authentically as the first, this placing on the canon could not procure them an entire and unquestionable authority among the Jews, nor make them equal with the books of the first rank.
Coming to the books of the New Testament I say that in the same way there are some of the first rank, which have always been acknowledged and received as sacred and canonical. These are the four Gospels, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, all the Epistles of S. Paul except that to the Hebrews, one of S. Peter, one of S. John. Those of the second rankare the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of S. James, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. that of S. Jude, the 16th chapter of S. Mark, as S. Jerome says, and S. Luke's history of the bloody sweat of Our Lord in the garden of Olives, according to the same S. Jerome; in the eighth chapter of S. John there has been a doubt concerning the history of the woman taken in adultery, or at least some suspect that it has been doubted, and concerning verse seven of the last chapter of S. John's First Epistle. These are, as far as we know, the books and parts of books concerning which it appears there was anciently some doubt. And these were not of undoubted authority in the Church at first, but as time went on they were at length recognised as the sacred work of the Holy Spirit, and not all at once but at different times. And first besides those of the first rank whether of the new or of the Old Testament, about the year 364 they were received at the Council of Laodicea, Canon lx., (which was afterwards approved in the sixth general Council *), the book of Esther, the Epistle of S. James the Second of S. Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, that of Jude, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as the fourteenth of S. Paul. Then some time afterwards at the third Council of Carthage ( i.e. in Canon xxxvi. of the Council of Hippo, approved in third Council of Carthage. [Tr.]) (at which S. Augustine assisted, and which was confirmed in the sixth general Council in Trullo), besides those of the second rank just mentioned, there were received into the canon, as of full authority, Tobias, Judith, First and Second Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Apocalypse. But of all those of the second rank, the book of Judith was first received and acknowledged as divine, in the first General Council of Nice, as S. Jerome witnesses in his preface to this book. Such is the way in which the two ranks were brought together into one, and ever made of equal authority in the Church of God, but progressively and with succession, as a beautiful morning rising, which little by little lights up our hemisphere.
Thus was drawn up in the Council of Carthage, that same ancient list of the canonical books which has ever since been in the Catholic Church and which was confirmed in the sixth general Council, at the great Council of Florence 160 years ago for the union of the Armenians by the whole Church both Greek and Latin, in our age by the Council of Trent, and which was followed by S. Augustine (De doc. Chr. ii.8). Before the Council of Carthage they were not all received as canonical by any decree of the general Church. I had almost forgotten to say that you must not therefore make a difficulty against what I have just laid down because Baruch is not quoted by name in the Council of Carthage. For since Baruch was secretary of Jeremias, the book of Baruch was reckoned by the ancients as an accessory or appendix of Jeremias, being comprised under this; as that excellent theologian Bellarmine proves in his Controversies. But it is enough for me to have said thus: my brief outline is not obliged to dwell on every particular. In a word, all these books, whether of first or second rank, with all the parts, are equally certain, sacred and canonical, and are received in the Catholic Church.
* i.e. in Canon ii. of the Council in Trullo (or Quinisext), which is called by the Greeks the sixth General Council, as being a continuation or supplement of it. Such canons of this Council as were not opposed to previous decrees were approved by Rome. See Hefele Cone. Bk.-xvii. The Saint's words are well defended by Alibrandi in the procemu& Respons. pp. 8o, 81. [Tr.]
FIRST VIOLATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES MADE BY THE REFORMERS: BY CUTTING OFF SOME OF ITS PARTS
Such are the sacred and canonical books which the Church has unanimously received and acknowledged during twelve hundred years. And by what authority have these new reformers dared to wipe out at one stroke so many noble parts of the Bible? They have erased a part of Esther, and Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees. Who has told them that these books are not legitimate, and not to be received? Why do they thus dismember the sacred body of the Scriptures?
Here are the principal reasons, as far as I have been able to gather from the old preface to the books which they pretend to be apocryphal, printed at Neufchastel, in the translation of Peter Robert, otherwise Olivetanus, a relation and friend of Calvin, and again from the newer preface placed to the same books by the professors and pretended pastors of the Churhc of Geneva, 1588.
1. They are not found either in Hebrew or Chaldaic, in which languages they (except perhaps the Book of Wisdom) were originally written: therefore it would be very difficult to restore them.
2. They are not received as legitimate by the Jews.
3. Nor by the whole Church.
4. S. Jerome says they are not considered proper for corroborating the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrines.
5. Canon Law condemns them;
6. as does also the Gloss, which says they are read, but not generally, as if to say that they are not approved generally everywhere.
7. They have been corrupted and falsified, as Eusebius says (Hist. Eccl. Iv. 22.);
8. notably the Machabees,
9. and particularly the Second of Machabees, which S. Jerome says he did not find in Hebrew. Such are the reasons of Olivetanus.
10. ?There are in them many false things, says the new preface.
Let us now see what these fine researches are worth.
1. And as to the first, are you unwilling to receive these books because they are not in Hebrew or Chaldaic? Receive Tobias then, for S. Jerome attests that he translates it from Chaldaic into Latin, in the Epistle which you yourselves quote, (Ep. Ad Chrom. et Heliod.) which makes me think oyu are hardly in good faith. And why not Judith, which was also written in Chaldaic, as the same S. Jerome says in the prologue? And if S. Jerome says he was not able to find the Second of Machabees in the Hebrew,- what has that to do with the first? This then receive as it deserves; we will treat of the second afterwards. I say the same to you about Ecclesiasticus, which S. Jerome had and found in Hebrew, as he says in his preface on the books of Solomon. Since, then, you reject these books written in Hebrew or Chaldaic equally with the others which are not written in one of these languages, you will have to find another pretext than that which you have alleged for striking out thee books from the canon. When you say that you reject them because they are not written in Hebrew or Chaldaic, this is not your real reason; for you would not reject on this ground Tobias, Judith, the first of Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, which are written either in Hebrew or Chaldaic. But let us now speak in defence of the other books, which are written in a language other than that which you would have. Where do you find that the rule for rightly receiving the Holy Scriptures is that they should be written in these languages rather thanin Greek or Latin? You say that nothing must be received in matter of religion but what is written; and you bring forward in your grand preface the saying of jurisconsults: We blush to speak without a law. Do you not consider that the controversy about the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures is one of the most important in the sphere of religion? Well then, either remain confounded, or else produce the Holy Scripture for the negative which you maintain. The Holy Spirit certainly declares Himself as well in Greek as in Chaldaic. There would be, you say, great difficulty in restoring them, since we do not possess them in their original language, and it is this which troubles you. But, for God's sake, tell me who told you that they were lost, corrupted or altered, so as to need restoration? You take for granted, perhaps, that those who have translated them from the originals have translated badly, and you would have the original to compare them and judge them. Make your meaning clear then, and say that thery are therefore apocryphal because you cannot yourselves be the translators of them from the original, and cannot trust the judgment of the translator. So there is to be nothing certain except what you have had the control of. Show me this rule of certitude in the Scripture. Further, are you fully assured that you have the Hebrew texts of the books of the first rank, as pure and exact as they were in the time of the Apostles and of the Seventy? Beware of errors. You certainly do not aways follow then, and you could not, with good conscience. Show me this again in the Holy Scripture. Here, therefore, is your fisrt reason most wanting in reason.
2. As to your saying that these books which you call apocryphal are not received by the Jews, you say nothing new or important. S. Augustine loudly exclaims: It is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews. (De. Civ. Dei. Xviii. 36.) Show me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not as much power to give authority to the sacred books os the Mosaic may have had. There is not in this either Scripture or reason to show for it.
3. Yes, but the whole of the Church does not receive them, you say. Of what Church are you speaking? Unquestionably the Catholic, which is the true Church, receives them, as S. Augustine has just now borne witness to you, and he repeats it, citing the Council of Carthage. The Council in Trullo the 6th General, that of Florence, and a hundred ancient authors are thereto. I name S. Jerome, who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was received in the first Council [of Nice]. Perhaps you would say that of old time some Catholics doubted of their authority. This is clear from the division which I have made above. But does their doubt then make it impossible for their successors to come to a conclusion? Are we to say that if once cannot decide at the very first glance one must always remain waverign, uncertain, and irresolute? Was ther enot for some time an uncertainty about the Apocalypse and Esther? You would not dare to deny it: my witnesses for Esther are too sound, S. Athanasius (In Synopsi) and S. Gregory Nazainzen (In carm. de lib. sac.) : for the Apocalypse, the Council of Laodicea: and yet you receive them. Either receive them all, since they are in equal position, or receive none, on the same ground. But in God?s name what humour takes you that you here bring forward the Church, whose authority you hold to be a hundred times more uncertain than these books themselves, and which you say to have been erring, inconstant,- yea apocryphal, if apocryphal means hidden? You only prize it to despise it, and to make it appear inconstant, now recognizing, now rejecting these books.
But there is a great difference between doubting whether a thing is to be accepted and rejectign it. Doubt does nto hinder a subsequent resolution, indeed it is its preliminary stage. To reject presupposes a decision. Inconstancy does not consist in changing a doubt into resolution, but in changing from resolution to doubt. It is not instability to become settled after wavering, but to waver after being settled. The Church then, having for a time left these books in doubt, at length has received them with authentic decision, and you wish that from this resolution she should return into doubt. It belongs to heresy and not to the Church thus to advance from bad to worse. But of this elsewhere.
4. As for S. Jerome whom you allege, this is not to the purpose, since in his time the Church had not yet come to the resolution which she has come to since, as to the placing of these books on the canon, except that of Judith.
5. And the canon Sancta Romana, which is of Gelasius I.- I think you have taken it by guess, for it is entirely agaisnt you; because, while censuring the apocryphal books, it does not name one of these which we receive, but on the contrary witnesses that Tobias and the Macchabees were publicly received in the Church.
6. And the poor Gloss does not deserve to be thus glossed, since it clearly says that these books are read, though not perhaps generally. This ?perhaps? guards it from stating what is false, and you have forgotten it. And if it reckons the books in question as apocryphal, this is because it considered that apocryphal meant the having no certain author, and thereofre it includes as apocryphal the Book of Judges: and their statements are not so authentic that they must pass as decisive judgment; after all it is but a Gloss.
7. And these falsifications which you allege are not in any way sufficient to abolish the authority of these books, because they have been justified and have been purified from all corruption before the Church received them. Truly, all the books of Holy Scripture have been corrupted by the ancient enemies of the Church, but by the providence of God they have remained free and pure in the Church?s hands, as a sacred deposit; and they have never been able to spoil so many copies as that there should not remain enough to restore the others.
8.But you woould have the Machabees, at any rate, fall from our hands, when you say that they have been corrupted; but since you only advance a simple assertion I will return your pass by a simple negation.
9. S. Jerome, you say, could not find the Second in Hebrew; and although it is true that it is only as it were a letter which Israel sent to their Jewish brethen who were then out of Judea, and although it is written in the best known and most general language of those times, does it thence follow that it is not worthy to be received? The Egyptians used the Greek language much more than the Hebrew, as Ptolemy clearly showed when he procured the version of the Seventy. This is why this Second book of Machabees, which was like an epistle or commentary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew.
10. It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free-will, the honouring of relics, and similar points, which are expressly confirmed in the Books of Machabees, in Ecclesiasticus, and in other books which they pretend to be apocryphal. For God?s sake take care that your judgment does not deceive you. Why, I pray you, do you call false, things which the whole of antiquity has held as articles of faith? Why do you not rather censure your fancies which will not embrace the doctrine of these books, than censure these books which have been received for so long a time because they do not jump with your humour? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it; why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?
Here now, I think, are all your reasons scattered to the winds, and you can bring no more. But we may well say: if it be thus lawful indifferently to reject or make doubtful the authority of those Scriptures, about which there was formerly a doubt, though the Church has now decided, it will be necessary to reject or to doubt of a great part of the Old and the New Testament. It is then no little gain to the enemy of Christianity, to have at one stroke scratched out of the Holy Scripture so many noble parts. Let us proceed.
SECOND VIOLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES: BY THE RULE WHICH THESE REFORMERS BRING FORWARD TO DISTINGUISH THE SACRED BOOKS FROM THE OTHERS. AND OF SOME SMALLER PARTS THEY CUT OFF FROM THEM ACCORDING TO THIS RULE:
The crafty merchant keeps out the worst articles of his stock to offer first to buyers, to try if he can get rid of them and sell them to some simpleton. The reasons which these reformers have advanced in the preceding chapter are but tricks, as we have seen, which are used only as it were for amusement, to try whether some simple and weak brain will be content with them; and, in reality, when one comes to the grapple, they confess that not the authority of the Church, nor of S. Jerome, nor of the Gloss, nor of the Hebrew, is cause sufficient to receive or reject any Scripture. The following is their protestation of faith presented to the King of France by the French pretended reformers. After having placed on the list, in the third article, the books they are willing to receive, they write thus in the fourth article: ?We know these books to be canonical and a most safe rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which gives us to discern them from the other ecclesiasticla books.? Quitting then the field of the reasons preceding, and making for cover, they throw them selves into the interior, secret, and invisible persuasion which they consider to be produced in them by the Holy Spirit.
Now in truth it is judicious in them not to chose to rely in this point on the common accord and consent of the Church; for this common accord has placed on the canon Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees, as much as and as early as the Apocalypse, and yet they choose to receive this and to reject those. Judith, made authoritative by the grand and irreproachable Council of Nice, is blotted out by these reformers. They have reason then to confess that in the reception of canonical books, they do not accept the accord and consent of the Church, which was never greater or more solemn than in that first Council.
But, for God's sake notice the trick. We know, say they, these books to be canonical, not so much by the common consent and accord of the Church To hear them speak, would you not say that at least to some extent they let themselves be guided by the Church? Their speech is not sincere: it seems as if they did not altogethe refuse credit to the common accord of Christians, but only did not receive it as on the same level with their interior persuasion:- in all reality however, they hold it in no account at all: they are thus cautious in their language in order not to appear altogether arogant and unreasonable. For, I ask you, if they deferred as little as you please to ecclesiastical authority, why would they receive the Apocalypse rather than Judith or the Machabees? S. Augustine and S. Jerome are faithful witnesses to us that these have been unanimously received by the whole Catholic Church; and the Councils of Carthage, in Trullo, Florence, assure us thereof. Why then do they say that they do receive these sacred books not so much by the ocmmon accord of the Church or by interior persuasion, since the common accord of the Church has neither value nor place in the matter? It is their custom when they would bring forward some strange opinion not to speak clearly and frankly, in order to give the reader a better impression.
And now let us look at the rule they have for distinguishing the canonical books from the other elccleaiastical ones. The testimony, they say, and interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Good heavens! What obscurity, what dense fog, what shades of night! Are we not now fully enlightened in so important and grave a difference! The question is how one can tell these canonical books; we wish to have some rule to distinguish them; - and they offer us something that passes in the interior of the soul, which no one sees, nobody knows save the soul itself and its Creator!
(1) Show me clearly that when you tell me that such and such an inspiration exists; in your conscience you are not telling a lie. You say that you feel this persuasion within you. But why am I bound to believe you? Is your word so powerful that I am forced under its authority to believe that you think and feel what you say. I am willing to hold you as good people enough, but when there is question of the foundations of my faith, as of receiving or rejecting the Ecclesiastical Scriptures, I find neither your ideas nor your words steady enough to serve me as a base.
(2.) Show me clearly that these inspirations and persuasions that you pretend to have are of the Holy Spirit. Who knows not that the spirit of darkness very often appears in clothing of light ?
(3.) Does this spirit grant his persuasions indifferently to everyone. Or only to some particular persons? If to every one, how does it happen that so many millions of Catholics have never perceived them, nor so many women, working-people, and others among yourselves ?If it is to some in particular, show them me, I beg, you,-and why to these rather than to others ? What mark will you give me to know them and to pick them out from the crowd of the rest of men ? Must I believe in the first who shall say: here you are? This would be to put ourselves too much at a venture and at the mercy of deceivers. Show me then some infallible rule to recognise these inspired ones, these persuaded ones, or else permit me to credit none of them.
(4.) But, in conscience, do you think that the interior persuasion is a sufficient means to distinguish the Holy Scriptures, and put the nations out of doubt? How comes it then that Luther throws off the Epistle of S. James, which Calvin receives? Try to harmonise, I pray you, this spirit and his persuasions, who persuades the one to reject what he persuades the other to receive. You will say, perhaps, that Luther is mistaken. He will say as much of you. Which is to be believed? Luther ridicules Ecclesiastes, he considers Job a fable. Will you oppose him your persuasion? He will oppose you his. So this spirit, divided against himself, will leave you no other conclusion except to grow thoroughly obstinate, each in his own opinion.
(5.) Then what reason is there that the Holy Spirit should give inspirations as to what every one must believe to nobodies, to Luther, to Calvin, they having abandoned without any such inspiration the Councils and the entire Church. We do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had a thousand times revealed a thing to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity in question. But we see nothing of this among your reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the Spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts; an absurdity.
Now if the Scripture is not violated and its majesty offended by the setting up of these interior and private inspirations, it never was nor will be violated. For by this means the door is open to every one to receive or reject of the Scriptures what shall seem good to him. Why shall one allow Calvin to cut off Wisdom or the Machabees, and not Luther to remove the Epistle of S. James or the Apocalypse, or Castalio the Canticle of Canticles, or the Anabaptists the Gospel of S. Mark, or another person Genesis and Exodus? If all protest that they have interior revelation why shall we believe one rather than another, so that this rule supposed to be sacred on account of the Holy Spirit, will be violated by the audacity of every deceiver.
Recognise, I pray you, the stratagem. They have taken away all authority from Tradition, the Church, the Councils, what more remains? The Scripture. The enemy is crafty: if he would take all away at one stroke he would cause alarm. He starts a certain and infallible method of getting rid of it bit by bit, and very gradually: that is, this idea of interior inspiration, by which everybody can receive or reject what seems good to him. And in fact consider a little how the process works itself out. Calvin removes and erases from the canon Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees; Luther takes away the Epistle of S. James, of S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, and holds Job a fable. In Daniel, Calvin has erased the Canticle of the Three Children, the history of Susanna and that of the dragon of Bel; also a great part of Esther. In Exodus, at Geneva and elsewhere among these reformers, they have cut out the twenty-second verse of the second chapter, which is of such weight that neither the Seventy nor the other translators would ever have written it if it had not been in the original. Beza casts a doubt over the history of the adulteress in the Gospel of S. John (S. Augustine warns us that already the enemies of Christianity had erased it from their books; but not from all,as S. Jerome says). In the mysterious words of the Eucharist, do they not try to overthrow the authority of those words: Which shall be shed for you, because the Greek text [* see footnote] clearly shows that what was in the chalice was not wine, but the blood of Our Saviour? As if one were to say in French: Ceci est la coupe du nouveau Testament en mon sang, laquelle sera respandiie pour vous. For in this way of speaking that which is in the cup must be the true blood, not the wine; since the wine has not been shed for us but the blood, and the cup cannot be poured out except by reason of what it contains. What is the knife with which one has made so many amputations? This tenet of private inspiration. What is it that makes you reformers so bold to cut away one this piece, another that, and the other something else? The pretext of these interior persuasions of the Spirit, which makes them supreme each in his own idea, in judging as to the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures. On the contrary, gentlemen, S. Augustine protests For my part, I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto." (Conta Ep. Fund. V) And elsewhere: "We receive the New and the Old Testament in that number of books which the authority of the Catholic Church determines." (Sermo de Temp. cxci) The Holy Spirit can give his inspirations as he likes, but as to the establishment of the public and general belief of the faithful, he only directs us to the Church. It is hers to propose which are the true Scriptures and which are not.
* Note to in the Dative, agreeing with aimati but to in the Nominative, agreeing with poterion. The Saint represents this in French by the change of gender. It is not clearly expressed in the Latin, and our English translation would seem to favour the wrong meaning. Shall be poured out is more correct, but still ambiguous. [Tr.]
CHAPTER VI
ANSWER TO AN OBJECTION
BUT here is the difficulty.If these books were not from the beginning of undoubted authority in the Church, who can give them this authority? In truth the Church cannot give truth or certitude to the Scripture, or make a book canonical if it were not so, but the Church can make a book known as canonical, and make us certain of its certitude, and is fully able to declare that a book is canonical which is not held as such by every one, and thus to give it credit in Christendom; not changing the substance of the book which of itself was canonical, but changing the persuasion of Christians, making it quite assured where previously it had not been so.
But how can the Church herself define that a book is canonical? For she is no longer guided by new revelations but by the old Apostolic ones, of which she has infallibility of interpretation. And if the Ancients have not had the revelation of the authority of a book, how then can she know it? She considers the testimony of antiquity, the conformity which this book has with the others which are received, and the general relish which the Christian people find in it. For as we can know what is a proper and wholesome food for animals when we see them fond of it and feed on it with advantage, so, when the Church sees that the Christian people heartily relishes a book as canonical and gains good from it, she may know that it is a fit and wholesome meat for Christian souls; and as when we would know whether one wine is of the same vintage as another we compare them, observing whether the colour, the smell and the taste are alike in the two, so when the Church has properly decided that a book has a taste, colour and smell and holiness of style, doctrine and mysteries- like to the other canonical books, and besides has the testimony of many good and irreproachable witnesses of antiquity, she can declare the book to be true brother of the other canonical ones. And we must not doubt that the Holy Spirit assists the Church in this judgment: for your ministers themselves confess that God has given the Holy Scriptures into her charge, and say that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar and ground of the truth.(1 Tim. 3:15) And how would she guard them if she could not know and separate them from the mixture of other books? And how important is it for the Church that she should be able to know in proper time and season which Scriptures is holy and which not: for if she received such and such Scripture as holy and it was not, she would lead us into superstition; and if she refused the honour and belief which befit God's Word to a holy Scripture, it would be an impiety. If ever then Our Lord defends his Church against the gates of hell if the Holy Spirit assisted her so closely that she could say: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us, (Acts 15:28) -we must firmly believe that he inspires her on occasion of such great consequences as these; for it would indeed be to abandon her at her need if he left her at this juncture, on which depends not only an article or two of our faith, but the substance of our religion. When, therefore, the Church has declared that a book is canonical, we must never doubt but that it is so. We [are] here in the same position. For Calvin and the very bibles of Geneva, and the Lutherans, receive several books as holy, sacred, and canonical which have not been acknowledged by all the Ancients as such, and about which there has been a doubt. If there has been a doubt formerly, what reason can they have to make them assured and certain nowadays, except that which S. Augustine had [as we said above]: "I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me ; " and " We receive the New and the Old Testament in that number of books which the authority of the Holy Catholic Church determines." Truly we should be very ill assured if we were to rest our faith on these particular interior inspirations, of which we only know that they exist or ever did exist, by the testimony of some private persons. And granted that they are or have been, we do not know whether they are from the false or of the true spirit ; and supposing they are of the true spirit, we do not know whether they who relate them, relate them faithfully or not, since they have no mark of infallibility whatever. We should deserve to be wrecked if we were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable skiff of these new discordant private inspirations. Our faith would not be Catholic, but private.
But before I quit this subject, I pray you, reformers tell me whence you have taken the canon of the Scriptures which you follow? You have not taken it fron the Jews, for the books of the Gospels would not be there, nor from the Council of Laodicea, for the Apocalypse would not be in it; or from the Councils of Carthage or of Florence, for Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees would be there. Whence, then, have you taken it? In good sooth, like canon was never spoken of before your time. The Church never saw canon of the Scriptures in which there was not either more or less than in yours. What likelihood is there that the Holy Spirit has hidden himself from all antiquity, and that after 1500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures? For our part we follow exactly the list of the Council of Laodicea with the addition made at the Councils of Cart age and Florence. Never will a man of judgment leave these Councils to follow the persuasions of private individuals. Here, then, is the fountain and source of all the violations which have been made of this holy rule; namely, when people have taken up the fancy of not receiving it save by the measure and rule of the inspirations which each one believes and thinks he feels.
CHAPTER VII
HOW GREATLY THE REFORMERS HAVE VIOLATED THE INTEGRITY OF THE SCRIPTURES
Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardour of a holy zeal, and from entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry, Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! 0 ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the sacred body of the Bibles? You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees: why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church; but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of S. James and S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the two last of S. John, and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those? Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed: Ecclesasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free-will and the honour of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions: you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies: how will you ever cleanse yourselves from this sacrilege ? Have you degraded the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias, and the rest, because some of the Ancients have doubted of their authority ? Why then do you receive the other books, about which there has been as much doubt as about these ? What can you oppose to them except that their doctrine is hard for you to accept ? Open your heart to faith, and you will easily receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them : rather condemn your presumption, and receive the Scripture. I would chiefly lay stress on the authority of those books which exercise you the most. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 5, &c.), Cyprian (Ep. lxv.), Ambrose (de fide iv.), Augustine (Ep. ad Oros. contra Prise.), and the rest of the Fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. S. Cyprian (Serm. de op et Deem.), S. Ambrose (lib. de Tobid, i.), S. Basil (de avar.), honour Tobias as Holy Scripture. S. Cyprian again (de exhort. mar.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (orat. de Mach.), S. Ambrose (de Tacob et vit beat. x. xi.), believed the same of the Machabees. S. Augustine protests that: "it is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews. "What will you say to this ? that the Jews had them not in their catalogues ? S. Augustine acknowledges it; but are you Jews, or Christians? If you would be called Christians, be satisfied that the Christian Church receives them.
Is the light of the Holy Spirit extinguished with the synagogue? Had not our Lord and the Apostles as much power as the synagogue? Although the Church has not taken authority for her books from the mouth of the Scribes and Pharisees, will it not suffice that she has taken it from the testimony of the Apostles ? Now we must not think that the ancient Church and these most ancient doctors would have had the boldness to rank these books as canonical, if they had not had some direction by the tradition of the Apostles and their disciples who could know in what rank the Master himself held them; unless, to excuse our imaginations, we are to accuse of profanation, and of sacrilege, such holy and grave doctors as these, and the whole ancient Church. I say the ancient Church, because the Council of Carthage, Gelasius in the decree de libris canonicas, Innocent I in the epistle to Exuperius, and S. Augustine, lived before S. Gregory, before whose time Calvin confesses that the Church was still in its purity, and yet these bear witness that all the books which we held to be canonical when Luther appeared were already so in their time. If you would destrov the credit of those holy books. why which there has been so much doubt, and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews? But I return to you, gentlemen of Thonon, who have hitherto given ear to such men; I beseech you, let us say in conscience, is there any likelihood that Calvin knows better what grounds they had who anciently doubted of these books, and what grounds they who doubted not, than the Bishops and Councils of these days? And still, all things well considered, antiquity received them; what do we allege to the contrary ? Oh! if it were lawful for men, in order to raise their opinions on horseback, to use the Scripture as stirrups, to lengthen and shorten them, each one to his own size, where, I beg you, should we be? Do you not perceive the stratagem? All authority is taken away from Tradition, the Church, the Councils, the Pastors: what further remains?The Scripture. The enemy is crafty. If he would tear it all away at once he would cause an alarm; he takes away a great part of it in the very beginning, then first one piece, then the other, at last he will have you stripped entirely, without Scripture and without Word of God.
Calvin takes away seven books of the Scripture: (In prologis Bib. Et horum lib.) Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and the Machabees; Luther has removed the Epistle of S. James, that of S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, the 2nd and 3rd of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, he holds Job as a fable. Reconcile, I pray you this false spirit, who takes away from Luther's brain what he puts back in that of Calvin. Does this seem to you a trifling discord between these two evangelists? You will say you do not hold Luther's intelligence in great account; his party think no better of that of Calvin. But see the progress of your fine church, how she ever pushes on further. Calvin had removed seven books, she has further thrown out the 8th, that of Esther ; [note: later reformers accepted Esther as canonoical] in Daniel she cuts off the canticle of the Three Children (c. iii.), the history of Susanna (c. xiii.), and that of the dragon slain by Daniel (xiv). In the Gospel of S. John is there not doubt among you of the history of the woman taken in adultery? S. Augustine had indeed said formerly that the enemies of the faith had erased it from their books, but not from all, as S. Jerome says. Do they not wish to take away these words of S. Luke (xxii. z0), which shall be shed for you, because the Greek text clearly shows that what was in the chalice was not wine but the true blood of our Lord ? As if one were to say in French: Cecy est la coupe du Nouveau Testament, en mon sang, laquelle sera respandue pour vous: this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which (chalice) shall be shed for you? For in this way of speaking one sees clearly that what is in the cup must be the blood, not wine, since the wine has not been shed for us, but the blood. In the Epistle of S. John have they not taken away these noble words: every spirit. who dissolveth Jesus is not of God (iv. 3)? What say you, gentlemen ? If your church continues in this liberty of conscience, making no scruple to take away what she pleases, soon the Scripture will fail you, and you will have to be satisfied with the Institutes of Calvin, which must indeed have I know not what excellence, since they censure the Scriptures themselves!
CHAPTER VIII.
HOW THE MAJESTY OF THE SCRIPTURES HAS BEEN VIOLATED IN THE INTERPRETATIONS AND VERSIONS OF THE HERETICS
SHALL I say further this word? Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and violated by its translations. In order that the sectaries of this age may altogether pervert this first and most holy rule of our faith, they have not been satisfied with shortening it or with getting rid of so many beautiful parts, but they have turned and turned it about, each one as he chose, and instead of adjusting their ideas by this rule they have adopted it to the square of their own greater or less sufficiency. The Church had universally received (more than a thousand years ago) the Latin version which the Catholic Church proposes; S. Jerome, that most learned man, was the author, or corrector of it; when, our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the spirit of giddiness,(Isa. xix. 14) which has so led astray these refurbishers of old opinions formerly current, that everybody has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, and always according to the inclination of his own judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God. Herein who sees not the profanation of this sacred vase of the holy letter, in which was preserved the precious balm of the Evangelical doctrine? For would it not have been a profanation of the Ark of the Covenant to maintain that everybody might seize it, carry it home, take it all to pieces, and then give it what form he liked provided that it had some semblance of an ark? And what but this is it to maintain that one may take the Scriptures and turn and adjust them according to one's own sense? And in just the same way, as soon as we are assured that the ordinary edition of the church is so out of shape that it must be built up again new, and that a private man is to set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is open to presumption. For if Luther dares to do it, why not Erasmus? And if Erasmus, why not Calvin or Melancthon, why not Henricus Mercerus, Sebastian Castalio, Beza, and the rest of the world, provided that they know some verses of Pindar and four or five words of Hebrew, and have close by some good Thesaurus of the one or other language? And how can so many translations be made by brains so different, without the complete overthrow of the sincerity of the Scripture? What say you? that the ordinary version is corrupt? We allow that transcribers and printers have let certain ambiguities of very slight importance slip in (if, however, anything in the Scripture can be called of slight importance). The Council of Trent commanded that these should be taken out, and that for the future care should be taken to print as correctly as possible. For the rest, there is nothing in it which is not most conformable to the meaning of the Holy Spirit who is its author, as has been shown by so many learned men of our Church, (Genebrard in prcef. Psalt.; Titelman, Toletus, in apol. Bellarminus et a1ii.) opposing the presumption of these new reformers of religion, that it would be losing time to try to speak more of it; besides that it would be folly in me to wish to speak of the correctness of translations, who never well knew how to read with the points in one of the languages necessary for this knowledge, and am hardly more learned in the other. But how have you improved matters? Everybody has held to his own views, everybody has despised his neighbour's; they have turned it about as they liked, but no one speaks of his comrade's version. What is this but to overthrow the majesty of the Scripture, and to bring it into contempt with the people, who think that this diversity of editions comes rather from the uncertainty of the Scriptures than from the variety of the translators, a variety which alone ought to put us in assurance concerning the ancient translation, which, as the Council says, the Church has so long, so constantly, and so unanimously approved.
An example or two will suffice. In the Acts (ii. 27.), where there is: Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell (animam in inferno), they make it: Thou shalt not leave my corpse in the tomb (Cadaver in sepulchro). Whoever saw such versions ? Instead of soul (and it is Our Lord who is spoken of) to say carrion, and instead of hell to say sepulchre! Peter Martyr (in def. de Euch. p. 3a, p. 392) cites I Cor. x. 3, and they all eat the same spiritual food as we (nobiscum) he inserts this nobiscum to prove his point. I have seen in several bibles in this country a very subtle falsehood, in the mysterious words of the institution of the most Holy Sacrament: instead of hoc est corpus meum, cecy est mon corps: they had put: c?est cy mon corps. (Here is my body, instead of this is my body). Who does not perceive the deceit?
You see something then of the violence and profanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures what think you of their ways? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and the letters in Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy ? I have therefore shown you what I promised, that this first rule of our faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your pretended church; and that you may know it to be a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, I will close this part of my subject with what Tertullian says, (de Proescr. xvii) speaking of the sects of his time. ?This heresy ? [of the Gnostics] says he "does not receive some of the Scriptures ; and if it receives -some it does not receive them whole...and what receives in a certain sense whole it still perverts, devising various interpretations."
CHAPTER IX
OF THE PROFANATIONS CONTAINED IN THE VERSIONS MADE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUE.
BUT if the case be thus with the Latin versions, how great are the contempt and profanation shown in the French, German, Polish, and other languages ! And yet here is one of the most successful artifices adopted by the enemy of Christianity and of unity in our age, to attract the people. He knew the curiosity of men, and how much one esteems one's own judgment; and therefore he has induced his sectaries to translate the Holy Scriptures, every one into the tongue of the province where he finds himself placed, and to maintain this unheard-of opinion, that every one is capable of understanding the Scriptures, that all should read them, and that the public offices should be celebrated and sung in the vulgar tongue of each district.
But who sees not the artifice ? There is nothing in the world which, passing through many hands, does not change and lose it first lustre: wine which has been often poured out and poured back loses its freshness and strength, wax when handled changes its colour, coins lose their stamp. Be sure also that Holy Scripture, passing through so many translators, in so many versions and re-versions, cannot but be altered. And if in the Latin versions there is such a variety of opinion among these turners of Scripture, how much more in their vernacular and mother-tongue editions, which not every one is able to check or to criticise ? It gives a very great license to translators to know that they will only be tested by those of their own province. Every district has not such clear seeing eyes as France and Germany. " Are we sure," says a learned profane writer,(Montaigne. Essaies I. 56) "that in the Basque province and in Brittany there are persons of sufficient judgment to give authority to this translation made into their tongue; the universal Church has no more arduous decision to give; "it is Satan's plan for corrupting the integrity of this holy Testament. He well knows the result of disturbing and poisoning the source; it is at once to spoil all that comes after.
But let us be frank. Do we not know that the Apostles spoke all tongues ? How is it then that their gospels and their epistles are only in Hebrew, as S -Jerome witnesses (Prol. in Matt.) of the Gospel of S. Matthew; in Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark; * (* In Pontificali Damasi. The Saint mentions the opinion, be he himself held the now universal sentiment of Doctors that S. Mark wrote in Greek.[Tr.]) and in Greek, as is held concerning the other Gospels? which were the three languages chosen at Our Lord's very cross for the preaching of the Crucified. Did they not carry the Gospel throughout the world ? and in the world were there no other languages but these three ? Truly there were and yet they did not judge it expedient to vary their writings in so many languages. Who then shall despise the custom of our Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the Apostles?
[ Of this we have a notable trace and evidence in the Gospel : for the day Our Lord entered into Jerusalem, the crowds kept crying out Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he that comet& in the name of the Lord: hosanna in the highest (Matt. xxi. 9.) And this word, hosanna, has been left in its integrity in the Greek text of S. Mark and S. John, to signify that it was the very word of the people. Now hosanna, or hosaanna (for one is the same as the other in this language, the learned tell us) is a Hebrew, not a Syriac word, taken, with the rest of that praise which was given to Our Lord, from the 117th Psalm. These people then were accustomed to recite the Psalms in Hebrew; yet the Hebrew was no longer their vulgar tongue , as one may see by several words said in the Gospel by Our Lord, which were Syriac and which the Evangelists have retained : as Abba, Haceldama, Golgotha, Pascha, and others.Learned men tell us that these were not Hebrew but Syraic, though they may be called Hebrew as being of the vernacular tongue of the Hebrews after the captivity of Babylon.]
Now for this, besides the great weight it should have to put down all our curious questionings, there is a reason which I hold to be most sound it is that these other languages are not fixed, they change between town and town; in accents, in phrases, and in words, they are altered, and vary from season to season and from age to age. Take up the Memoires of the Sire de Joinville, or of Philip de Comines, and you will see that time has entirely altered their language; and yet these historians must have been among the most polished of their age, both having been brought up at Court. If then we were to have (particularly for the public services) bibles each in our own tongue, every fifty years it would be necessary to have a revolution, and in every case with adding to, or taking away from, or altering, much of the holy exactness of the Scripture, which could not be done without a great loss. In short, it is more than reasonable that so holy a rule as is the holy Word of God should be kept in fixed languages, since it could not be maintained in this perfect integrity within bastard and unstable languages.
But I inform you that the holy Council of Trent does not reject translations in the vulgar tongue printed by the authority of the Ordinaries; only it commands (Reg. iv. Indicis.) that we should not begin to read them without leave of superiors. This is a very reasonable precaution against putting this sharp and two-edged sword ( Heb. iv. 12) into the hands of one who might kill himself therewith. But of this we will speak by and by.
The Church, then, does not approve that everybody who can read, without further assurance of his capacity than that which he persuades himself of in his own presumption, should handle this sacred memorial, nor truly is it right that she should so approve.
I remember to have read in an Essay of the Sieur de Montaigne's (see above), "It is certainly wrong that there should be seen tossing about in everybody's hands, in parlour and in kitchen, the holy book of the sacred mysteries of our belief. . . . It is not casually or hurriedly that we are to prosecute so serious and venerable a study; it should be a reflective and steady act, to which should always be added that preface of our office: sursum corda, and for which the body itself should be brought into a behaviour which may betoken a particular attention and reverence . . . and I moreover believe that liberty for everybody to translate it, and by this means to dissipate words so religious and important into all sorts of languages, has much more danger than profit."
The Council also commands (Sess. ii) that the public services of the Church shall not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, but in a fixed language, each one according to the ancient formularies approved by the Church. This decree takes its reasons from what I have already said; for if it is not expedient thus to translate, at every turn, province by province, the venerable text of the Scripture, the greatest part, and we may say all, that is in the offices being taken from the Holy Scripture, it is also not becoming to give these in French. Indeed, is there not a greater danger in reciting the Holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue at public services, on this account that not only the old but little children, not only the wise but the foolish, not only men but women, in short both he who knows and he who knows not how to read, may all take occasion of erring, each one as he likes? Read the passages of David where he seems to murmur against God concerning the prosperity of the wicked; you will see the unwise people justify themselves by this in their impatience. Read where he seems to demand vengeance against his enemies, and the spirit of vengeance will cloak itself under this. Let them see those heavenly and entirely divine loves in the Canticle of Canticles; from not knowing how to spiritualize them these will only profit them unto evil. And that word of Osee (i.2): Vade et fac tibi filios fornicationes, and those acts of the ancient Patriarchs, would they not give license to fools ? But pray give us some little reason why we should have the Scrip tures and Divine Services in the vulgar tongue. To learn doctrine thereby? But surely the doctrine cannot be therein found unless we open the bark of the letter, in which is contained the intelligence: I will show this directly in its place. What is useful for this purpose is not the reciting of the service but preaching, in which the Word of God is not only pronounced but expounded by the pastor. And who is he, however well furnished at all points (tant houppe soft il et ferre), who can understand without study the prophecies of Ezechiel, and others, and the Psalms? What, then, will the people do with them when they hear them except profane them and cast a doubt on them.
At any rate we who are Catholics must in no wise bring down our sacred offices into vernacular languages; but rather, as our Church is universal in time and in place, it ought also to celebrate public offices in a language which is universal in time and in place, as is Latin in the West, Greek in the East; otherwise our priests could not say Mass nor others understand them outside their own countries. The unity and the great extension of our brethren require that we should say our public prayers in a language which shall be common to all peoples. In this way our prayers are universal, by means of the number of persons who in each province can understand Latin, and it seems to me, in conscience, that this reason alone should suffice; for if we consider rightly, our prayers are heard no less in Latin than in French. Let us divide the body of a commonwealth into three parts, according to the ancient French division, or, according to the new, into four; there are four sets of persons: the clergy, the nobility, they of the long robe, and the people or third estate. The three first understand Latin or should understand it, if they do not rather make it their own language; there remains the lowest rank, of which, again, a part understand; and truly as for the rest, if one do not speak the jargon of their country, it is only with great difficulty that they could understand the simple narrative of the Scripture. That most excellent theologian, Robert Bellarmine, relates, having heard it from a most trustworthy source, that a good dame in England having heard a minister read the twenty-fifth chapter of Ecclesiasticus (though they only hold it to be an ancient book, not a canonical one), because it there speaks the wickedness of women, rose up, saying: What !-is this the Word of God? of the devil rather. He quotes from Theodoret an excellent and true word of S. Basil the Great. The chief of the Emperor's kitchen wishing to play the sage, began to bring forward certain passages of the Scripture: "It is yours [said the Saint] to mind your dishes, not to cook divine dogmata" as if he had said : Occupy yourself with tasting your sauces, not with devouring the divine Word.
CHAPTER X.
OF THE PROFANATION OF THE SCRIPTURES THROUGH THE FACILITY THEY PRETEND THERE IS IN UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE.
THE imagination must have great power over Huguenot understandings, since it persuades them so absolutely of this grand absurdity, that the Scriptures are easy to everybody, and that everybody can understand them. It is true that to bring forth vulgar translations with honour it was necessary to speak in this manner; but tell me the truth, do you think that the case really runs so? Do you find them so easy, do you understand them so well? If you think you do, I admire your credulity, which goes not only beyond experience, but is contrary to what you see and feel. If it is true that the Scripture is so easy to understand, what is the use of so many commentaries made by your ministers, what is the object of so many harmonies, what is the good of so many schools of Theology ? here is need of no more, say you, than the doctrine of the pure word of God in the Church. But where is this word of God? In the Scripture? And Scripture-is it some secret thing ? No-you say not to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these preachers? If you are faithful, you will understand the Scriptures as well as they do; send them off to unbelievers, and simply keep some deacons to give you the morsel of bread and pour out the wine of your supper. If you can feed yourselves in the field of the Scripture, what do you want , with pastors? Some young innocent, some mere child who is able to read, will do just as well. But whence comes this continual and irreconcilable discord which there is among you, brethren in Luther, over these words, This is my body, and on Justification ? Certainly S. Peter is not of your thinking, who assures us in his 2nd Epistle (iii.16) that in the letters of S. Paul there are certain points hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scripture to their own Perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general, of Ethiopia was certainly faithful.(Acts viii) since he came to adore in the Temple of Jerusalem; he was reading Isaias ; he quite understood the words, since he asked of what prophet that which he had read was to be understood ; yet still he had not the understanding nor the spirit of them, as he himself confessed: How can I, unless some one shows me? Not only does he not understand, but he confesses that he has not the power unless he is taught. And we shall see some washerwoman boast of understanding the Scripture as well as S. Bernard did! Do you not know the spirit of discord ? It is necessary to convince oneself that the Scripture is easy in order that everybody may drab it about, some one way, some another, that each one may be a master in it, and that it may serve everybody's opinions and fancies. Certainly David held it to be far from easy when he said (Ps. Cxviii. 73) Give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments If they have left you the Epistle of S. Jerome to Paulinus in the preface of your bibles, read it, for it treats this point expressly. S. Augustine speaks of it in a thousand places, but particularly in his Confessions. In the 119th Epistle he confesses that there is much more in the Scripture of which he is ignorant than there is of what he knows. Origen and S. Jerome, the former in his preface on the Canticles, the latter in his on Ezechiel say that it was not permitted to the Jews before the age of thirty to read the three first chapters of Genesis, the commencement and the end of Ezechiel, or the Canticle of Canticles, on account of the depth of the difficulties therein, in which few persons can swim without being submerged. And now, everybody talks of them, everybody criticises them, everybody knows all about them.
And how great the profanation of the Scriptures is in this way nobody could sufficiently believe who had not seen it. As for me, I will say what I know, and I lie not. I have seen a person in good society who, when one objected to an expression of hers the sentence of Our Lord (Luke vi: 29) To him that striketh thee on the one cheek offer also the other,-immediately explained it in this sense: that as to encourage a child who studies well we lay our hand lightly with little pats upon his cheek to excite him to do better, so Our Lord meant to say be so grateful to one who may find you doing right and who may caress you for it that he may take occasion another time to treat you still better and to caress or fondle you on both sides. Is not that a fine meaning and a precious ? But the reason was even better,-that to understand this text otherwise would be against nature, and that while we must interpret Scripture by Scripture, we find in Scripture that Our Lord did not do so when the servant struck him: this is the fruit of your translated theology. An honest man, and one who in my opinion would not lie, has related to me that he heard a minister of this country, treating of the Nativity of Our Lord, assert that he was not born in a crib, and expound the text (which is express on the other side) figuratively, saying: Our Lord also says that he is the vine, yet for all that he is not one; in the same way, although it is said that he is born in a crib, yet born there he is not, but in some honourable place which in comparison with his greatness might be called a crib. The character of this interpretation leads me still more to believe the man who told me, for being simple and unable to read he could hardly have made it up. It is a most curious thing to see how this pretended enlightenment causes the Holy Scripture to be profaned. Is it not doing what God says in Ezechiel (xxxiv. 18): Was it not enough for you to feed upon good pastures; but you must also tread down with your feet the residue of the pastures?
CHAPTER XI.
ON THE PROFANATION OF THE SCRIPTURES IN THE VERSIFIED PSALMS USED BY THE PRETENDED REFORMERS BUT amongst all profanations it seems to me that this comes out above the rest, that in the temples publicly, and everywhere, in the fields, in the shops, they sing the rhymes of Marot as Psalms of David. The mere incompetence of the author, who was utterly ignorant; his licentiousness, which he testifies by his writings; his most profane life, which had nothing whatever of the Christian about it, caused him to be refused the communion of the Church. And yet his name and his psalms are, as it were, sacred in your churches; they are recited among you as if they were David's, -whereas who sees not how the sacred word is violated? The measure and restrictions of verse make it impossible that the sacred meaning of the Scripture words should be followed; he mixes in his own to make sense, and it becomes necessary for this ignorant rhymester to choose one sense in places where there might be several. What! is it not an extreme violation and profanation to have left to such an empty-headed witling a judgment of such great consequence, and then in the public prayers to follow as closely this buffoon's selection as one ever did formerly the interpretation of the Seventy, who were so particularly assisted by the Holy Spirit ? How many words and how many sentences has he secreted therein which were never in the Scriptures?
This is a very different thing from ill-pronouncing Scibboleth.(Judges xii. 6) At the same time it is well known that there is nothing which has so delighted busybodies, and above all women, as this authorisation to sing in the church and at the meetings. Certainly we forbid no one to sing devoutly, modestly, and becomingly ; but it seems more proper that Ecclesiastics and their deputies should sing as a general rule, as was done in the Dedication of Solomon's Temple. O how delightful to get one's voice heard in the church! But do they not betray you in the songs they make you utter ? I have not leisure or convenience for going into the matter further. When you shout these verses of the 8th Psalm :-Thou hast made him such that no more remains to him except to be God; but as to all else thou hast, &c.--how delighted you are to be able to chant and sing these French rhymes Marottes. It would be much better to keep to the Latin than to blaspheme in French. Accept this warning. When you sing this verse, whom do you suppose you speak of? You speak of Our Lord, unless, to excuse the audacity of Marot and of your church, you also erase the Epistle to the Hebrews from the holy Bible: for S. Paul clearly there (ii. 6, 7, 8) expounds this verse of Our Lord. And if you speak of Our Lord, why do you say he is such that no more now remains for him except to be God? Questionless if anything now remains to him to be God he will never be it. What say you, poor people ?-that it "remains" for Jesus Christ to be God? See how those men make you swallow the poisoned morsel of Arianism, in singing these sorry rhymes. I am no longer astonished that Calvin confessed to Valentine Gentilis, that the Name of God by excellence belongs only to the Father. Behold the splendid eversions of the Scripture with which you are well pleased; behold the blasphemies which your Church sings in a body, and which she makes you repeat so often.
And as to this fashion of having the Psalms sung indifferently in all places and during all occupations, who sees not that it is a contempt of religion ? Is it not to offend His Divine Majesty to say to him words as excellent as those of the Psalms, without any reverence or attention? To say prayers after the manner of common talking, is this not a mocking of him to whom we speak ? When we see at Geneva or elsewhere a shop-boy laughing during the singing of the Psalms, and breaking the thread of a most beautiful prayer, to say: What will you buy, sir ? do we not clearly see that he is making an accessary of the principal, and that it is only for pastime that he was singing this divine song, which he at the same time believes to be of the Holy Spirit ? Is it not good to hear cooks singing the penitential Psalms of David, and asking at each verse for the bacon, the capon, the partridge! "That voice," says De Montaigne, "is too divine to have no other use than to exercise the lungs and please the ears." I allow that all places are good to pray in privately, and the same holds good of every occupation which is not sin, provided that we pray in spirit, because God sees the interior wherein lies the chief and substantial part of prayer. But I consider that he who prays in public ought to make exterior demonstration of the reverence which the very words he is uttering demand: otherwise he scandalises his neighbour, who is not bound to think there is religion in the interior when he sees the contempt in the exterior. I hold, then, that both in singing as divine Psalms what is very often an imagination of Marot's, and in singing them irreverently and without respect, they very often sin in that reformed church of yours against that word: God is a spirit, and those who adore him, must adore him in spirit and in truth. (John iv. 23) For besides that in these Psalms you very often attribute to the Holy Ghost the conceptions of Marot contrary to the truth, the mouth also cries in streets and kitchens: O Lord! O Lord! when the heart and the spirit are not there but in traffic and gain, as Isaias says (xxix. 13): You draw near God with your mouth, and with your lips glorify him, but you heart is far from him, and you have feared him according to the commandments and doctrines of men. It is quite true that this impropriety of praying without devotion occurs very often among Catholics, but it is not with the advertence of the Church: and I am not now blaming particular members of your party, but your body in general, which by its versions and liberties bring into profane use what should be treated with the greatest reverence. In chapter 14. Of the 1st of Corinthians, the Let women keep silence in the churches seems to be understood of hymns (cantiques) as much as of the rest: our nuns are in oratorio non in ecclesia.
CHAPTER XII.
ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS; AND CONCLUSION OF THIS FIRST ARTICLE
Now follows what you allege in your defence. S. Paul seems (Cor. xiv.) to want to have the service performed in a language intelligible to the Corinthians; you will see that at the same time he does not wish the service to be diversified with all sorts of languages, but only that the exhortations and hymns which were uttered by means of the gift of tongues should be interpreted, in order that the Church where any one might be should know what was said: And therefore he that speaketh by a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret. He intends, then, that the praises which were made at Corinth should be made in Greek: for as they were made not now as ordinary services, but as the extraordinary hymns of those who had this gift, for the gladdening of the people, it was reasonable that they should be made in intelligible language, or be at once interpreted. This he seems to show when he says lower down: If, therefore, the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad? And further on: If any spealy with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God. Who sees not that he is not speaking of the solemn offices in the Church, which were only performed by the pastor, but of the hymns which were made through the gift of tongues, which he wished to be understood ? for in truth if they were not, it distracted the assembly, and was of no benefit. Several ancient Fathers speak of these hymns, and amongst others Tertullian, who, treating of the holiness of the agapes or love feasts of the ancients, says: "After the washing of hands and the lamps,-each one is pressed to sing publicly to God as he is able, out of the Holy Scriptures or his own heart." (Apol. xxxix.)
This people glorify me with their lips, but their heart, &c. (Isaiah xxix. 13)This is meant of those who, singing and praying in any language whatever, speak of God mechanically, without reverence and devotion; not of those who speak a language unknown to them but known to the Church, and who, moreover, have their heart rapt unto God.
In the Acts of the Apostles they praised God in all tongues. So they should do; but in universal and Catholic offices there is need of a universal and Catholic language. Except for this, every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is at the right hand of God the Father (Phil. ii:11)
In Deuteronomy (ch. 30), it is said that the commandments of God are not secret or sealed up; and does not the Psalmist say: The commandment of the Lord is lightsome: thy word is a lamp to my feet ?(Ps. xviii. cxviii) That is all very true, but it means when preached and explained, and properly understood. How shall they believe without a preacher! "(Romans x. 14). And all that the great Prophet David has said is not to be understood of everybody.
But you object to me: in any case, ought I not to seek the meat of my soul and of my salvation? Poor man, who denies it ? But if everybody goes to pasture like the old ewes, what is the need of shepherds ? Seek the pastures, but with your pastor. Should we not laugh at the sick man who would find his health in Hippocrates without the help of the doctor, or at him who would seek out his rights in Justinian without betaking himself to the judge? Seek, one would say to him, your health by means of doctors; seek your right and gain it, but by the hands of the magistrate. "What man of moderately sound mind does not understand that the exposition of the Scriptures is to be sought from those who are doctors in them ? " says S. Augustine (De Moribus Eccl.) But if no one can find his salvation except the one who can read the Scriptures, what will become of so many poor ignorant people ? Surely they find and seek their salvation quite satisfactorily when they learn from the mouth of the pastor the substance of what they must believe, hope for, love, do, and ask of God. Believe that also according to the spirit that is true which the Wise Man says: Better is the poor man walking in his simplicity than the rich in crooked ways (Prov. xxviii. 6); and elsewhere: The simplicity of the just shall guide them (xi. 3) and : He that walketh sincerely walketh conficdently ( x. 9), where I do not mean to say that we must not take the trouble to understand, but only that we must not expect to find our salvation and our pasturage of ourselves, without the guidance of those whom God has appointed unto this end, according to the same Wise Man: Lean not upon thy prudence, and be not wise in thy own conceit (iii. K, 7). Which they do not practice who think that of their own wisdom they know all sorts of mysteries; not observing the order which God has established; who has made amongst us some doctors and pastors, -not all, and not each one for himself. Indeed, S. Augustine found that S. Anthony, an unlearned man, failed not to know the way of Paradise; and he with all his doctrine was very far therefrom, at that time amid the errors of the Manichaeans. (Confessions, viii. 8).
But I have some testimonies of antiquity, and some signal examples, which I would leave you at the end of this article as its conclusion.
S. Augustine ( De Verbis Domini. Serm. viii.) "Your charity was to be admonished that confession (confessionem) is not always the voice of a sinner; for as soon as this word of the Lector sounded, there followed the sound of your striking your breast; that is, as soon as you heard that the Lord said: I confess to thee, Father, immediately the word I confess sounded, you struck your breasts; now to strike the breast, what is it but to signify what lies in the breast, and with a visible stroke to chastise an unseen sin ? Why did you do this but because you heard I confess to thee, Father ? You heard I confess, but you did not take notice who was confessing. Now therefore take notice." Do you see how the people heard the public reading of the Gospel, and did not understand it, except this word: I confess to thee, Father; which they understood by custom, because it was said just at the beginning of the Mass as we say it now. It was, no doubt, because the reading was in Latin, which was not their vulgar tongue.
But he who would see the esteem in which Catholics hold the holy Scripture, and the respect they bear it, should regard the great Cardinal Borromeo, who never studied in the Holy Scriptures save on his knees, it seeming to him that he heard God speaking in them, and that such reverence was due to so divine a hearing. Never was a people better instructed, considering the malice of the age, than the people of Milan under the Cardinal Borromeo; but the instruction of the people does not come by force of hurrying over the holy Bible, or often reading the mere letter of this divine Scripture, nor by singing snatches of the Psalms as the fancy takes one; but by using them, by reading, hearing, singing, praying to God, with a lively apprehension of the majesty of God to whom we speak, whose Word we read, evermore with that Preface of the ancient Church: sursum corda.
That great servant of God, S. Francis, of whose glorious and most holy memory the Feast was celebrated yesterday (*written probably October 5, 1595) throughout the whole world, showed us a beautiful example of the attention and reverence with which we ought to pray to God. This is what the holy and fervent Doctor of the Church, S. Bonoventure, tells of it. (In Vita Fr. "The holy man was accustomed to recite the Canonical Hours not less reverently than devoutly; for although he was labouring under an infirmity of the eyes, the stomach, the spleen, and the liver, he would not lean against wall or other support while he was singing, but recited the hours always standing and bare headed, not with wandering eyes, nor with any shortening of verse or word; if sometimes he were on a journey he then made a fixed arreangment of time, not omitting this reverent and holy custom on account of pouring rain; for he used to say: If the body eats quitetly its food which, with itself, is to be food of worms, how great should the peace and tranquillity with which the soul should take the food of life?
The Church Mission
CHAPTER I
THE LACK OF MISSION IN THE MINISTERS OF THE NEW PRETENDED CHURCH LEAVES BOTH THEM AND THEIR FOLLOWERS WITHOUT EXCUSE.
FIRST, then, your ministers had not the conditions required for the position which they sought to maintain, and the enterprise which they undertook. Wherefore they are inexcusable; and you yourselves also, who knew and still know or ought to know, this defect in them, have done very wrong in receiving them under such colours. The office they claimed was that of ambassadors of Jesus Christ Our Lord; the affair they undertook was to declare a formal divorce between Our Lord and the ancient Church His Spouse; to arrange and conclude by words of present consent, as lawful procurators, a second and new marriage with this young madam, of better grace, said they, and more seemly than the other. For in effect, to stand up as preacher of God?s Word and pastor of souls, - what is it but to call oneself ambassador and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the Apostle (2 Cor. v. 20): We are therefore ambassadors for Christ? And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed, that the whole Church has erred, and all truth disappeared,-what is this but - to say that Our Lord has abandoned his Church, has broken the sacred tie of marriage he had contracted with her? And to put forward a new Church, - is it not to attempt to thrust upon this sacred and holy Husband a second wife? This is what the ministers of the pretended church have undertaken; this is what they boast of having done; this has been the aim of their discourses, their designs, their writings. But what an injustice have you not committed in believing them? How did you come to take their word so simply? How did you so lightly give them credit?
To be legates and ambassadors they should have been sent, they should have had letters of credit from him whorn they boasted of being sent by. The affairs were of the greatest importance, for there was question of disturbing the whole Church. The persons who undertook them were extraordinaries, of mean quality, and private persons; while the ordinary pastors were men of mark, and of most ancient and acknowledged reputation, who contradicted them and protested that these extraordinaries had no charge nor commandment of the Master. Tell me, what business had you to hear them and believe them without having any assurance of their commission and of the approval of Our Lord, whose legates they called themselves? In a word, you have no justification for having quitted that ancient Church in which you were baptized, on the faith of preachers who had no legitimate mission from the Master.
Now you cannot be ignorant that they neither had, nor have, in any way at all, this mission. For if Our Lord had sent them, it would have been either mediately or immediately. We say mission is given mediately when we are sent by one who has from God the power of sending, according to the order which He has appointedin His Church; and such was the mission of S. Dennis into France by Clement and of Timothy by S. Paul. Immediate mission is when God Himself commands and gives a charge, without the interposition of the ordinary authority which He has placed in the prelates and pastors of the Church: as S. Peter and th eApostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord?s own mouth this commandment: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature (Mark xvi. 15); and as Moses received his mission to Pharaoh and to the people of Israel. But neither in the one nor in the other way have your ministers any mission. How then have they undertaken to preach? How shall they preach, says the Apostle, unless they be sent?(Rom. x. 15)
CHAPTER II.
THAT THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAD NO MEDIATE MISSION EITHER FROM THE PEOPLE OR THE BISHOPS.
AND first, as to the ordinary and mediate mission, they .have none whatever. For what they can put forward is either that they are sent by the people and secular princes, or else that they are sent by the imposition of the hands of the bishops who made them priests, a dignity to which at last they must have recourse, although they despise it altogether and everywhere.
Now, if they say that the secular magistrates and pople have sent them, they will have two proofs to give which they never can give, the one that the seculars have done it, the other that they could do it, for we deny both the fact and the right (factum et jus faciendi).
And that they could not do it the reason is absolute. For (1.) they will never find that the people and secular magistrates had the Power to establish and Institute bishops in the Church. They will indeed perhaps find that the people have given testimony and assisted at ordinations; yea, perhaps, that the choice has been given to them, like that of the deacons, as Luke tells us (Acts vi.), which the whole body of the faithful made; but they will never show that the people or secular princes have authority to give mission or to appoint pastors. How then do they allege a mission by people or princes, which has no foundation in the Scripture?
(2.) On the contrary, we bring forward the express practice of the whole Church, which from all time has been to ordain the Pastors by the imposition of the hands of the other Pastors and bishops. Thus was Timothy ordained and the seven deacons themselves, though proposed by the Christian people, were ordained by the imposition of the Apostles? hands. Thus have the Apostles appointed in their Constitutions; and the great Council of Nice (which methinks one will not despise) and that of Carthage- the second, and then immediately the third, and the fourth, at which St. Augustine assisted. If then they have been sent by the laity, they are not sent in Apostolic fashion, nor legitimately, and their mission is null.
(3.) In fact, the laity have no mission, and how then shall they give it? How shall they communicate the authority which they have not? And therefore S. Paul, speaking of the priesthood and pastoral order, says: Neither doth any man take the honour to himself but he that is called by God, as Aaron was (Heb. v. 4). Now Aaron was consecrated and ordained by the hands of Moses, who was a priest himself, according to the holy word of David (Ps. xcviii. 7), Moses and Aaron among his priests and Samuel among those who call upon his name; and, as is indicated in Exodus (xxviii. 1) in this word, take unto thee also Aaron thy brother, with his sons?that they may minister to me in the priest?s office; with which agree a great army of our Ancients. Whoever then would assert his mission must not assert it as being from the people nor from secular princes. For Aaron was not called in that way, and we cannot be called otherwise than he was.
(4.) Finally, that which is less is blessed by the better, as S. Paul says (Heb. vii. 7). The people then cannot send the pastors; for the pastors are greater than the people, and mission is not given without blessing (John xiii. 16). For after this magnificent mission the people remain sheep, and the shepherd remains shepherd. (5.) I do not insist here, as I will prove it hereafter, that the Church is monarchical, and that therefore the right of sending belonas to bhe chief pastor, not to the people. I omit the disorder which would arise if the people sent; for they Gould not send to one another, one people having no authority over the other; and what free play would this give to all sorts of heresies and fancies? It is necessarytbenthat the sheep should receivethe sbepherd from elsewbere, and should not give him to themselves.(Acts xv. 24) The people therefore were not able to give legitimate mission or commission to these new ambassadors. But I say further that even if they Gould they did not. For this people was of the true Church or not: if it was of the true Church why did Luther take it therefrom? Would it really have called him in order to be taken out of its place and of the Church? And if it were not of the true Church, how could it have the right of mission and of vocation? -outside the true Church there cannot be such authority. If they say this people was not Catholic, what was it then? it was not Lutheran ; for we all know that when j.uther began to preach in Germany there were no Lutherans, and it was he who was their origin. Since then such a people did not belong to the true Church, how could it give mission for true preaching? They have then no vocation from that source, unldss they have recourse to the invisible mission reeeived from the principalities and powers of the world of this darkness, and the spiritual wickednesss against which good Catholics have always waged war. Many therefore of our age, seeing the road cut off on that side, have betaken themselves to the other, and say that the first masters and reformers ? Luther, Bucer, Oecolampadius- were sent by the bishops who made them priests; then they sent their followers, and so they would go on to blend their rights with those of the Apostles.
In good sooth it is to speak frankly and plainly indeed, thus to confess that mission can only have passed to their ministers from the Apostles by the succession of our bishops and the imposition of their hands. Of course the case is really so: one cannot give this mission so high a fall that from the Apostles it should leap into the hands of the preachers of nowadays without having touched any of our ancients and foregoers: it would have required a very long speaking-tube in the mouth of the first founders of the Church to call Luther and the rest without being overheard by any of those who were between: or else, as Calvin says on another occasion, not much to the point, these must have had very long ears. It must have been kept sound indeed, if these were to find it. We agree then that mission was possessed by our bishops, and particularly by their head, the Roman Bishop. But we formally deny that your ministers have had any communication of it, to preach what they have preached. Because (1.) they preach things contrary to the Church in which they have been ordained priests; therefore either they err or the Church which has sent them errs; - and consequently either their church is false or the one from which they have taken mission.
If it be that from which they have taken mission, their mission is false, for from a false Church there cannot spring a true mission. Whichever way it be, they had no mission to presch what they preached, because, if the Church in which they have been ordained were true, they are heretics for having left it, and for having preached against its belief, and if it were not true it could not give them mission.
(2.) Besides, though they had had mission in the Roman Church, they had none to leave it, and withdraw her children from her obedience. Truly the commissioner must not exceed the limits of his commission, or his act is null. (3.) Luther, Oecolampadius, and Calvin were not bishops: how then could they communicate any mission to their successors on the part of the Roman Church. which protests always and everywhere that it is only the bishops who can send, and that this belongs in no way to simple priests? In which even S. Jerome has placed the difference between the simple priest and the bishop, in the Epistle to Evagrius, and S. Augustine (De Haer. 53) and Epiphanius (Haeres. 75) reckon Aerius with heretics because he held the contrary.
CHAPTER III
THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAD NO IMMEDIATE OR EXTRAORDINARY MISSION FROM GOD.
THESE reasons are so strong that the most solid of your party have taken ground elsewhere than in the ordinary mission, and have said that they were sent extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church itself, under the tyrannv of Antichrist. This is their most safe refuge, which, since it is common to all sorts of heretics, is worth attacking in good earnest and overthrowing completely. Let us then place our argument in order, to see if we can force this their last barricade.
First, I say then that no one should allege an extraordinarv mission unless he prove it by miracles: for, I pray you, where should we be if this pretext of extraordinary mission was to be accepted without proof? Would it not be a cloak for all sorts of reveries? Arius, Marcion, Montanus, Messalius- could they not be received into this dignity of reformers, by swearing the same oath?
Never was any one extraordinarily sent unless he brought this letter of credit from the divine Majesty. Moses was sent immediately by God to govern the people of Israel. He wished to know his name who sent him; when he had learnt the admirable name of God, he asked for signs and patents of his commission: God so far found this request good that he gave him the grase of three sorts of prodigies and marvels, which were, so to speak, three attestations in three different languages, of the charge which he gave him, in order that any one who did not understand one might understand another. lf then they allege extraordinary mission, let them show us some extraordinary works, otherwise we are not obliged to believe them. In truth Moses clearly shows the necessity of this proof for him who would speak extraordinarily: for having to beg from God the gift of eloquence, he only asks it after having the power of miracles ; showing that it is more necessary to have authority to speak than to have readiness in speaking.
The mission of S. John Baptist, though it was not altogether extraordinary, -was it not authenticated by his conception, his nativity, and even by that miraculous life of his, to which our Lord gave such excellent testimony? But as to the Apostles,- who does not know the miracles they did and the great number of them? Their handkerchiefs, their shadow, served for the prompt healing of the sick and driving away of the devils; by the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts xiv. 5) and that this was in confirmation of their preaching S. Mark declares quite explicitly in the last words of his Gospel, and S. Paul to the Hebrews (ii. 4) How then shall those who in our age would allege an extraordinary mission excuse and relieve themselves of this proof of their mission? What privilege have they greater than an Apostolic, a Mosaic? What shall I say more. If our sovereign Master, consubstantial with the Father, having a mission so authentic that it comprises the communication of the same essence, if he himself, I say, who is the living source of all Ecclesiastical mission, has not chosen to dispense himself from this proof of miracles, what reason is these that these new ministers should be believed an their mere word? Our Lord very often alleges his mission to give credit to his words: As my Father hath sent me I also send you (John xx. 21); My doctrine is not mine, but of him that sent me (ibid. vii. 16); You both know me, and you know whence I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But also, to give authority to his mission, he brings forward his miracles, and attests that if he had not done among the Jews works which no other man had done, they would not have sinned in not believing him. And elsewhere he says to them: Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? Otherwise believe for the works themselves. (ibid. xiv. 11, 12). He then who would be so rash as to boast of extraordinary mission without immediately producing miracles, deserves to be taken for an impostor. Now it is a fact that neither the first nor the last ministers have worked a single miracle: therefore they have no extraordinary mission. Let us proceed.
I say, in the second place, that never must an extraordinary mission be received when disowned by the ordinary authority which is th eChurch of Our Lord. For (1.) we are obliged to obey our ordinary pastors under pain of being heathens and publicans (Matt. xviii. 17): - how then can we place ourselves under other discipline than theirs? Extraordinaries would come in vain, since we should be obliged to refuse to listen to them, in the case that they were, as I have said, disowned by the ordinaries. (II.) God is not the author of dissention, but of union and peace (I Cor. xiv. 33), principally amongst his disciples and Church ministers; as Our Lord clearly shows in the holy prayer he made to his Father in the last days of His mortal life. (John xvii.)
How then should he authorise two sorts of pastors, the one extraordinary, the other ordinary? As to the ordinary- it certainly is authorised, and as to the extraordinary we are supposing it to be; there would then be two different churches, which is contrary to the Most pure word of Our Lord, who has but one sole spouse, one sole dove, one sole perfect one (Cant. vi.) And how could that be a united flock which should be led by two shepherds, unknown to each other, into different pastures, with different calls and folds, and each of them expecting to have the whole. Thus would it be with the Church under a variety of pastors ordinary and extraordinary, dragged hither and thither into various sects. Or is Our Lord _divided (I Cor. i. 13) either in himself or in his body, which is the Church?-no, in good truth. On the contrary, there is but one Lord, who has composed his mystic body with a goodly variety of members, a body compacted and fitly joined together by what every joint supplieth, according to the operation in the measure of every part (Eph. iv. 16).
Therefore to try to make in the Church this division of ordinary and extraordinary members is to ruin and destroy it. We must then return to what we said, that an extraordinary vocation is never legitimate where it is disapproved of by the ordinary.
(3.) And in effect where will you ever show me a legitimate extraordinary vocation which has not been received by the ordinary authority. S. Paul was extraordinarily called -but was he not approved and authorised by the ordinary once and again? (Acts ix. 13). And the Mission received from the ordinary authority is called a mission by the Holy Spirit (ibid. xiii. 4.). The Mission of S John Baptist cannot properly be called extraordinary because he taught nothing contrary to the Mosaic Church, and because he was of the priestly race. All the same, his doctrine being unusual was approved by the ordinary teaching Office of the Jewish Church in the high embassy which was sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19), the tenor of which implies the great esteem and reputation in which he was with them; and the very Pharisees who were seated an the chair of Moses,- did they not come to communicate in his baptism quite openly and unhesitatingly? This truly was to receive his mission in good earnest. Did not Our Lord, who was the Master, will to be received by Simeon, who was a priest, as appears from his blessing Our Lady and Joseph; by Zachary the priest; and by S. John? And for his passion, which was the principal fulfilment of his Mission,-did he not will to have the prophetic testimony of him who was High Priest at that time.
And this is what S. Paul teaches when he will have no man to take the pastoral honour to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was (Heb v. 4) "For the vocation of Aaron was Made by the ordinary, Moses, so that it was not _God who placed his holy word in the mouth of Aaron immediately, but Moses, whom God commanded to do it: Speak to him, and put my words in his mouth; and I will be in thy mouth, and in his mouth (Ex. iv. 15). And if we consider the words of S. Paul, we shall further learn that the vocation of pastors and Church rulers must be made visibly; and so with Our Lord and Master; who, being sovereign pontiff, and pastor of all the ages, did not glorify himself, that is, did not take to himself the honour of his holy priesthood, as S. Paul had previously said, but he who said to him Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee; and, Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. I beg you to ponder this expression - Jesus Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech . Was he inducted and thrust into this honour by himself? No, he was called thereto. Who called him? His eternal Father. And how? Immediately and at the same time mediately: immediately at his Baptism and his Transfiguration, by this voice: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him; mediately by the Prophets, and above all by David in the places which S. Paul cites to this effect from the Psalms: Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: Thou art a priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech. And everywhere the vocation is externally perceptible: the word in the cloud was heard, and in David hear and read; but S. Paul in proving the vocation of Our Lord quotes only the passage from David, in which he says Our Lord had been glorified by his Father; thus contenting himself with bringing forward the testimony which was percepible, and given by means of the ordinary Scriptures and the received Prophets.
I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary mission never distroys the ordinary, and is never given to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priesthood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of the Synagogue. Witness Our Lord, who declares that every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation, and a house upon a house shall fall (Luke xi. 17). Witness the respect which he paid to the chair of Moses, the doctrine of which he would have to be observed. And indeed if the extraordinary ought to abolish the ordinary, how should we know when, and how, and to whom, to give our obedience. No, no; the ordinary is immortal for such time as the Church is here below in the world. The pastors and teachers whom he has once given to the Church are to have a perpetual succession for the pei fection of the saints . . . till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a peifeet man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may not now be children, tossed to and fro, an d carried about with every wind -i doctrine, in the wickedness of men and in their craftiness (Eph. iv. 1) Such is the strong argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual succession, and were liable to have their authority abrogated by the extraordinary, we should also have but an irregular faith and discipline, interrupted at every step; we should be liable to be seduced by men, whe an every occasion would boast of having an extraordinary voeation. Thus like the Gentiles we should walk (as he infers afterwards) in the vanity of our mind (ibid. 17), each one persuading himself that he felt the movement of the Holy Ghost; of which our age furnishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest proofs that can be brought forward in this connection. For if the extraordinary may talge away the ordinary ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship of it - to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Paciomontanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Brandratus or to Brentius, to Brentius or to the Queen of England? - for each will draw to his or her side this pretext of extraordinary mission.
But the word of Our Lord frees us from all these difficulties, who has built his Church an so good a foundation and in such wise proportions that the Bates of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have never prevailed not shall prevail, then the extraordinary vocation is not necessary to abolish it, for God hateth nothing of those things which he has made (Wis. xi. 25). How then did they abolish the ordinary Church, to make an extraordinary one, since it is he, who has built the ordinary one, and cemented it with his own blood?
CHAPTER IV.
AN ANSWER TO THE TWO OBJECTIONS WHICH ARE MADE BY THE SUPPORTERS OF THE THEORY OF IMMEDIATE MISSION.
I HAVE not been able hitherto to find but two objections amongst your masters to this reasoning which I have just made, one of which is taken from the example of Our Lord and the Apostles, the other from the example of the Prophets.
And as to the first - tell me, I pray, do you think it right to place in comparison the vocation of those new ministers and that of Our Lord? Had not Our Lord been prophesied as the Messias- had not his time been determined by Daniel? - did he do a single action which had not been described almost exactly in the books of the Prophets, and prefigured in the Patriarchs? He changed the Mosaic law from good into better; but had not this change been predicted? He consequently changed the Aaronic priesthood into that of Melchisedech, far better: is not all this according to the ancient testimonies? Your ministers have not been prophesied as preachers of the word of God, nor the time of their coming, nor a single one of their actions. They have made a revolution in the Church much greater and holder than Our Lord made in the synagogue; for they have taken all away, only putting back certain shadows: but testimonies to this effect have they none. At any rate they should not elude their obligation of bringing forward miracles in support of such a change, whatever pretext you may draw from the Scriptures, since out Lord dispensed not himself from this, as I have shown above. But whence will they Show me that the Church was ever to receive another form, or a like reformation to the one which our Lord made?
And as to the Prophets, I see many persons under a delusion. It is supposed that all the vocations of the Prophets were extraordinary and immediate. A false idea: for there were colleges and congregations of the Prophets approved by the Synagogue, as may be gathered from many passages of the Scriptures. There were such in Ramatha, in Bethel, in Jericho where Eliseus dwelt, on Mount Ephraim, in Samaria; Eliseus himself was anointed by Heli; the vocation of Samuel was recognised and approved by the High Priest; and with Samuel the Lord began to appear again in Silo, as says the Scripture (I Kings iii. 21); whence the Jews regard Samuel as the founder of the congregations of Prophets.
It is supposed that all those who prophesied exercised the office of preaching; which is not true, as appears from what occurred with the officers of Saul and with Saul himself (Ibid. xix.): in such sort that the vocation of the Prophets has no bearing on that of heretics or schismatics. For (i.) it was either ordinary, as we have shown above, or else approved by the remainder of the Synagogue, as is easy to see in their being immediately recognised, and in their being highly esteemed everywhere amongst the Jews, who called them "men of God:" and he who will attentively examine the history of that ancient Synagogue will see that the office of priests was as common among them as that of preachers amongst us.
(2.) Never can be pointed out Prophet who wished to overthrow the ordinary power; on the contrary, all followed it, and spoke nothing contrary to the doctrine of those who sat upon the chair of Moses and of Aaron; indeed, some of them were of the priestly race, as Jeremias son of Helcias, and Ezechiel son of Buzi. They have always spoken with honour of the priests and the sacerdotal succession, though they have reprehended their lives. Isaias when about to write im a great book which was shown him, took Urias the priest, though the things were yet to come, and Zacharias the prophet as witnesses, (Isa. viii. I, 2),as if he were taking the testimony of all the Priests and Prophets. And does not Malachy bear witness (ii. 7) that the lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth: beeause he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts?-so far were they from ever having withdrawn the Jews from the cominunion of the Ordinary.
(3). How many miracles did the Prophets work in confirmation of the prophetic vocation? I should never end if I were to enter upon the computation of there: but at such times as they did a thing which had an appearance of extraordinary power, immediately miracles followed. Witness Elias, who, setting up an altar on Mount Carmel according to the instinct which the Holy Spirit had given him, and offering sacrifice, showed by miracle that he did it to the honour of God and of the Jewish religion.
(4.) And finally, it would well become your ministers to usurp the power of the Prophets-they who have never had either their gift or their light! It should rather be for us to do so for us, who could bring forward an infinity of Prophets an our side. For instance, S. Gregory Thaumaturgus, an the authority of S. Basil; S. Anthony, an the testimony of Athanasius; the Abbot John, an the testimony of S. Augustine; S. Benedict, S. Bernard, S. Francis, and a thousand others. If, then, there is question between us of the prophetc authority, this is an our side, be it ordinary or be it extraordinary, since we have the reality; not with your ministers, who have never given the shadow of a proof of its possession; unless they would call a prophecy Zwingle's vision in the book called Subsidium de Eucharistia, and the book entitled Querela Lutherii, or the prediction he made in the twenty-fifth year of this century that if he preached two years more there would remain no Pope, nor priests, nor monks, nor belfries, nor mass. Truly there is but one defect in this prophecy-just want of truth. For he preached nigh twenty-two years longer, and yet there are still found priests and belfries, and in the chair of Peter sits a lawful Pope.
Your first ministers then, gentlemen, are of the prophets whom God forbade to be heard, in Jeremias (xxiii.): Hearken not to the words of the Prophets that prophesy to you and deceive you, they speak a vision of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord. ?I did not send prophets yet they ran; I have not spoken to them yet they prophesied. . . . I have heard what the prophets said, that propheey lies in my name, and say, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. Does it not seem to you that it is Zwingle and Luther, with their prophecies and visions? that it is Carlstadt, with his revelation which he pretended to have had about the Lord's Supper, and which gave occasion to Luther, to write his book Contra scelestos prophetas. At any rate they certainly possess this property of not having been sent; it is they who use their tongues, and say, The Lord saith it. For they can never prove any right to the office which they usurp; they can never produce any legitimate vocation. And how then shall they preach? One cannot enrol oneself under any captain without the approval of one's prince: how then were you so ready to engage yourselves under the command of these first ministers, without the permission of your ordinary pastors, and so far as to leave the state in which you were born and bred, which is the Catholic Church? They are guilty of having made this disturbance by their own authority, and you of having followed them, in which you are inexcusable. The good little Samuel, humble, gentle, and holy, having been called thrice by God, thought all the time that it was Heli who was calling him, and only at the fourth time addressed himself to God as to the one calling him.
It has seemed to your ministers that God has thrice called them, (i.) by peoples and magistrates; (2.) by our bishops; (3.) by his extraordinary voice. No, no! Let them not bring this forward, that Samuel was called thrice by God, and in his humility thought it was a call by man, until, instructed by Heli, he knew that it was the divine voice. Your ministers, gentlemen, allege three vocations of God, by secular magistrates, by the bishops, and by his extraordinary voice. They think that it is God who has called them in those three ways: but you do not find that when they are instructed by the Church they acknowledge that theirs is a vocation of man, and that their ears have tingled to the old Adam; by no meaus do they submit the question to him who, as Heli did, now presides in the Church.
Such then is the first reason which makes your ministers and you also inexcusable, though unequally so, before God and men in having left the Church. On the contrary, gentlemen, the Church, who contradicted and opposed your first ministers, and still opposes those of the present day, is so clearly marked an all sides that no one, blind as he may be, can pretend that his is a case of ignorance of the duty which all good Christians owe her, or that she is not the true, sole, inseparable, and dearest Spouse of the heavenly King, which makes the separation from her all the more inexcusable. For to leave the Church and disregard her commands is evermore to become a heathen and a publican, let it be at the persuasion of an angel or a seraph. But, at the persuasion of men who were sinners on the largest scale against other private persons, who were without authority, without approval, without any quality required in preachers or prophets save the were knowledge of certain sciences, to break all the ties of the most religious obligation of obedience which is in the world, namely, that which is owing to the Church as Spouse of our Lord! -this is a fault which cannot be covered save by a great repentance and penitence - to which invite you on the part of the living God.
CHAPTER V.
THAT THE INVISIBLE CHURCH FROM WHICH THE INNOVATORS PRETEND TO DERIVE THEIR MISSION IS A FIGMENT; AND THAT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST IS VISIBLE.
OUR adversaries, clearly perceiving that by this touchstone their doctrine would be recognised as of base gold, try by all means to turn us from that invincible proof which we find in the marks of the true Church. And therefore they would maintain that the Church is invisible and unperceivable. I consider that this is the extreme of absurdity, and that immediately beyond this abide frenzy and madness. I speak of the militant Church of which the Scripture has left us testimony, not of that which men put forward. Now, in all the Scripture it will never be found that the Church is taken for an invisibel assembly. Here are our reasons.
(1.) Our Lord and Master sends us to the Church in our difficulties and variances (Matt. xviii. 16, 17). S. Paul teaches how we ought to behave in it (I Tim. iii. 15); he called together the ancients of the Church militant (Acts xx. 17); he shows them that they are placed by the Holy Ghost(ibid. 28); he is sent by the Church, with S. Barnabas (Ibid. xiii., 1, 3). He is received by the Church (ibid. xv. 4); he confirmed the Churches (ibid. 41); he ordained for them priest sin every Church (ibid. xiv. 22); he assembled the Church (ibid. 26); he saluted the Church at Caesarea (ibid. xviii. 22); he persecuted the Church (Gal. i. 13). How can all this be understood of an invisible Church? Where should one seek it to lay complaints before it, to converse in it, to rule it? When it sent S. Paul, and received him, when he confirmed it, ordained priests in it, assembled it, saluted it, presecuted it- was this n figure or in faith only, and in spirit? I am sure that everybody must see that these were visible and perceptible acts on both sides. And when he wrote to it, did he address himself to some invisible chimera?
(2.) What will be said about the Prophets, who represent the Church to us as not only visible, but quite distinct, illustrious, manifest, magnificent? They depict it as a queen in golden borders clothed round about with varieties (Ps. xliv. 14, 15); as a mountain (Isa. ii. 2); as a sun (Ps. lxxxviii.); as a full moon; as the rainbow, a faithful and certainof the favour of God towards men, who are all of the posterity of Noe[Noah]: such is the signification of this Psalm in our version: Et thronus ejus sicut sol in conspectu meo, et sicut luna perfecta in aeternum et testis in coelo fidelis.
(3.) The Scripture everywhere testifies that she can be seen and known, yea, that she is known. Solomon, in the Canticle of Canticles (vi.), speaking of the Church, does he not say that And thus introducing the daughters, full of admiration he makes them say: Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array? Is this not to declare her visible? And when he makes them call upon her thus: Return, return, O Sulamitess; return, return, that we may behold thee; and makes her answer: What shalt thou see in the Sulamitess but the companies of camps? - is not this again to declar eher visible? If one regard those admirable Canticles and pastoral representations of the loves of the celestial Bridegroom with the Church, one will see that she is throughout most visible and prominent. Isaias speaks of her thus (xxxv. 8): This shall be unto you a straight way, so that folls shall not err therein; - must she not be displayed and easy to see, since even the simplest shall be able to guide themselves by her without fail?
(4.) The pastors and doctors of the Church are visible, therefore the Church is visible. For, I ask you, are not the pastors of the Church a part of the Church, and must not pastor and sheep know each other, must not the sheep hear the shepherd's voice and follow him, must not the good shepherd go seek his sheep that is lost, and recognise his enclosure and fold? This would indeed be a fine sort of shepherd, who could not know or see his flock. I know not whether I am to prove that the pastors of the Church are visible; things as evident are denied. S. Peter was a pastor, I suppose, since Our Lord said to him >I>Feed My sheep; so were the Apostles, and they were seen. I suppose that those to whom S. Paul said Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath placed you, to rule the Church of God; I suppose, may I, that they saw him; and when like good children they fell upon the neck of this good shepherd, hiding his face with their tears, I presume that he touched, and felt, and saw them; and what makes me still more sure of it is that they were chiefly grieved at his departure for the word which he hd said that they would see his face no more. And then, wingli, Oecolampadius, Luther, Calvin, Beza and Musculus are visible; and as to the two last many of you have seen them, and yet they are called pastors by their disciples. The pastors then are seen, and consequently the sheep also.
(5.) Is it the property of the Church to carry on the true preaching of the Word of God, the true administration of the Sacraments, - and is not all this visible? How then would you have their subject invisible?
(6.) Do we not know that the twelve patriarchs, the children of the good Jacob, were the living spring of the Church of Israel? And when their father had assembled them to bless them, they were seen and saw one another. Why do I delay on this? All sacred history testifies that the ancient synagogue was visible, and why not the Catholic Church?
(7.) As the patriarchs, fathers of the synagogue of Israel, of whom was Christ according to the flesh (Rom. ix. 5), formed the visible Church, so the Apostles with their disciples, children of the synagogue according to the flesh and spirit, gave beginnign to the Catholic Church visibly, as the Psalmist says (xliv. 17): Instead of thy father, sons are born to thee; thou shalt make them princes over all the earth.
For twelve patriarchs are born to these twelve Apostles , says Arnobius (Arnobii (Junioris)Comm. in Ps. xliv.). Those Apostles beinggathered together in Jerusalem with the little company of the disciples and the most glorious Mother of the Saviour formed the true Church, - and of what kind? Visible without doubt, yea so visible that the Holy Spirit came to water those holy plants and seed-plots of Christianity.
(8.) How did the ancient Jews begin their course as the people of God? By circumcision, a visible sign; - and we by baptism, a visible sign. By whom were those of old governed? By th epriests of the race of Aaron, visible men; we by the bishops, visible men. By whom were the ancients taught? By the prophets and doctors, visibly; - we by our pastors and preachers, visibly. What religious and sacred food had the ancients to eat? The paschal lamb, the manna, it is all visible; - we have the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, a visible sign though of an invisible thing. By whom was the synagogue persecuted? By th eEgyptians, Babylonians, Madianites, Philistines, all visible nations: - the Church by the Pagans, Turks, Moors, Saracens, heretics:- all is visible. Goodness of God! and we are still to ask whether the Church is visible! But what is the Church? An assembly of men who have flesh and bones; - and are we to say that it is but a sppirit or phantom, which seems to be visible and is only so by illusion? No, no; Why are you troubles, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Seeher hands; behold her ministers, officers and governors: see her feet; look at her preachers how they carry her east and west, north and south. All are flesh and bones. Feel her; come as humble children to throw yourselves into the bosom of this sweet mother. Consider her throughout her whole body, entirely beautiful as she is, and you will see that she is visible; for a spiritual and invisible thing hath not flesh and bones, as you See her to have (Luke ult.).
CHAPTER VI
ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS MADE AGAINST THE VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH.
SUCH are our reasons, sound under every test.But they have some counter-reasons, which, as they fancy, they draw from the Scriptures, but which are very easy of refutation to any one who will consider what follows.
(1.) Our Lord had in his humanity two parts, body and soul; so the Church his spouse has two parts, the one interior, which is as her soul, invisible-Faith, Hope, Charity, Grace, - the other exterior, as her body, and visible - the Confession of Faith, Praises and Canticles, Preaching, Sacraments, Sacrifices. Yea, all that is done in the Church has its exterior and interior. Prayer is interior and exterior; Faith fills the heart with assurance and the mouth with confession; Preaching is made exteriorly by men, but the secret light of the Heavenly Father is required in it, for we rnust always hear him and learn from him before coming to the Son; and as to the Sacraments, the sign is exterior but the grace is interior, as every one knows. Thus then we have the interior of the Church and the exterior. Its greatest beauty is within, the outside is not so excellent, as says the Spouse in the Canticles (iv.): Thy eyes are doves eyes besides what is hid within Honey and milk are under thy tongue, that is, in thy heart; - behold th einterior. And the smell of thy garments as the odour of frankincense;- behold the exterior service. And the Psalmist (xliv.): All the glory of the King's daughter is within:- there is the interior. Clothed round in golden borders with varieties; - there is the exterior.
(2.) We must consider that as well the interior as the exterior of the Church may be called spiritual, but differently. For the interior is spiritual purely and of its own nature; the exterior of its own nature is corporeal, but because it has a reference and tendency to the spiritual, the interior, we call it spiritual, as S. Paul calls those who made the flesh subject to the spirit, although they were corporeal; and although each person be particular, of his own nature, still when he serves the public he is called a public man. Now, if one say that the Evangelical law was given on the hearts interiorly, not on tablets of stone exteriorly, as Jeremias says (xxxi. 33), the answer is: that in the interior of the Church and in its heart is all th echief of its glory, but this fails not to shine out over the exterior, by which it is known nd recognized. So when it is said in the Gospel (John iv. 23) that the hour cometh, and now is, when the true adorer shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth, - we are taught that the interior is the chief thing, and that the exterior is vain if it do not tend and flow towards the interior to spiritualise itself therein. In the same way, when S. Peter calls the Church a spiritual house (! Pet. ii. 5), it is because all that proceeds from the Church tends to the spiritual life, and because its greatest glory is interior; or again because it is not a house made with lime and sand, but a mystical house of living stones, to which charity serves as cement.
The holy Word says (Luke xvii. 20), The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: but the kingdom of God is th echurch, therefore the Church is no visible; Answer: the kingdom of God in this place is Our Lord with His grace, or, if you will, the company of Our Lord while He was in this world; whence it continues: for behold the kingdom of God is within you; and this kingdom did not come with the surroundings and glory of a worldly magnificence, as the Jews expected; besides, as we have said, the fairest jewel of this King's daughter is hidden within, and cannot be seen. As to what S. Paul says to the Hebrews (xii. 18), that we are not come to the mountain that might be handled , like Mount Sina, but to the heavenly Jerusalem- he s not proposing to show that the Church is invisible: for S. Paul shows in this place that the Church is more magnificent and richly endowed than the Synagogue, and that she is not a natural mountain like that of Sina, but a mystical; from which it does not follow that it is in any way invisible. Indeed, it may reasonably be said that he is actually speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem, tha tis, the triumphant Church; wherefore he adds the company of angels, as if to say that in the Old Law God was seen on the mountain after a terrible manner, and that the New leads us to see Him in His glory there in Paradise above.
Finally, here is the argument which everybody loudly asserts to be the strongest, - I believe in the Holy Catholic Church: if I believe in it, I do not see it, therefore it is invisible. Is there anything feebler in the world than this phantom of a reason? Did the Apostles not believe that Our Lord was risen again, and did they not see him? Because thou hast seen me, He says himself to S. Thomas (John xx. 27): thou hast believed; and to make him believing He says to him, See my hands, and bring hither thy hamd, and put it into my side, and be not faithless but believing. See how sight hinders not faith but produces it. Now Thomas saw one thing and believed another; he saw the body and he believed the spirit and the divinity; for it was not his seeing which led him to say, My Lord and my God! - but his faith. So do we believe one Baptism for the remission of sins; we see the Baptism, but not the remission of sins. Similarly, we see the Church, but not its interior sanctity; we see its eyes as of a dove, but we believe what is hidden within: we see its richly broidered garments, in beautiful variety, with golden borders, but the brightest splendour of its glory is within, which we believe. In this royal Spouse there is wherewith to feed the interior and the exterior eye, faith and sense, and all for the greater glory of her Spouse.
CHAPTER VII.
THAT IN THE CHIIRCH THERE ARE GOOD AND,BAD, PREDESTINATE AND REPROBATE.
To prove the invisibility of the Church each one brings forward his reason; but th emost feeble of all is that derived from eternal predestination. Certainly it is with no little artfulness that they turn the spiritual eyes of the militant Church upon eternal predestination, in order that, dazled by the lightnings of this inscrutable mystery, we may not perceive what lies before us. They say that there are two Churches, one visible and imperfect, the other invisible and perfect, and that the visible can err and can be blown by the wind of errors and idolatries, the invisible not. And f one ask what is the visible Church, they answer that it is the assemblage of those persons who profess the same faith and sacraments, which contains bad and good, and is a Church only in name; and that the invisible Church is that which contains only the elect, who are not in the knowledge of men, but are only recognized and seen by God.
But we will clearly show that the true Church contains the good and the bad, the reprobate and the elect; - and here are the proofs.
(1.) Was no the true Church which S. Paul called the pillar and ground of truth and the house of the living God (I Tim 3:15)? Certainly; - for to be a pillar of truth cannot pertain to an erring and straying Church. Now the Apostle witnesses of this true Church, the house of God, that there are in it vessels unto honour and unto dishonour (2 Tim. 2:20), that is, good and bad.
(2.) Is not that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matt. 16:18) the true Church? Nevertheless there are therein men who have to be loosed from their sins, and others whose sins have to be retained, as Our Lord shows us in the promise and the power He gave to S. Peter in this matter. Those whose sins are retained - are they not wicked and reprobate? Indeed, the reprobate ar eprecisely those whose sins are retained, and by the elect we ordinarily mean those whose sins are pardoned. Now, that those whose sins S. Peter had power to forgive or to retainwere in the Churhc is evident; for them that are outside the Church only God will judge (I Cor. 5:13). Those therefore of whom S. Peter was to judge were not outside the Church but within, though amongst them there were some reprobate.
(3.) And dos not Our Lord teach us that we are offended by some one of our brethren, after having reprehended and correcting him twice, in two different fashions, we should take him to the Church? Tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican (Matt. 18:17). Here one cannot escape ? the consequence is inevitable. There is question of one of our brethren who is neither heathen nor publican, but under the discipline and correction of the Church, and consequently member of the Church, and yet there is no inconsistency in his being reprobate, perverse, and obstinate. Not only then do the good belong to the true Church, but the wicked also, until such time as they are cast out from it, unless one would say that the Church to which Our Lord sends us is an erring, sinful, and antichristian Church. This would be too open a blasphemy.
(4.) When Our Lord says The servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth for ever (John 8:35); - is it not the same as if he had said that in the house of the Church the elect and the reprobate are for a time? Who can this servant be who abideth not in the house ofr ever except the one who shall be cast into exterior darkness. And in fact Christ clearly shows that he so understands it when he says immediately before, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Now this man, though he abide not forever, yet abideth during such time as he is required for service. S. Paul writes to the Church of God which was at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2), and yet he wishes them to drive out a certain incestuous man (ibid. 5). If he be driven out he was there, and if he were there and the Church is the assemblage of the elect, how could they drive him out? The elect cannot be reprobate.
But why may we not lay down that the reprobate and the iwcked are of the true Church, when they can even be pastors and bishops therein? That is certain: is not Judas reprobate? And yet he was Apostle and bishop; according to the Psalmist (cviii. 8), and according to S. Peter (Acts i. 17), who says that he had obtained part of the ministry of the apostolate, and according to the whole Gospel, which ever places him in the number of the college of the Apostles. Was not Nicholas of Antioch a deacon like S. Stephen? -and yet many ancient Fathers make no difficulty on that account of considering him an heresiarch; witness, amongst others, Epiphanius, Philostratus, Jerome. And in fact the Nicolaites took occasion from him to recommend their abominations, of whom S. John makes mention in the Apocalypse (ii. 6), as of real heretics. S. Paul declares to the priests of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops to rule the Church of God (Acts xx. 28), but he assures them also that some of their own selves would rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. He speaks to all when he says that the Holy Spirit has made them bishops, and speaks of those very same persons when he says that from amongst them shall schismatics arise. But when should I have finished if I would here heap up the names of all those bishops and prelates who, after having been lawfully placed in this office and dignity, have fallen from their first grace and have died heretics.
Who, for a simple priest, ever said anything so holy, so wise, so chaste, so charitable as Origen? No one could read what is written of him by Vincent of Lerins, one of the most judicious and learned of Church writers, no one could ponder over his accursed old age, after a life so admirable and holy, without being filled with compassion, to see this grand and brave Pilot, - after so many storms weathered, after so many and such lucrative voyages to Hebrews, Arabs, Chaldieans, Greeks, and Latins, -on his return, full of honour and of spiritual riches, suffer shipwreck and perish in port, an the edge of the tomb! Who would dare to say that he had not been of the true Church, he who had always fought for the Church, and whom the whole Church honoured and hold as one of its grandest Doctors? And yet behold him at last a heretic, excommunicate outside the Ark, perishing in the deluge of his own conceit!
All this corresponds with the holy word of Our Lord (Matt. xxiii. 2), who considered the Scribes and Pharisees as th etrue pastors of the true Church of that time, since He commands that they should be obeyed, and yet considered them not as elect but rather as reprobate. Now what an absurdity would it be, I ask you, if the elect alone were of the Church? That would follow which is said of the Donatists, that we could not know our prelates, and consequently could not pay them obedience. For how should we know whether those who were called prelates and pastors were of the Church, since we cannot know who of the living is predestinate and who is not, as will be said elsewhere? - and if they are not of the Church, how can they hold the place of elect there? It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen-if the head of the Church were not of the Church. Not only then can one who is reprobate be of the Church but even pastor in the Church. The Church then cannot be called invisible an the ground that it is composed of the predestinate alone.
I conclude all this discourse by the Gospel comparisons which show this truth clearly and completely.
S. John likens the Church to the threshing-floor of a farm, on which is not only the wheat for the barn, but also the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire(Matt. iii. 12); are these not the elect and the reprobate? Our Lord compares it to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes good and bad (ibid. xiii. 47) to ten virgins, five of them foolish, and five wise (ibid. xxv. 2); to three servants, one of whom is slothful, and therefore cast into the exterior darkness (ibid.14); finally, to a marriage feast, unto which have entered both good and bad, and the bad, not having on the nuptial garment, are cast into exterior darkness (ibid. xxii.) Are not all these so many sufficient proofs that not only the elect but also the reprobate are in the Church? We must therefore close the door of our judgment to all sorts of notions of this kind, and to this one amongst them, by means of that never-enough-pondered proposition: Many are called, but few are chosen(ibid.) All those who are in the Church are called, but all who are therein are not elect; and indeed Church does not mean election but convocation.
CHAPTER VII.
THAT IN THE CHURCH THERE ARE GOOD AND,BAD, PREDESTINATE AND REPROBATE.
To prove the invisibility of the Church each one brings forward his reason; but the most feeble of all is that derived from eternal predestination. Certainly it is with no little artfulness that they turn the spiritual eyes of the militant Church upon eternal predestination, in order that, dazzled by the lightnings of this inscrutable mystery, we may not perceive what lies before us. They say that there are two Churches, one visible and imperfect, the other invisible and perfect, and that the visible can err and can be blown by the wind of errors and idolatries, the invisible not. And f one ask what is the visible Church, they answer that it is the assemblage of those persons who profess the same faith and sacraments, which contains bad and good, and is a Church only in name; and that the invisible Church is that which contains only the elect, who are not in the knowledge of men, but are only recognized and seen by God.
But we will clearly show that the true Church contains the good and the bad, the reprobate and the elect; - and here are the proofs.
(1.) Was no the true Church which S. Paul called the pillar and ground of truth and the house of the living God (I Tim 3:15)? Certainly; - for to be a pillar of truth cannot pertain to an erring and straying Church. Now the Apostle witnesses of this true Church, the house of God, that there are in it vessels unto honour and unto dishonour (2 Tim. 2:20), that is, good and bad.
(2.) Is not that Church against which the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matt. 16:18) the true Church? Nevertheless there are therein men who have to be loosed from their sins, and others whose sins have to be retained, as Our Lord shows us in the promise and the power He gave to S. Peter in this matter. Those whose sins are retained - are they not wicked and reprobate? Indeed, the reprobate are precisely those whose sins are retained, and by the elect we ordinarily mean those whose sins are pardoned. Now, that those whose sins S. Peter had power to forgive or to retain were in the Church is evident; for them that are outside the Church only God will judge (I Cor. 5:13). Those therefore of whom S. Peter was to judge were not outside the Church but within, though amongst them there were some reprobate.
(3.) And does not Our Lord teach us that we are offended by some one of our brethren, after having reprehended and correcting him twice, in two different fashions, we should take him to the Church? Tell the Church; and if he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican (Matt. 18:17). Here one cannot escape the consequence is inevitable. There is question of one of our brethren who is neither heathen nor publican, but under the discipline and correction of the Church, and consequently member of the Church, and yet there is no inconsistency in his being reprobate, perverse, and obstinate. Not only then do the good belong to the true Church, but the wicked also, until such time as they are cast out from it, unless one would say that the Church to which Our Lord sends us is an erring, sinful, and antichristian Church. This would be too open a blasphemy.
(4.) When Our Lord says The servant abideth not in the house for ever; but the Son abideth for ever (John 8:35); - is it not the same as if he had said that in the house of the Church the elect and the reprobate are for a time? Who can this servant be who abideth not in the house ofr ever except the one who shall be cast into exterior darkness. And in fact Christ clearly shows that he so understands it when he says immediately before, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Now this man, though he abide not forever, yet abideth during such time as he is required for service. S. Paul writes to the Church of God which was at Corinth (I Cor. 1:2), and yet he wishes them to drive out a certain incestuous man (ibid. 5). If he be driven out he was there, and if he were there and the Church is the assemblage of the elect, how could they drive him out? The elect cannot be reprobate.
But why may we not lay down that the reprobate and the wicked are of the true Church, when they can even be pastors and bishops therein? That is certain: is not Judas reprobate? And yet he was Apostle and bishop; according to the Psalmist (cviii. 8), and according to S. Peter (Acts i. 17), who says that he had obtained part of the ministry of the apostolate, and according to the whole Gospel, which ever places him in the number of the college of the Apostles. Was not Nicholas of Antioch a deacon like S. Stephen? -and yet many ancient Fathers make no difficulty on that account of considering him an heresiarch; witness, amongst others, Epiphanius, Philostratus, Jerome. And in fact the Nicolaites took occasion from him to recommend their abominations, of whom S. John makes mention in the Apocalypse (ii. 6), as of real heretics. S. Paul declares to the priests of Ephesus that the Holy Ghost had made them bishops to rule the Church of God (Acts xx. 28), but he assures them also that some of their own selves would rise up speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. He speaks to all when he says that the Holy Spirit has made them bishops, and speaks of those very same persons when he says that from amongst them shall schismatics arise. But when should I have finished if I would here heap up the names of all those bishops and prelates who, after having been lawfully placed in this office and dignity, have fallen from their first grace and have died heretics.
Who, for a simple priest, ever said anything so holy, so wise, so chaste, so charitable as Origen? No one could read what is written of him by Vincent of Lerins, one of the most judicious and learned of Church writers, no one could ponder over his accursed old age, after a life so admirable and holy, without being filled with compassion, to see this grand and brave Pilot, - after so many storms weathered, after so many and such lucrative voyages to Hebrews, Arabs, Chaldieans, Greeks, and Latins, -on his return, full of honour and of spiritual riches, suffer shipwreck and perish in port, an the edge of the tomb! Who would dare to say that he had not been of the true Church, he who had always fought for the Church, and whom the whole Church honoured and hold as one of its grandest Doctors? And yet behold him at last a heretic, excommunicate outside the Ark, perishing in the deluge of his own conceit!
All this corresponds with the holy word of Our Lord (Matt. xxiii. 2), who considered the Scribes and Pharisees as th etrue pastors of the true Church of that time, since He commands that they should be obeyed, and yet considered them not as elect but rather as reprobate. Now what an absurdity would it be, I ask you, if the elect alone were of the Church? That would follow which is said of the Donatists, that we could not know our prelates, and consequently could not pay them obedience. For how should we know whether those who were called prelates and pastors were of the Church, since we cannot know who of the living is predestinate and who is not, as will be said elsewhere? - and if they are not of the Church, how can they hold the place of elect there? It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen-if the head of the Church were not of the Church. Not only then can one who is reprobate be of the Church but even pastor in the Church. The Church then cannot be called invisible an the ground that it is composed of the predestinate alone.
I conclude all this discourse by the Gospel comparisons which show this truth clearly and completely.
S. John likens the Church to the threshing-floor of a farm, on which is not only the wheat for the barn, but also the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire(Matt. iii. 12); are these not the elect and the reprobate? Our Lord compares it to a net cast into the sea, and gathering together of all kind of fishes good and bad (ibid. xiii. 47) to ten virgins, five of them foolish, and five wise (ibid. xxv. 2); to three servants, one of whom is slothful, and therefore cast into the exterior darkness (ibid.14); finally, to a marriage feast, unto which have entered both good and bad, and the bad, not having on the nuptial garment, are cast into exterior darkness (ibid. xxii.) Are not all these so many sufficient proofs that not only the elect but also the reprobate are in the Church? We must therefore close the door of our judgment to all sorts of notions of this kind, and to this one amongst them, by means of that never-enough-pondered proposition: Many are called, but few are chosen(ibid.) All those who are in the Church are called, but all who are therein are not elect; and indeed Church does not mean election but convocation.
CHAPTER VIII.
ANSWER TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE THE CHURCH TO CONSIST OF THE PREDESTINATE ALONE.
WHERE will they find the Scripture passalte which can furnish them any excuse for so many absurdities, and against proofs so clear as those we have given? Yet counter-reasons are not wanting in this matter: never does obstinacy leave its followers without them.
Will they then bring forward what is written in the Canticles (iv.) concerning the Spouse; how she is a garden enclosed, a fountain or spring sealed up, a well of living waters, how she is all fair, and there is not a spot in her; or, as the Apostle says, how she is glorious, not having spot or wrinkle, holy, without blemish (Eph. v. 27)? I earnestly beg them to consider the conclusion they wish to draw, namely, that there can be in the Church none but saints, immaculate, faultless, glorious. I will, with the same passages, show them that in the Church there are neither elect nor reprobate. For is it not the humble but truthful saying, as the great Council of Trent declares, of all the just and elect, Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. I suppose S. James was elect, and yet he confesses (iii. 2), In many things we all offend. S. John closes our mouth and the mouth of all the elect, so that no one may boast of being without sin; on the contrary, he will have each one know and confess that he sins (1 John i.) I believe that David in his rapture and ecstasy knew what the elect are, and yet he considered every man to be a liar (Ps. cxv. 11). If then these holy qualities given to the Spouse, the Church, are to be taken precisely, and if there is to be no spot or wrinkle anywhere in it, we must go out of this world to find the verification of these fair titles, the elect of this world will not be able to claim them. Let us then make the truth clear.
(1.) The Church as a whole is entirely fair, holy, glorious, both as to morals and as to doctrine. Morals depend on the will, doctrine an the understanding. Into the understanding of the Church there never entered falseness, nor wickedness into her will. By the grace of her Spouse she can say with him, Which of you, O sworn enemies, shall convince me of sin? (John viii. 46.) And yet it does not follow that in the Church there are no sinners. Remember what I haye said to you elsewhere: the Spouse has hair, and nails, which are not living though she is living; the senate is sovereign, but not each senator; the army is victorious, but not each soldier - it wins the battle while many of its soldiers are killed. In this way is the militant Church always glorious, ever victorious over the gates and powers of hell, although many of her members, either straying and thrown into disorder like yourselves, are cut to pieces and destroyed, or by other mishaps are wounded and die within her. Take then one after another the grand praises of the Church which are scattered throughout the Scriptures and make her a crown out of them, for they are richly due to her; just as maledictions are due to those who being in so excellent a way are lost. She is an army set in array (Cant. vi. 9), though some fall out of her ranks.
(2.) But who knows not how often that is attributed to a whole body which belongs only to one of the parts? The Spouse calls her beloved white and ruddy but immediately she says his locks are black (ibid. v. 10, 11). S. Matthew says (xxvii. 44) that the thieves who were crucified with Our Saviour blasphemed him, whereas it was only one of them who did so, as S. Luke relates (xxiii. 39). We say that lilies are white, but there are yellow and there are green. He who speaks the language of love readily uses such expressions, and the Canticles are the chaste expressions of love. All these qualities then are justly attributed to the Church an account of the many holy souls therein who most exactly observe the holy Commandments of God, and are perfect-with the perfection that may be had in this pilgrimae, not with that which we hope for in our blessed fatherland.
(3.) Moreover, though there were no other reason for thus describing the Church than the hope she has of ascending, all pure, all beautiful, to heaven above, the fact that this is the sole term towards which she aspires and runs, would suffice to let her be called glorious and perfect, especially while she has so many fair pledges of this holy hope.
He would never end who should take notice of all the trifles which they stay examining here, and on which they raise a thousand false alarms amongst the poor common people. They bring forward that of S. John (x.); I know my sheep, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand : and they say that those sheep are the predestinate, who alone belong to the fold of the Lord. They bring forward what S. Paul says to Timothy (2 Tim. ii. 19) The Lord knows who are his; and what S. John has Said to apostates: they went out from us, but they were not of us (1 John ii. 19). But what difficulty is there in all this? We admit that the predestinate sheep hear the voice of their pastor, and have sooner or later all the qualities which are described in S. John but he also maintains that in the Church, which is the fold of Our Lord, there are not only sheep but also goats. Otherwise, why should it be said that at the end of the world, in the Judgment, the sheep shall be separated, unless because, until the Judgment, whilst the Church is in this world, she has within herself goats with the sheep? Certainly if they had never been together they would never be separated. And in the last instance, if the predestinate are called sheep, so also are the reprobate.
Witness David: Why is thy wrath enkindled against the sheep of thy pasture? (Ps. lxxiii. 1) . I have gone astray like a sheep that is lost (cxviii. ult.). And elsewhere, where he says: Give ear, O thou that rulest Israel; thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep(lxxix. 1): -where he says Joseph, he means those of Joseph, and the Israelitish people, because to Joseph was given the primogeniture, and the eldest gives the name to the race. But who known not that among the people of Israel every one was not predestinate or elect, and yet they are called sheep, and all are together under one shepherd. We confess then that there are sheep saved and predestinated, of whom it is spoken in S. John: there are others damned, of whom it is spoken elsewhere, and all are in the same flock.
Isaias (liii. 6) compares all men, both the reprobate and the elect, to sheep: All we like sheep have gone astray; and in verse 7 he similarly compares Our Saviour: He shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter. And so throughout the whole of chapter xxxiv. of Ezechiel, where there is no doubt but that the whole people of Israel are called sheep (John vi. 67) on account of the doctrine of the real eating of his flesh, and yet he received them as people over which David has to reign (v. 23).
And in the same way, - who denies that Our Lord known those who are his? He knew certainly what would become of Judas, yet Judas was not therefore not one of his Apostles. He knew what would become of thise disciples who went back disciples. It is a quite different thing to belong to God according to the eternal foreknowledge, as regards the Church Triumphant, and to belong to God according to the present communion of Saints for the Church Militant. The first are known only to God, the latter are known to God and to men. "According to the eternal foreknowledge," says S. Augustine, "how many wolves are within; how many sheep without! " Our Lord then known those who are his for his Triumphant Church, but besides these there are many others in the Militant Church whose end will be perdition, as the same Apostle shows where he says that in a great house there are all sorts of vessels and utensils, some indeed unto honour, but some unto dishonour (2 Tim. ii. 20).
So, what S. John says: They have gone out from amongst us, but they were not of us is nothing to the purpose. For I will say, as S. Augustine said: They were with us numero, but they were not with us merito : that is, as the same Doctor says (In Joh. lxv.) "they were with us and were ours by the Communion of the Sacraments, but according to their own individual vices they were not so. They were already heretics in their soul and will, though they were not so after the external appearance. And this is not to say that the good are not with the bad in the Church: an the contrary indeed, how could they go out of the company of the Church if they were not in it? They were doubtless in it actually, but in will they were already without.
Finally, here is an argument which seems to be complete in form and in figure. "He has not God for Father who has not the Church for mother? (Cyp. de unit. Ecel. v.); that is certain: similarly he who has not God for Father has not the Church for mother; most certainly: now the reprobate have not God for Father, therefore they have not the Church for mother; and consequently the reprobate are not in the Church. But the answer is this. We accept the first foundation of this reason; but the second - that the reprobate are not children of God - requires to be well sifted. All the faithful baptized can be called sons of God, so long as they are faithful, unless one would take away from Baptism the narre of regeneration or spiritual nativity which Our Lord has given it. If thus understood there are many of the reprobate who are children of God, for how many persons are there, faithful and baptized, who will be damned, men who as the Truth says, believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away (Luke viii. 13). So that we totally deny this second proposition, that the reprobate are not children of God. For being in the Church they can be called children of God by Creation, Redemption, Regeneration, Doctrine, Profession of faith; although our Lord laments over them in this sort by Isaias (i. 2): I have brought up my children?and they have despised me. But if one say that the reprobate have not God for their Father because they will not be heirs, according to the word of the Apostle, if a son an heir also (Gal. iv. 7)-we shall deny the consequence: for not only are the children within the Church, but so are the servants too, with this difference, that the children will abide there for ever as heirs; the servants shall not, but shall be turned out when it seems good to the master.
Witness the Master himself in S. John (viii. 35), and the penitent son who knew well and acknowledged that many hired servants in his father's house abounded in bread, while he, true and lawful son, was amongst the swine, perishing with hunger, a proof of the Catholic faith in this point. O how many princes are walking on the ground as servants (Eccles. x. 7)! How many unclean animals and ravens in the Ark of the Church! O how many fair and sweet-smelling apples are an the tree cankered within yet attached to the tree, and drawing good sap from the trunk! He who had eyes clear-seeing enough to see the issue of the career of men, would see in the Church reason indeed to cry: many are called and few are chosen; that is, many are in the Militant Church who will never be in the Triumphant. How many are within who shall be without; as S. Anthony foresaw of Arius, and S. Fulbert of Berengarius. It is then a certain thing that not only the elect but also the reprobate can be and are of the Church. And he who to make it invisible would place only the elect therein, acts like the wicked scholar who excused himself for not going to the assistance of his master, an the ground that he had learnt nothing about his body but only about his soul.
CHAPTER IX.
THAT THE CHURCH CANNOT PERISH.
I SHALL be more brief here, because what I shall say in the following chapter forms a strong proof for this belief in the immortality of the Church and its perpetuity. It is said then, to escape the yoke of the holy submission which is owing to the Church, that it perished eighty odd years ago; that it is dead and buried, and the holy light of the true faith extinguished. All this is open blasphemy against the Passion of our Lord, against his Providence, against his goodness, against his truth.
Do we not know the word of our Lord himself: And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to myself (John xii. 12)? Was he not lifted up on the cross? did He not suffer? - and how then having drawn to himself the Church, should he let it escape so utterly from him? how should he let go this prize which had cost him so dear? Had the prince of the world, the devil, been driven out with the stick of the cross for a time of three or four hundred years, to return and reign a thousand years? Would you make so absolutely vain the might of the cross? Is your faithfulness in judgment of such a sort that you would thus iniquitously divide our Lord, and henceforward place a certain comparison between the divine goodness and diabolical malice? No, no: When a strong man armed keepeth court, those things which he possesseth are in peace; bu tif a stronger than he come upon him, and overcome him, he will take away all his armour and will distribute his spoils (Luke xi. 22 23).
Are you ignorant that Our Lord has purchased the Church with His own Blood? and who can take it from him? Think you that He is weaker than his adversary? Ah! I pray you, speak honourably of this captain. And who then shall snatch his Church out of his hands? Perhaps you will say He is one who can keep it, but who will not. It is then his Providence, his goodness, his truth that you attack. The goodness of God has given gifts to men as he ascends to heaven . . . apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, doctors for the perfection of the saints in the work of the ministry, unto the edification of the body of Christ (Eph. iv. I2). Was the perfection of the saints already accomplished eleven or twelve hundred years ago? Had the edification of the mystical body of our Lord, that is, the Church, been completed? Either cease to call yourselves edifiers or answer no:- and if it has not been completed, as in fact it has not, even yet, why wrong you thus the goodness of God, saying that he has taken back and carried away from men what he had given them? It is one of the qualities of the goodness of God that, as S. Paul says (Rom. xi. 29) his gifts are without repentance: that is to say, he does not give in order to take away.
His divine Providence, as soon as it had created man, the heavens, the earth, and the things that are in heaven and an earth, preserved them and perpetually preserves them, in such a way that the species (generation) of each tiniest bird is not yet extinct. What then shall we say of the Church? All this world tost him at the dearest but a simple word: he spoke and all were made (Ps. cxlviii. 5); and he preserves it with a perpetual and infallible Providence. How, I ask you, should he have abandoned the Church, which tost him all his blood, so many toils and travails? He has drawn Israel out of Egypt, out of the desert, out of the Red Sea, out of so many calamities and captivities; and we are to believe that He has let Christianity be engulfed in infidelity? He has had such care of his Agar, and he will despise Sara! He has so highly favoured the servant who was to be driven out of the house, and he will hold the legitimate wife in no esteem! He shall so greatly have honoured the shadow, and will abandon the substance! Oh! how utterly vain and good for nothing would be the promises an promises which he has made of the perpetuity of this Church.
It is of the Church that the Psalmist sings: God hath founded it for ever (xlvii. 8); In his days shall justice spring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon be taken away for ever (lxxi. 7). What peace, what justice, except in the Church? His throne (he is speaking in the person of the eternal Father, of the Church, which is the throne of the Messiah, David?s son) ) shall be as the sun before me and as the moon perfect for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven (lxxxviii. 38). And: I will make his seed to endure for evermore; and his throne as the days of heaven (30); that is, as long as heaven shall endure. Daniel ii. 44 calls it: A kingdom which shall not be destroyed for ever. The angel says to Our Lady that of his kingdom there shall be no end (Luke i. 33), and he is speaking of the Church, as we prove elsewhere. Did not Isaias prophesy thus of Our Lord (liii. 10): If he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, that is, of long duration: and elsewhere (lxi. 8): I will make a perpetual covenant with them; and: all that see them (he speaks of the visible Church) shall know them?
Now, I ask you, who has given Luther and Calvin a commission to revoke so many holy and solemn promises of perpetuity which Our Lord has made to his Church? Is it not Our Lord who, speaking of his Church, says that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? How shall this promise be verified if the Church has been abolished a thousand years or more? How shall we understand that sweet adieu our Lord made to his Apostles: Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world (Matt. ult.), if we say that the Church can perish? Or do we really wish to violate the sound rule of Gamaliel, who speaking of the rising Church used this argument: If this design or work be of men it will fall to nothing; but if it be of God, you are not able to destroy it (Acts v. 38, 39) Is not the Church the work of God? and how then shall we say that it has come to nothing? If this fair tree of the Church had been planted by man's hand I would easdy acknowledge that it Gould be rooted up, but having been planted by so good a hand as is that of our Lord, I could not offer better counsel to those who hear people crying at every turn that the Church had perished than what our Lord said: Let those blind people alone, for every plant which God hath not planted shall be rooted up (Matt. xv. 13, 14)
S. Paul says that all shall be made alive; but each one in his own order: the first-fruits Christ, then they that are of Christ afterwards the end ( I Cor xv. 22, 23, 24). Between Christ and those that are of Christ, that is, the Church, there is no interval, for ascending up to heaven he has left them on earth; between the Church and the end there is no interval, since it was to last unto the end. How! was not our Lord to reign in the midst of his enemies, until he had put under his feet and subjected all who were opposed to him (Ps. cix. 2)? - and how shall these authorities be fulfilled, if the Church, the kingdom of our Lord, has been ruined and destroyed? How should he reign without a kingdom, and how should he reign among his enemies unless he reigned in this world below?
But, I pray you, if this Spouse had died, who first drew life from the side of her Bridegroom asleep an the Cross, if, I say, she had died, who would have raised her from the dead? Do we not know that the resurrection of the dead is not a less miracle than creation, and much greater than continuation or preservation? Do we not know that the re-formation of man is a much deeper mystery than the formation? In the formation God spake, and man was made, he breathed into him the living soul, and had no sooner breathed it into him than this man began himself to breathe: but in his re-formation God employed thirty three years, sweated blood and water, yea, he died over this re-formation. Whoever then is rash enough to say that this Church is dead, calls in question the goodness, the diligence and the wisdom of this great Reformer. And he who thinks himself to be the reformer or resuscitator thereof, attributes to himself the honour due to Jesus Christ alone, and makes himself greater than the Apostles. The Apostles have not brought the Church back to life, but have preserved its life by their ministry, after our Lord had instituted it.
He then who says that having found the Church dead he has raised it to life -does he not in your opinion deserve to be seated an the throne of audacity? Our Lord had cast the fire of his charity upon the earth, the Apostles blowing on it by their preaching had increased it and spread it throughout the world: you say it has been extinguished by the waters of ignorance and iniquity; who shall enkindle it again? (In Ps. ci., S. 2) Blowing is of no use: what is to be done then? Perhaps we must strike again with nails and lance an Jesus Christ the holy living stone, to bring forth a new fire:-or shall it be enough to have Calvin or Luther in the world to relight it? This would indeed be to be third Eliases, for neither Elias nor S. John Baptist did ever as much. This would be leaving all the Apostles far far behind, who did indeed carry this fire throughout the world, but did not enkindle it. "O impudent cry!" says S. Augustine against the Donatists, (s. 79 in Cant.) "the Church is not, because you are not in it!" "No, no," says S. Bernard, "the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock(Matt. vii. 25), and the rock was Christ(1 Cor. x. 4)
And to say the Church has failed - what else is it but to say that all our predecessors are damned. Yes, truly; for outside the true Church there is no salvation, out of this Ark every one is lost. Oh what a return we make to those good Fathers who have suffered so much to preserve to us the inheritance of the Gospel: and now so arrogant are their children that they scorn them and hold them as silly fools and madmen.
I will conclude this proof with S. Augustine (De Unit. Eccl.xvii.), and say to your ministers: What do you bring us new? Shall it be necessary to sow again the good seed, whereas from the time of its sowing it is to grow till the harvest? If you say that what the Apostles sowed has everywhere perished, we answer to you: read this to us from the Holy Scriptures: this you shall never do without having first shown us that this is false which is written, saying, that the seed which was sown in the beginning could grow till the time of the harvest. The good seed is the children of the kingdom, the cockle is the wicked, the harvest is the end of the world (Matt. xiii.). Say not then that the good seed is destroyed or choked, for it grows even to the consummation of the world.
CHAPTER X.
THE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES, AND THE ANSWERS THERETO.
(1.) Was not the Church everywhere destroyed when Adam and Eve sinned? Answer: Adam and Eve were not the Church, but the commencement of the Church. And it is not true that the Church was ruined then, or yet that it had been, because they did not sin in doctrine or belief but in act.
(2.) Did not Aaron the High Priest adore the golden calf with all his people? Answer: Aaron was not as yet high priest, nor head of the people, but became so afterwards. And it is not true that all the people worshipped idols: for were not the children of Levi men of God, who joined themselves to Moses?
(3.) Elias lamented that he was alone in Israel (3 Kings xix. 14). Answer: Elias was not the only good man in Israel, for there were seven thousand men who had not given themselves up to idolatry, and what the Prophet says here is only to express better the justice of his complaint. It is not true again that if all Israel had failed, the Church would have thereby ceased to exist, for Israel was not the whole Church. Indeed it was already separated therefrom by the schism of Jeroboam; and the kingdom of Juda was the better and principal part; and it is Israel, not Juda, of which Aarias predicted (II Par. xy. 3), that it should be without priest and sacrifice.
(4.) Isaiah says (i. 6) that from head to foot there is no soundness. Answer: these are forms of speaking, and of vehemently detesting the vice of a people. And although the Prophets, pastors and preachers use these general modes of expression, we are not to understand them of each particular person, but only of a large proportion; as appears by the example of Elias who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding that there were seven thousand faithful. S. Paul complains to the Philippians (ii. 21) that all seek their own interest and advantage; still at the end of the Epistle he acknowledges that there were many good people with him and with them. Who knows not the complaint of David (Ps. xiii. 3), that there is none that doth goos, no, not one? - and who knows not on the other hand that there were many good people in his day? These forms of speech are frequent, but we must not draw a particular conclusion about each individual. Further, -such things do not prove that faith had failed in the Church, nor that the Church was dead: for it does not follow that if a body is everywhere diseased it is therefore dead. Thus, without doubt, are to be understood all similar things which are found in the threats and rebukes of the Prophets.
(5.) Jeremias tells us (vii. 4) not to trust in lying words, saying: the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord. Answer: who maintains that under pretense of the Church we are to trust to a lie? Yea, on the contrary, he who rests an the judgment of the Church rests on the pillar and ground of truth; he who trusts to the infallibility of the Church trusts to no lie, unless that is a lie which is written: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. We place our trust then in the Holy Word, which promises perpetuity to the Church.
(5.) Is it not written that the revolt and separation must come (2 Thess. ii. 3), and that the sacrifice shall cease (Dan. xii. 11), and that the Son of Man shall hardly find faith on earth at his second visible return (Luke xviii 8), when he will come to judge? Answer: all these passages are understood of the affliction which antichrist will cause in the Church, during the three and a half years that he shall reign mightily; but in spite of this the Church during even these three years shall not fail, and shall be fed and preserved amid the deserts and solitudes whither it shall retire, as the Scripture says (Apoc. xii.).
CHAPTER XI.
THAT THE CHURCH HAS NEVER BEEN DISPERSED NOR HIDDEN.
THE ancients had wisely said that to distinguish correctly the different times referred to in the Scriptures is a good rule for interpreting them aright; for lack of which distinction the Jews continually err, attributing to the first coming of the Messias what is properly said of the second: and the adversaries of the Church err yet more grossly, when they would make the Church such from the time of S. Gregory to this age as it is to be in the time of antichrist. They wrest to this sense that which is written in the Apocalypse (xii. 6) that the woman fled into solitude; draw the consequence that the Church has been hidden and secret, trembling at the tyranny of the Pope, this thousand years, until she has come forward in Luther and his adherents. But who sees not that all this passage refers to the end of the world, and the persecution of antichrist, the time three years and a half being expressly determined therein; and in Daniel also (xii. 7)? And he who would by some gloss extend this time which the Scripture has limited would openly contradict Our Lord, who says (Matt. xxiv. 22) that for the sake of the elect those days shall be shortened. How then do they dare to transfer this Scripture to an interpretation so foreign to the intention of the author, and so contrary to its own circumstances, refusing to look at so many other holy words which prove and certify, loudly and clearly, that the Church shall never be in the desert thus hidden until that extremity, and for that short time; that she will be seen to flee thither and be seen thence to come forth?
I will not again bring forward the numerous passages previously cited, in which the Church is said to be like to the sun, the moon, the rainbow, a queen, a mountain as great as the world -and a multitude of others. I will content myself with putting before your consideration two great captains of the ancient Church, two of the most valiant that ever were, S. Augustine and S. Jerome. David had said (PS. xlvii. 1) : The Lord is great and exceedingly to be praised, in the city of our God in his holy mountain. "This is the City," says S. Augustine (In Ps. xlvii.),"set an a mountain, that cannot be hid. This is the light which cannot be concealed, nor put under a bushel, which is known to all, famous to all:" for it follows: With the joy of the whole earth is Mount Sion founded. And in fact how would Our Lord, who said that men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel (Matt. v. 15) have placed so many lights in the Church to go and hide them in certain unknown corners?
S. Augustine continues (In Ep. i- Joan. Tr. i. The order is slightly changed [Tr.].) : "This is the mountain which covers the whole face of the earth: this is the City of which it is said: A City set an a mountain cannot be hid. The Donatists (the Calvinists) come up to the mountain, and when we say to them, ascend; it is not a mountain, say they, and they rather strike their heads against it than establish their dwelling an it. Isaias, whom we read yesterday, cried out (ii. 2): In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on top of mountains, and all nations shall flow into it.
What is there so visible as a mountain? - Yet there are mountains unknown because they are situated in a corner of the earth. Who amongst you knows Olympus? No one, I am sure, any more or any less than its inhabitants know our Mount Giddaba. These mountains are in parts of the earth: but that mount not so; for it has filled the whole face of the earth. The stone cut from the mountain, without any new operation (Dan. ii) is it not Jesus Christ, springing from the race of the Jews without operation of marriage? And did not this stone break in pieces all the kingdoms of the earth, that is, all the dominations of idols and demons? - did it not increase until it filled the whole earth? It is then of this mountain that is said the Word, prepared on the top of mountains; it is a mountain elevated above the heads of all mountains, and all nations shall flow into it. Who can get lost, or can miss this mountain? Who knocks against and breaks his head against this? Who fails to see the city set an a mountain? Yet no; be not astonished that it is unknown to those who hate the brethren, who hate the Church. For by this they walk in darkness, and know not where they go. They are separated from the rest of the universe, they are blind with anger."
Such are the words of S. Augustine against the Donatists, but the present Church so perfectly resembles the first Church, and the heretics of our age those of old, that by merely changing the names the ancient reasons press the Calvinists as closely home as they did those ancient Donatists.
S. Jerome (Contra Lucif. 14, 25.) enters into the fray from another side, which is just as dangerous to you as the former; for he makes it clearly evident that this pretended dispersion, this retreat and hiddenness, destroy the glory of the cross of Our Lord. For, speaking to a schismatic who had rejoined the Church, he says: "I rejoice with thee, and give thanks to Jesus Christ my God, in that thou hast turned back in good earnest from the heat of falsehood to that which is the sweetness and saviour of the whole world. And say not like some do: Save me, 0 Lord, for there is now no saint (Ps. xi. i); whose impious voice makes vain the cross of Christ, subjects the Son of God to the devil, and understands that grief which the Saviour has poured out over sinners to be expressed concerning all men. But let it never be that God should die for nothing, the mighty one is bound and despoiled of all, the Word of God is accomplished: ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession (Ps. ii. 8).
Where, I pray you, are those too religious, yea, rather too profane persons, who declare there are more synagogues than churches? How shall the cities of the devil be destroyed, and at last, that is, at the consummation of the world, how shall the idols be thrown down, if Our Lord has had no Church, or has had it only in Sardinia? Certainly he is become too indigent." Yes, indeed, if Satan possess at the same time England, France, the East, the Indies, barbarous nations and every place,-how would the trophies of the cross be collected and squeezed into one corner of the world. And what would this great man say of those who not only deny that it has been general and universal, but say that it was only in certain unknown persons, and will no specify one single little village where it was eighty years ago? Is not this greatly to bring down the glorious trophies of Our Lord? The heavenly Father, for the great humiliation and annihilation which Our Lord had undergone on the tree of the cross, has made his name so glorious that all knees were to bow and bend in reverence of Him; but these people do not value the Cross or the actions of the Crucified, taking from this account all the generations of a thousand years. The Father had given him as his inheritance many nations because he had delivered his soul to death (Isaiah liii. 12), and had been reputed with malefactors and robbers; but these people make his inheritance narrow indeed, and so cut away his portion that hardly durign a thousand years shall he have a few secret followers, yea, shall have had none at all!
For I address myself to you, O predecessors, who bear the name of Christian, and who have been in the true Church. Either you had the true faith or you had it not. If you had it not, O unhappy ones, you are damned; and if you had it why did you conceal it from others, why did you leave no memorials of it, why did you not set yourselves against impiety, idolatry? In no wise were you ignorant that God has recommended to each one his neighbor. Certainly with the heart we believe unto justice; but for salvation we must make confession of our faith (Rom. x. 10), and how could you say: I have believed, therefore have I spoken (Psalm cxv. 1)? O miserable again for having so excellent a talent and hiding it in the earth. If the case is so ye are in the exterior darkness; but if, on the contrary, O Luther, O Calvin, the true faith has always been published and continually preached by all our predecessors, yourselves are miserable who have a quite opposite one, and who, to find some excuse for your wills and your fancies, accuse all the Fathers either of impiety if they have believed ill, or of treachery if they have kept silence.
CHAPTER XII.
THE CHURCH CANNOT ERR.
ONCE when Absalom wished to form a faction and division against his good father David, he sat in the way near the gate, and said to each person that went by: There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee..O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, that I might do them justice(2 Kings xv). Thus did he seduce the loyalty of the Israelites. O how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distort the people of Our Lord from obedience to the Church and her pastors, and to lead away Christian laity into rebellion and revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France: there is no one appointed by God to hear doubts concerning the faith and to answer them ; the Church itself, the rulers of the Church, have no power to determine what we are to hold as to the faith and what we are not; we must seek other judges than the prelates, the Church can err in its decrees and rules.
But what more hurtful and audacious proposition could they make to Christianity than that? If then the Church can err, O Calvin, O Luther, to whom shall I have recourse in my difficulties? To the Scripture, say they. But what shall I, poor man, do, for it is precisely about the Scripture that my difficulty lies. I am not in doubt whether I must believe the Scripture or not; for who knows not that it is the Word of Truth?
What keeps me in anxiety is the understanding of this Scripture, is the conclusions to be drawn from it, which are innumerable and diverse and opposite on the same subject; and everybody takes his view, one this, another that, though out of all there is but one which is sound:- Ah! who will give me to know the good among so many bad? who will tell me the real verity through so many specious and masked vanities. Everybody would embark an the ship of the Holy Spirit; there is but one, and only that one shall reach the port, all the rest are an their way to shipwreck.
Ah! what danger am I in of erring! All shout out their claims with equal assurance and thus deceive the greater part, for all boast that theirs is the ship. Whoever says that our Master has not left us guides in so dangerous and difficult a way, says that he wishes us to perish. Whoever says that he has put us aboard at the mercy of wind and tide, without giving us a skilful pilot able to use properly his compass and Chart, says that the Saviour is wanting in foresight. Whoever says that this good Father has sent us into this school of the Church, knowing that error was taught there, says that he intended to foster our vice and our ignorance. Who has ever heard of an academy in which everybody taught, and nobody was a scholar? - such would be the Christian Commonwealth if the Church can err. For if the Church herself err, who shall not err? and if each one in it err, or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruction? - to Calvin? but why to him rather than to Luther, or Brentius, or Pacimontanus?
Truly, if I must take my Chance of being damned for error, I will be so for my own not for another's, and will let there wits of mine scatter freely about, and maybe they will find the truth as quickly as anybody else. We should not know then whither to turn in our difficulties if the Church erred. But he who shall consider how perfectly authentic is the testimony which God has given of the Church, will see that to say the Church errs is to say no less than that God errs, or else that he is willing and desirous for us to err; which would be a great blasphemy. For is it not Our Lord who says: If thy brother shall offend thee . . . tell the Church, and he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as tht heathen and the publican ( Matt. xviii.) Do you see how Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differences, whatever they may be? How much more in more serious offences and differences!
Certainly if by the order of fraternal correction I am obliged to go to the Church to effect the amendment of some evil person who has offended me, how much more shall I be obliged to denounce him who calls the whole Church Babylon, adulterous, idolatrous, perjured? And so much the more because with this evil-mindedness of his he can seduce and infect a whole province ; the vice of heresy being so contagious that it spreadeth like a cancer(2 Tim. ii. 17) for a time. When, therefore, I see some one who says that all our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have fallen into idolatry, have corrupted the Gospel, and committed all the iniquities which follow upon the fall of religion, I will address myself to the Church, whose judgment every one must submit to.
But if she can err then it is no longer I, or man, who will keep error in the world it will be our God himself who will authorise it and give it credit, since he commands us to go to this tribunal to hear and receive justice. Either he does not know what is done there, or he wishes to deceive us, or true justice is really done there; and the judgments are irrevocable. The Church has condemned Berengarius; if any one would further discuss this matter, I hold him as a heathen and a publican, in order to obey my Saviour, who leaves me no choice herein, but gives me this order: Let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.
It is the same as S. Paul teaches when he calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth ( 1 Tim. iii. 15). Is not this to say that truth is solidly upheld in the Church? Elsewhere truth is only maintained at intervals, it falls often, but in the Church it is without vicissitude, unmovable, unshaken, in a word steadfast and perpetual. To answer that S. Paul's meaning is that Scripture has been put under the guardianship of the Church, and no more, is to weaken the proposed similitude too much. For to uphold the truth is a very different thing from guarding the Scripture. The Jews guard a part of the Scriptures, and so do many heretics; but they are not an that account a column and ground of truth. The bark of the letter is neither truth nor falsehood, but according to the sense that we give it is it true or false. The truth consists in the sense, which is, as it were, the marrow. And therefore if the Church were guardian of the truth,the sense of the Scripture would have been entrusted to her care, and it would be necessary to seek it with her, and not in the brain of Luther or Calvin or any private person. Therefore she cannot err, ever having the sense of the Scriptures. And in fact to place with this sacred depository the letter without the sense, would be to place therein the purse without the gold, the shell without the kernel, the scabbard without the sword, the box without the ointment, the leaves without the fruit, the shadow without the Body.
But tell me, if the Church has the care of the Scriptures, why did Luther take them and carry them away from her? And why do you not receive at her hands the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, and the rest, as much as the Epistle to the Hebrews? For she protests that she has just as jealous a care of these as of these. In short, the words of S. Paul cannot suffer this sense that you would give them: he speaks of the visible Church, for where would he direct his Timothy to behave himself? He calls it the house of Our Saviour; therefore it is well founded, well ordered, well sheltered against all storms and tempest of error. It is the pillar and ground of truth ; truth then is in it, it abides there, it dwells there; who seeks it elsewhere loses it. It is so thoroughly safe and firm that all the gates of hell, that is, all the forces of the enemy, cannot make themselves masters of it. And would not the place be taken by the enemy if error entered it, with regard to the things which are for the honour and service of the Master? Our Lord is the head of the Church,-are you not ashamed to say that the Body of so holy a head is adulterous, profane, corrupt?
And say not that he is head of an invisible Church, for, since there is only a visible Church (as I have shown above) our Lord is the head of that; as S. Paul says :And he hach made him head over all the Church (Eph. i. 22); not over one Church out of two, as you imagine, but over the whole Church. Where two or three are gathered together in the name of the Lord, he is in the midst of them (Matt. xviii. 20). Ah! who shall say that the assembly of the universal Church of all time has been abandoned to the mercy of error and impiety? I conclude then that when we see that the universal Church has been and is in the belief of some article, - whether we see it expressly in the Scripture, whether it is drawn therefrom by some deduction, or again by tradition, - we must in no way judge, nor dispute, nor doubt concerning it, but show obedience and homage to this heavenly Queen, as Christ commands, and regulate our faith by this standard: And if it would have been impious in the Apostles to contest with their Master, so will it be in him who contests with the Church. For if the Father has said of the Son: Hear ye him, the Son has said of the Church: If any one will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE MINISTERS HAUE VIOLATED THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH.
I AM not now concerned to show how your ministers have degraded the holiness and majesty of the Spouse of Jesus Christ. They cry out loud and clear that she has remained eight hundred years adulterous and anti-christian, from S. Gregory to Wicliffe - whom Beza considers the first restorer of Christianity. Calvin indeed would shield himself under a distinction, saying that the Church can err in things unnecessary for salvation, not in others. But Beza openly confesses that she has so far erred that she is no longer the Church. And is this not to err in things necessary for salvation, although he avows that outside the Church there is no salvation? It follows then from what he says-let him turn and turn about as he likes - that the Church has erred in things necessary for salvation. For if outside the Church there is no salvation, and the Church has so gravely erred that she is no more the Church, certainly in her there is no salvation. Now she can only lose salvation by giving up the things necessary for salvation; she has therefore erred in things necessary for salvation; otherwise, having what is necessary for salvation, she would be the true Church, or else men can be saved outside the true Church, which is impossible. And Beza says that he learnt this way of speaking from those who instructed him in his pretended religion, that is, from Calvin.
Indeed if Calvin thought that the Church of Rome had not erred in things necessary for salvation he would have done wrong to separate himself from it, for bring able to secure his salvation in it, and true Christianity residing in it, he would have been obliged to stay therein for his salvation, which could not be in two different places.
Perhaps I may be told that Beza says indeed that the Roman Church, as it is now, errs in things necessary for salvation, and that therefore he left it; but that he does not say the true Church has ever erred. He cannot, however, escape in that direction; for what Church was there in the world two, there, four, five hundred years ago, save the Church Catholic and Roman, just exactly as it is at present? There was certainly no other, therefore it was the true Church and yet it erred; or there was no Church in the world - and in that case again he is constrained to confess that this disappearance of the Church arose from intolerable error, and error in things necessary for salvation. For as to that dispersion of the faithful, and that secret Church that he fancies he can bring forward, I have already sufficiently exposed the vainness of it. Besides the fact that when they confess the visible Church can err, they dishonour the Church to which Our Lord directs us in our difficulties, and which S. Paul calls the pillar and ground of truth. For it is only of the visible Church that these testimonies are understood, unless we would say that Our Lord had sent us to speak to an invisible and un-perceivable thing, a thing utterly unknown, or that S. Paul instructed his Timothy to converse in a society of which he had no knowledge.
But is it not to violate all the respect and reverence due to this Queen, this spouse of the heavenly King, to have brought back into the realm almost all the rout which with such cost of blood, of sweat, and of travails, she had by solemn penal sentence banished and driven from these her confines, as rebels and as sworn enemies of her crown? I mean this setting up so many heresies and false opinions which the Church had condemned, infringing thereby the sovereignty of the Church, absolving those she had condemned, condemning those whom she has absolved. Examples follow.
Simon Magus said that God was the cause of sin, says Vincent of Lerins (Com. Ium c. 34). But Calvin and Beza say no less; the former in the treatise an eternal predestination, the latter in his answer to Sebastian Castalio (See Claude de Sainetes an Atheism; Francis Feuardent in his Dialogues; Bellarmine Controv. Tom. iv. Lib. ii. c. 6 [where find quotations from Calvin and Beza. Tr.]; Hay in his Questions and Answers.): though they deny the word, they follow the things and substance of this heresy - if heresy it is to be called, and not atheism. But of this so many learned men couvict them by their own words that I will not stay upon it.
Judas, says S. Jerome (in Matt. xxvi. 48), thought that the miracles he saw worked by the hand of Our Lord were diabolical operations and illusions (Porphyry and Eunomius did the same. (See Jerome adv. Vig. (10).) I know not whether your ministers think of what they are saying, but when we bring forward miracles, what do they say but that they are sorceries? The glorious miracles which Our Lord does, O men of this world, instead of opening your eyes, how do you speak of them? (See Calvin in Pref. to Instit. ; the Centuriators ; Peter Martyr (a viii. Ind. de Harr. c. 27).)
The Pepusians, says S. Augustine (De Haer. 27.) (or Montanists and Phrygians, as the Code calls them), admitted women to the dignity of the priesthood. Who is ignorant that the English brethren hold their Queen Elizabeth to be head of their Church?
The Manicheans, says S. Jerome (Praef. in Dial. c. Pelag.), denied freewill: Luther has composed a book against free-will, which he calls de servo arbitrio: for Calvin I appeal to yourselves. (The Saint adds in marginal note : Amb. Ep. 83 (Migne Ep. xxiii. ) " We rightly condemn the Manicheans an account of their Sunday fasts.")
The Donatists believed that the Church was destroyed throughout the world and remained only with them (Aug. de Haer. 69): your ministers say the same. Again, they believe that a bad man cannot baptize (lb. contra Pet. i. 7); Wycliff said just as much, whom I bring forward in mockery, because Beza holds him for a glorious reformer. As to their lives, their virtues were such as these: they gave the most precious Sacrament to the dogs, they cast the holy Chrism upon the ground, they overthrew the altars, broke the chalices and sold them, they shaved the heads of the priests to take the sacred unction from them, they took and tore away the veil from nuns to reform them (See Optatus de sch. Don. ii. 17, vi. 1.)
Jovinian, as S. Augustine testifies (De Haer. 82 : and see Jerome cont. Jov.), he would have any kind of meat eaten at any time and against every prohibition ; he said that fasting was not meritorious before God, that the saved were equal in glory, that virginity was no better than marriage, and that all sins were equal. Your masters teach the same.
Vigilantius, as S. Jerome says, (Cont. Vig.; and Ep. ii. adv. eundem.) denied that the relics of the Saints are to be honoured, that the prayers of the Saints are profitable, that priests should live in celibacy; [he rejected] voluntary poverty. And what of all those things do you not deny? (here and in the preceding paragraph the Saint refers to Luther (De Nat. B.M.; in I Pet. Ep.; and Epithal.); and Calvin (in Antid. S. vi.))
About the year 324, Eustathius despised the ordinary fasts of the Church, ecclesiastical traditions, the shrines of the holy Martyrs, and places dedicated to their honour. The account is given by the Council of Gangra (in proef.) in which for those reasons he was anathematized and condemned. See how long your reformers have been condemned.
Eunomius would not yield to plurality, dignity, antiquity, as S. Basil testifies (Contre Eun. I) He said that faith alone was suffieient for salvation, and justified (Aug. haer. 54). As to the first point, see Beza in his treatise an the marks of the Church; as to the second, does it not agree with that celebrated sentence of Luther's, (de Cap. Bab. i) whom Beza holds to be a most glorious reformer: "You see how rich is the Christian, that is, the baptized man, who even if he wishes is not able to lose his salvation by any sins whatever, unless he refuses to believe"?
Aerius, according to S. Augustine (H. 53), denied prayer for the dead, ordinary fasts, and the superiority of a bishop over a simple priest. Your masters deny all this.
Lucifer called his Church alone the true Church and said that the ancient Church had become, instead of a Church, a house of ill-fame (Jer. contra Lucif.) and what do your ministers cry out all the day?
The Pelagians considered themselves assured and certain of their justice, promised salvation to the children of the faithful who died without Baptism, held that all sins were mortal. (Jerome adv. Pet. ii. and iii.; S. Aug. contra Jul. vi.) As to the first, this is your ordinary language, and that of Calvin (in Antidoto, p. vi).The second and third points are too ordinary with you to have anything said about them. The Manicheaus rejected the sacrifices of the Church, and images, ( S. Aug. contra Faustum xx) as your people also do.
The Messalians despised Sacred Orders, Churches, Altars, as says S. Damascene (Haeres. 8o); and S. Ignatius says (Apud Tneodoret. Dial. 3, called Impatibilis.): They do not admit the Eucharist and the oblations, because they do not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, which the Father mercifully raised up.Against whom S. Martial has written (II Epist. ad Burdigalenses (apocryphal Tr.).).
Berengarius taught the Same, Jong afterwards, and was condemned by three Councils, in the two last of which he abjured his heresy.
Julian the Apostate despised the sign of the Cross. Xenaias did the same (Niceph. xvi. 27), the Mahometans treat it no worse (Damas. 100.). But he who would see this at full length, let him look at Sanders (viii. 57) and Bellarmine in his Notes of the Church. Do you see the mould an which your ministers lay and form their reformation?
Now, ought not this agreement of opinions, or, to speak more rightly, this close parentage and consanguinity which your first masters had with the most cruel, inveterate, and sworn enemies of the Church, ought not this alone to dissuade you from following them, and to bring you under the right banner? I have not cited one heresy which was not held as such by that Church which Calvin and Beza confess to have been the true Church - that is, in the first five hundred years of Christianity. Ah! I pray you, is it not to trample the majesty of the Church under foot thus to produce as reformations, and necessary and holy reparations, what she has so greatly abominated when she was in her purest years, and which she had crushed down as impiety, as the ruin and corruption of true doctrine? The delicate stomach of this heavenly Spouse had scarcely been able to bear the violence of these poisons, and had rejected them with such energy that many veins of her martyrs had burst with the effort, and now you offer them to her again as a precious medicine! The Fathers whom I have quoted would never have placed them an the list of heretics if they had not seen the Body of the Church hold them as such. These Fathers being in the highest rank of orthodoxy, and closely united with all the other Catholic bishops and doctors of their time, we see that what they held to be heretical was so in reality.
Picture to yourselves this venerable antiquity in heaven round about the Master, who regards your reformers and their works. Those have gained their crown combating the opinions which the ministers adore; they have held as heretics those whose steps you follow. Do you think that what they have judged to be error, heresy, blasphemy, in the Arians, the Manichaeans, Judas, they now judge to be sanctity, reformation, restoration? Who sees not that this is the greatest contempt for the majesty of the Church that can be shown? If you would be in the succession of the true and holy Church of those first centuries, do not then oppose what it has so solemnly established and instituted. Nobody can be partly heir and partly not. Accept the inheritance courageously; the charges are not so great but that a little humility will give a good account of them - to say good-bye to your passions, and to give up the difference which you have with the Church: the honours are infinite - the being heirs of God, co-heirs of Jesus Christ in the happy society of all the Blessed!
The Papacy
CHAPTER I.
FIRST AND SECOND PROOFS. OF THE FIRST PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: UPON THIS ROCK: I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.
WHEN Our Lord imposes a name upon men he always bestows some particular grace according to the name which he gives them. If he changes the name of that great father of believers, and of Abram makes him Abraham, also of a high father he makes him father of many, giving the reason at the same time: Thou shalt be called Abraham; because I have made thee the father of many nations.( Gen. xvii. 5.) And changing that of Sarai into Sara, of lady that she was in Abraham's house, he makes her lady of the nations and peoples who were to be born of her. If he changes Jacob into Israel, the reason is immediately given: For if thou halt been powerful against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against men. (Ib. xxxii. 28.) So that God by the names which he imposes not only marks the things named, but teaches us something of their qualities and conditions. Witness the angels, who have names only according to their offices, and S. John Baptist, who has the grace in his name which he announced in his preaching; as is customary in that holy language of the Israelites. The imposition of the name in the case of S. Peter is no small argument of the particular excellence of his charge, according to the very reason which Our Lord appended: Thou art Peter, &c.
But what name does he give him? A name full of majesty, not common, not trivial, but one expressive of superiority and authority, like unto that of Abraham himself. For if Abraham was thus called because he was to be father of many nations, S. Peter has received this name because upon him as upon a firm rock was to be founded the multitude of Christians. And it is on account of this resemblance that S. Bernard "calls the dignity of Peter " patriarchate of Abraham." (de Consid. ii)
When Isaias would exhort the Jews by the example of Abraham, the stock from which they sprang, he calls Abraham Peter: Look unto Abraham, unto the rock (petram)-whence you are hewn: . . look unto Abraham your father; (li. 1,2)' where he shows that this name of rock very properly refers to paternal authority. This name is one of Our Lord's names; for what name do we find more frequently attributed to the Messias than that of rock ? (Eph. ii. 20; Ps. Cxvii. 21; I Cor x. 4) This changing and imposition of name is then very worthy of consideration. For the names that God gives are full of power and might. He communicates Peter's name to him; he has therefore communicated to him some quality corresponding with the name. Our Lord himself is by excellence called the rock, because he is the foundation of the Church, and the corner-stone, the support, and the firmness, of this spiritual edifice: and he has declared that on S. Peter should his Church be built, and that he would establish him in the faith: Confirm thy brethren.(Luke xxii. 32) I am well aware that he imposed a name upon the two brothers John and James, Boanerges, the sons of thunder;(Mark iii. 17) but this name is not one of superiority or command, but rather of obedience, nor proper or special but common to two, nor, apparently, was it permanent, since they have never since been called by it: it was rather a title of honour, on account of the excellence of their preaching. But in the case of S. Peter he gives a name permanent, full of authority, and so peculiar to him that we may well say: to which of the others hath he said at any time, Thou art Peter? -showing that S. Peter was superior to the others.
But I will remind you that Our Lord did not change S. Peter's name, but only added a new name to his old one, perhaps in order that he might remember in his authority what he had been, what his stock was, and that the majesty of the second name might be tempered by the humility of the first, and that if the name of Peter made us recognize him as chief, the name of Simon might tell us that he was not absolute chief, but obeying and subaltern chief, and head-servant. S. Basil seems to have given support to what I am saying, when he said (Hom. de Peonit. 4): " Peter denied thrice and was placed in the foundation. Peter had previously not denied, and had been pronounced blessed. He had said: Thou art the Son of the living God, and thereupon had heard that he was Peter. The Lord thus returned his praise, because although he was a rock, yet he was not the rock; for Christ is truly the immovable rock, but Peter on account of the rock. Christ indeed gives his own prerogative to others, yet he gives them not losing them himself, he holds them none the less. He is a rock, and he made a rock; what is his, he communicates to his servants; this is the proof of opulence, namely, to have and to give to others." Thus speaks S. Basil.
What does he [Christ] say? three things; but we must consider them one after the other : Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it: (Matt. xvi.): he says, that Peter was a stone or rock, and that on this rock or this stone he would build his Church.
But here we are in a difficulty: for it is granted that Our Lord has spoken to S. Peter, and of S. Peter as far as this- and upon this rock -but, it is said that in these words he no longer speaks of S. Peter. Now I ask you:-What likelihood is there that Our Lord would have made this grand preface: Blessed art thou Simon Bar jona ; because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven and I say to thee, &c., in order to say no more than Thou art Peter,-and then suddenly have changed his subject and gone on to speak of something else ? And again, when he says : And on this rock I will build my church,-do you not see that he evidently speaks of the rock of which he had previously spoken? and of what other rock had he spoken but Simon, to whom be had said: Thou art Peter? But this is the ambiguity which may be causing hesitation in your mind; you perhaps think that as Peter is now the proper name of a man, it was so then, and that so we transfer the signification of Peter to rock by equivocation of masculine and feminine. But we do not equivocate here; for it is but one same word, and taken in the same sense, when Our Lord said to Simon: Thou art Peter, and when he said: and on this rock I will build my church. And this name of Peter was not a proper name of a man, but was only [then] appropriated to Simon Bar-jona. This you will much better understand, if you take it in the language in which Our Lord said it; he spoke not Latin but Syriac. He therefore called him not Peter but Cephas, thus: Thou art Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build: as if one said in Latin: Thou art saxum, and on this saxum; or in French: Thou art rocher, and on this rocher I will build my church. Now what doubt remains that it is the same person of whom he says: Thou art Rock, and of whom he says And on this Rock ? Certainly there is no other Cephas spoken of in all this chapter but Simon. On what ground then do we come to refer this relative hanc to another Cephas besides the one who immediately precedes?
You will say:-Yes, but the Latin says: Thou art Petrus, and not: Thou art Petra: now this relative hanc, which is feminine, cannot refer to Petrus, which is masculine. The Latin version indeed has other arguments enough to make it clear that this stone is no other than S. Peter, and therefore, to accommodate the word to the person to whom it was given as a name, who was masculine, there is given it a corresponding termination; as the Greek does, which had put: Thou art neTpos, and on this Tn neTpa. But it does not come out so well in Latin as in Greek, because in Latin Petrus does not mean exactly the same as petra, but in Greek neTpos and neTpa is the very same thing. Similarly in French rocher and roche is the same thing, yet still so that if I had to predicate either word of a man, I would rather apply to him the name of rocher than of roche, to make the masculine word correspond with the masculine subject. I have only to add, on this interpretation, that nobody doubts that Our Lord called S. Peter Cephas (for S. John records it most explicitly, and S. Paul, to the Galatians), or that Cephas means a stone or a rock, as S. Jerome says (In Gal. ii. 13.).
In fine, to prove to you that it is really S. Peter of whom it is said: And on this rock,-I bring forward the words that follow. For it is all one to promise him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to say to him: Upon this rock; now we cannot doubt that it is S. Peter to whom he promises the keys of the kingdom of heaven, since he says clearly: And to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: if therefore we do not wish to disconnect this piece of the Gospel from the preceding and the following words in order to place it elsewhere at our fancy, we cannot believe but that all this is said to S. Peter and of S. Peter: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. And this the Catholic Church, when, even according to the admission of the ministers, she was true and pure, has confessed loudly and clearly in the assembly of 630 Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon (Act iii.).
Let us now see what these words are worth and what they import. (i.) We know that what the head is to a living body, the root to a tree, that the foundation is to a building. Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on S. Peter, shows that S. Peter will be its foundation-stone, the root of this precious tree, the head of this excellent body. The French call both the building and the family, house, on this principle, that as a house is simply a collection of stones and other materials arranged with order, correspondence and measure, so a family is simply a collection of persons with order and interdependence. It is after this likeness that Our Lord calls his Church a building, and when he makes S. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this family.
(2.) By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice.
He shows one of the differences there are between S. Peter and himself. For Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation and builder; but S. Peter is only foundation. Our Lord is its Master and Lord in perpetuity; S. Peter has only the management of it, as we shall explain by and by.
(3.) By these words Our Lord shows that the stones which are not placed and fixed on this foundation are not of the Church, although they may be in the Church.
CHAPTER II. RESOLUTION OF A DIFFICULTY.
BUT a great proof of the contrary, as our adversaries think, is that, according to S. Paul: No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus" ( 1 Cor. 3 11); and according to the same we are domestics of God; built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone.(Eph. Ii, 19,20) And, in the Apocalypse, (xxi., 14) the wall of the holy city had twelve foundations, and in these twelve foundations the names of the twelve Apostles. If then, say they, all the twelve Apostles are foundations of the Church, how do you attribute this title to S. Peter in particular? And if S. Paul says that no one can lay another foundation than Our Lord, how do you dare to say that by these words: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church S. Peter has been established as foundation of the Church? Why do you not rather say, asks Calvin, that this stone on which the Church is founded is no other than Our Lord? Why do you not rather declare, says Luther, that it is the confession of faith which Peter had made?
But in good truth it is an ill way of interpreting Scripture to overturn one passage by another, or to strain it by a forced interpretation to a strange and unbecoming sense. We must leave to it as far as possible the naturalness and sweetness of the sense which belongs to it.
In this case, then, since we see that Scripture teaches us there is no other foundation than Our Lord, and the same teaches us clearly that S. Peter is such also, yea and further that the Apostles are so, we are not to give up the first teaching for the second, the second for the third, but to leave them all three in their entirety. Which we shall easily do if we consider these passages in good faith and sincerely.
Now Our Lord is in very deed the only foundation of the Church; he is the foundation of our faith, of our hope and charity; he is the foundation of all ecclesiastical authority and order, and of all the doctrine and administration which are therein. Who ever doubted of this? But, some one will say to me, if he is the only foundation, how do you place S. Peter also as foundation? (I.) You do us wrong; it is not we who place him as foundation. He, besides whom no other can be placed, he himself placed him. So that if Our Lord is true founder of the Church, as he is, we must believe that S. Peter is such too, since Our Lord has placed him in this rank. If any one besides Our Lord himself had given him this grade we should all cry out with you: No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid. (2.) And then, have you well considered the words of S. Paul? He will not have us, recognize . foundation besides Our Lord, but neither is S Peter nor are the other Apostles foundations besides Our Lord they are subordinate to Our Lord: their doctrine is not other than that of their Master, but their very Master's itself. Thus the supreme charge. which S. Peter had in the militant Church, by reason of which he is called foundation of the Church, as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing. We do not indeed recognize any other secular authority than that of His Highness [of Savoy], but we recognize several under this, which are not properly other than that of His Highness, because they are only certain portions and participations of it. (3.) In a word, let us interpret S. Paul passage by passage: do you not think he makes his meaning clear enough when he says: You are built up the foundations of the Prophets and Apostles But that you may know these foundations to be no other than that which he preached, he adds: Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Our Lord then is foundation and S. Peter also, but with so notable a difference that in respect of the one the other may be said not to be it. For Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation without other foundation, foundation of the natural, Mosaic and Evangelic Church, foundation perpetual and immortal, foundation of the militant and triumphant, foundation by his own nature, foundation of our faith, hope and charity, and of the efficacy of the Sacraments.
S. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord; foundation of the Evangelic Church alone, foundation subject to succession, foundation of the militant not of the triumphant, foundation by participation, ministerial not absolute foundation; in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments. A difference so great as this makes the one unable, in comparison, to be called a foundation by the side of the other, whilst, however, taken by itself, it can be called a foundation, in order to pay proper regard to the Holy Word. So, although he is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Eph. iv, 11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John x, 11; Ezech. xxxiv. 23).
At the same time it is not good reasoning to say all the Apostles in general are called foundations of the Church, therefore S. Peter is only such in the same way as the others are. On the contrary, as Our Lord has said in particular, and in particular terms, to S. Peter, what is afterwards said in general of the others, we must conclude that there is in S. Peter some particular property of foundation, and that he in particular has been what the whole college has been together. The whole Church has been founded on all the Apostles, and the whole on S. Peter in particular; it is then S. Peter who is its foundation taken by himself, which the others are not. . For to whom has it ever been said Thou art Peter, &c.? It would be to violate the Scripture to say that all the Apostles in general have not been foundations of the Church. It would also be to violate the Scripture to deny that S. Peter was so in particular. It is necessary that the general word should produce its general effect, and the particular its particular, in order that nothing may remain useless and without mystery out of Scriptures so mysterious. We have only to see - for what general reason all the Apostles are called foundations of the Church: namely, because it is they who by their preaching have planted the faith and the Christian doctrine ; in which if we are to give some prerogative to any one of the Apostles it will be to that one who said: I have laboured more abundantly than all they.' (I Cor. xv. 10)
And it is in this sense that is meant the passage of the Apocalypse. For the twelve Apostles are called foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem, because they were the first who converted the world to the Christian religion which was as it were to lay the foundations of the glory of men, and the seeds of their happy immortality. But the passage of S. Paul seems to be understood not so much of the person of the Apostles as of their doctrine. For it is not said that we are built upon the Apostles, but upon the foundation of the Apostles - that is, upon the doctrine which they have announced. This is easy to see, because it is not only said that we are upon the foundation of the Apostles, but also of the Prophets, and we know well that the Prophets have. not otherwise been foundations of the Evangelical Church than by their doctrine. And in this matter all the Apostles seem to stand on a level, unless S. John and S. Paul go first for the excellence of their theology. It is then in this sense that all the Apostles are foundations of the Church; but in authority and government S. Peter precedes all the others as much as the head surpasses the members; for he has been appointed ordinary pastor and supreme head of the Church, the others have been delegated pastors intrusted with as full power and authority over all the rest of the Church as S. Peter, except that S. Peter was the head of them all and their pastor as of all Christendom. Thus they were foundations of the Church equally with him as to the conversion of souls and as to doctrine; but as to the authority of governing, they were so unequally, as S. Peter was the ordinary head not only of the rest of the whole Church but of the Apostles also. For Our Lord had built on him the whole of his Church, of which they were not only parts but the principal and noble parts. "Although the strength of the Church," says S. Jerome (ad Jovin. I. 27), "is equally established on all the Apostles, yet amongst the twelve one is chosen that a head being appointed occasion of schism may be taken away." "There are, indeed," says S. Bernard to his Eugenius (de Consid. ii. 8), and we can say as much of S. Peter for the same reason, "there are others who are custodians and pastors of flocks, but thou hast inherited a name as much the more glorious as it is more special."
CHAPTER III.
THIRD PROOF. OF THE SECOND PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER : AND I WILL GIVE THEE THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.
Our adversaries are so angry at our proposing to them the chair of S. Peter as a holy touchstone by which we may test the meanings, imaginations and fancies they put into the Scriptures, that they overthrow heaven and earth to wrest out of our hands the express words of Our Lord, by which, having said to S. Peter that he would build his Church upon him, in order that we might know more particularly what he meant he continues in these words: And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. One could not speak more plainly. He has said: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar jona, because flesh and blood, &c. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, . . . and to thee will I give, & c. This to thee refers to that very person to whom he had said: And I say to thee ; it is then to S. Peter. But the ministers try as hard as they can to disturb the clear fountain of the Gospel, so that S. Peter may not be able to find his keys therein, and that we may turn disgusted from the water of the holy obedience which we owe to the vicar of Our Lord.
And therefore they have bethought them of saying that S. Peter had received this promise of Our Lord in the name of the whole Church, without having received any particular privilege in his own person. But if this is not violating Scripture, never did man violate it. For was it not to S. Peter that he was speaking? and how could he better express his intention than by saying: And I say to thee. . .. I will give to thee? Put with this his having just spoken of the Church, and said: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, which would have prevented him from saying: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom, if he had wished to give hem to the whole Church immediately. For he does not say to it, but, to thee, will I give. If it is allowed thus to go surmising over clear words, there will be nothing in the Scripture which cannot be twisted into any meaning whatever; though I do not deny that S. Peter in this place was speaking in his own name and in that of the whole Church, not indeed as delegated by the Church or by the disciples (for we have not the shadow of a sign of this commission in the Scripture, and the revelation on which he founds his confession had been made to himself alone-unless the whole college of Apostles was named Simon Bar jona), but as mouthpiece, prince and head of the Church and of the others, according to S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril on this place, and " on account of the primacy (Ult. In Joan.) of his Apostolate," as S. Augustine says. It was then the whole Church that spoke in the person of S. Peter as in the person of its head, and not S. Peter that spoke in the person of the Church. For the body speaks only in its head, and the head speaks in itself not in its body; and although S. Peter was not as yet head and prince of the Church, which office was only conferred on him after the resurrection of the Master, it was enough that he was already chosen out for it and had a pledge of it. As also the other Apostles had not as yet the Apostolic power, travelling over all that blessed country rather as scholars with their tutor to learn the profound lessons which afterwards they taught to others than as Apostles or Envoys, which they afterwards were throughout the whole world, when their sound went forth into all the earth (Ps. xviii. 5.). Neither do I deny that the rest of the prelates of the Church have a share in the use of the keys; and as for the Apostles I own that they have every authority here. I say only that the giving of the keys is here promised principally to S. Peter, and for the benefit of the Church. For although it is he who has received them, still it is not for his private advantage but for that of the Church. The control of the keys is promised to S. Peter in particular, and principally, then afterwards to the Church; but it is promised principally for the general good of the Church, then afterwards for that of S. Peter; as is the case with all public charges.
But, one will ask me, what difference is there between the promise which Our Lord here makes to S. Peter to give him the keys, and that which He made to the Apostles afterwards? For in truth it seems to have been but the same, because Our Lord explaining what he meant by the keys said: And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c- which is just what he said to the Apostles in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, &c (Matt. xviii. 18). If then he promises to all in general what he promises to Peter in particular, there will be no ground for saying that S. Peter is greater than one of the others by this promise.
I answer that in the promise and in the execution of the promise Our Lord has always preferred S. Peter by expressions which oblige us to believe that he has been made head of the Church. And as to the promise, I confess that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more to S. Peter than he did to the others afterwards Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. For the words are the same in substance and in meaning in the two passages. I admit also that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, said to S. Peter, he explains the preceding: And I will give to thee the keys, but I deny that it is the same thing to promise the keys and to say: Whatsoever thou shalt loose. Let us then see what it is to promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And who knows not that when a master, going away from his house, leaves the keys with some one, what he does is to leave him the charge and governance thereof. When princes make their entrance into cities, the keys are presented to them as an acknowledgment of their sovereign authority.
It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord here promises to S. Peter; and in fact when the Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse(i. 17, 18) when Our Lord wishes to make himself known to his servant, he says to him: I am the first and the last and alive and was dead, and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death and of hell, except the supreme power over the one and the other? And there also where it is said These things saith the Holy one and the True one, who hath the key of David: he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth (Ibid. iii. 7) , what can we understand but the supreme authority of the Church? And what else is meant by what the Angel said to Our Lady (Luke i. 32): The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever?-the Holy Spirit making us know the kingship of our Lord, now by the seat or throne, now by the keys. But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter. In it there is described the deposition of a sovereign-priest and governor of the Temple: Thus saith the Lord God of hosts: go get thee into him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him what dost thou here? And further on: I will depose thee. See there the de position of one, and now the institution of the other. And it. shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will, clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand : and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house David upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.
Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures? For: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven- is it not at least equivalent to: I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Helcias? And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell, &c. -does this not signify the same as: I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand, and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Juda? And what else is it to be the foundation or foundationstone of a family than to be there as father, to have the superintendence, to be governor there? And if one has had this assurance: I will lay the key of the house of David on his shoulder, the other has had no less, who had the promise: And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And if when he has opened no one shall shut, when he has shut no one shall open; so, when the other shall have loosened no one shall bind, when he shall have bound no one shall loosen. The one is Eliakim son of Helcias, the other, Simon the son of Jonas; the one is clothed with the pontifical robe, the other with heavenly revelation; the one has power in his hand, the other is a strong rock; the one is as father in Jerusalem, the other is as foundation in the Church; the one has the keys of the kingdom of David, the other those of the Church of the Gospel; when one shuts nobody opens, when one binds nobody looses; when one opens no one shuts, when one loosens nobody binds. What further remains to be said than that if ever Eliakim son of Helcias was head of the Mosaic Temple, Simon son of Jonas was the same of the Gospel Church? Eliakim represented Our Lord as figure, S. Peter represents him as lieutenant; Eliakim represented him in the Mosaic Church, and S. Peter in the Christian Church. Such is what is meant by this promise of giving the keys to S. Peter, a promise which was never made to the other Apostles.
But I say that it is not all one to promise the keys of the kingdom and to say: Whatever thou shalt loose, although one is an explanation of the other. And what is the difference? -certainly just that which there is between the possession of an authority and the exercise of it. It may well happen that while a king lives, his queen, or his son, may have just as much power as the king himself to chastise, absolve, make gifts, grant favours: such person, however, will not have the scepter but only the exercise of it. He will indeed have the same authority, but not in possession, only in use and exercise. What he does will be valid, but he will not be head or king, he must recognize that his power is extraordinary, by commission and delegation, whereas the power of the king, which may be no greater, is ordinary and is his own. So Our Lord promising the keys to S. Peter remits to him the ordinary authority, and gives him that office in ownership, the exercise of which he referred to when he said: Whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c. Now afterwards, when he makes the same promise to the other Apostles, he does not give them the keys or the ordinary authority, but only gives them the use and exercise thereof. This difference is taken from the very terms of the Scripture for to loose and to bind signifies but the action and exercise, to have the keys, the habit. . . . See how different is the promise which Our Lord made to S. Peter from that which he made to the other Apostles. The Apostles all have the same power as S. Peter, but not in the same rank, inasmuch as they have it as delegates and agents, but S. Peter as ordinary head and permanent officer. And in truth it was fitting that the Apostles who were to plant the Church everywhere, should all have full power and entire authority as to the use of the keys and the exercise of their powers, while it was most necessary that one amongst them should have charge of the keys by office and dignity,- "that the Church, which is one," as S. Cyprian says, (Ad Jubaianum) "should by the word of the Lord be founded upon one who received the keys thereof."
CHAPTER IV. FOURTH PROOF. OF THE THIRD PROMISE MADE TO S. PETER: I HAVE PRAYED FOR THEE, &C.
To which of the others was it ever said: I have prayed or thee Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren (Luke xxii. 32)? Truly they are two privileges of great importance, these. Our Lord, when about to establish the faith in his Church, did not pray for the faith of any of the others in particular, but only of S. Peter as head. For what could be the object of this prerogative ? Satan hath sought you (vos)-you all; but I have prayed for thee Peter,-is not this to place him alone as responsible for all, as head and guide of the whole flock? But who sees not how pregnant this passage is for our purpose? Let us consider what precedes, and we shall find that Our Lord had declared to his Apostles that there was one of them greater than the others: He, who is the greatest among you.. and he that is the leader,- and immediately Our Lord goes on to say to him that the adversary was seeking to sift them, all of them, as wheat, but that still he had prayed for him in particular that his faith should not fail. I pray you, does not this grace which was so peculiar to him, and which was not common to the others, according to S. Thomas, show that S. Peter was that one who was greatest among them? All are tempted, and prayer is made for one alone. But the words following render all this quite evident. For some Protestant might say that he prayed for S. Peter in particular on account of some other reason that might be imagined (for the imagination ever furnishes support enough for obstinacy), not because he was head of the others or because the faith of the others was maintained in their pastor. On the contrary, gentlemen, it is in order that being once converted he might confirm his brethren. He prays for S. Peter as for the confirmer and support of the others; and what is this but to declare him head of the others? Truly one could not give S. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care of them. For how could he put this command in practice without paying regard to the weakness or the strength of the others in order to strengthen or confirm them? Is this not to again call him foundation of the Church? If he supports, secures, strengthens the very foundation-stones, how shall he not confirm all the rest? If he has the charge of supporting the columns of the Church, how shall he not support all the rest of the building? If he has the charge of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself? The gardener who sees the young plant exposed to the continual rays of the sun, and wishes to preserve it from the drought which threatens it, does not pour water on each branch, but having well steeped the root considers that all the rest is safe, because the root continues to distribute the moisture to the rest of the plant. Our Lord also, having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the faith might always be preserved in the Church.
But I must tell you, before closing this part of my subject, that the denial which S. Peter made on the day of the Passion must not trouble you here; for he did not lose the faith, but only sinned as to the confession of it. Fear made him disavow that which he believed. He believed right but spoke wrong.
CHAPTER V. FIFTH PROOF.
THE FULFILMENT OF THESE: FEED MY SHEEP.
WE know that Our Lord gave a most ample procuration and commission to his Apostles to treat with the world concerning its salvation, when he said to them (John xx.) : As the Father hath sent me I also send you . . receive ye the Holy Ghost whose sins you shall forgive, &c. It was the execution of that promise of his which had been made them in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. But it was never said to any one of the other Apostles in particular: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, nor was it ever said to one of the others: Feed my sheep (John xxi. 17). S. Peter alone had this charge. They were equal in the Apostolate, but into to the pastoral dignity S. Peter alone was instituted: Feed my sheep. There are other pastors in the Church; each must feed the flock which is under him as S. Peter says (I. Ep. v. 2), or that over which h the Holy Ghost hath placed him bishop, according to S. Paul (Acts xx. 28). But, "to which of the others," says S. Bernard, (De Consid. ii. 8.)" were ever the sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed my sheep?"
And to prove that it is truly S. Peter to whom these words are addressed, I betake myself to the holy Word. It is S. Peter only who is called Simon son of John, or of Jona (for one is the same as the other, and Jona is but the short of Joannah); and in order that we may know that this Simon son of John is really S. Peter, S. John bears witness that it was Simon Peter- Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? It is then S. Peter to whom in particular Our Lord says: Feed my sheep.
And Our Lord puts S, Peter apart from the others in that place where he compares him with them: Lovest thou me- there is S. Peter on the one side- more than these- there are the Apostles on the other. And although all the Apostles were not present, yet the principal ones were: S. James, S. John, S. Thomas and others. It is only S. Peter who is grieved, it, is: only S. Peter whose death is foretold. What room is there then for doubting that it was to him alone that this word feed my sheep is addressed, a word which is united to all these others ?
Now that to feed the sheep includes the charge of them, appears clearly. For what is it to have the charge of feeding the sheep, but to be pastor and shepherd; and shepherds have full charge of the sheep, and not only lead them to pasture, but bring them back, fold them, guide them, rule them, keep them in fear, chastise them and guard them. In Scripture to rule and to feed the people is taken as the same thing, which is easy to see in Ezekiel (xxxiv.); in the second Book of Kings (v.2) and in several places of the Psalms, where, according to the original there is to feed, and we have to rule: and in fact, between ruling and pasturing the sheep with iron crook there is no difference. In Psalm xxii., verse I, The Lord ruleth me, i.e., as shepherd governeth me, and when it is said that David had been elected to feed Jacob his servant and Israel his inheritance: and he fed them in the innocence of his (Ps. lxxvii.,71,72) it is just the same as if he said to rule, to govern, to preside over. And it is after the same figure of speech that the people are called sheep of the pasture of Our Lord (Ps. xcix. 3) so that, to have the commandment of feeding the Christian sheep is no other thing than to be their ruler and pastor.
It is now easy to see what authority Our Lord intrusted to S. Peter by these words: Feed my sheep. For in truth the charge is so general that it includes all the faithful, whatever may be their condition; the commandment is so particular that it is addressed only to S. Peter. He who wishes to have this honour of being one of Our Lord's sheep must acknowledge S. Peter, or him who takes Peter's place, as his shepherd. " If thou lovest me "-I quote S. Bernard (De Consid. ii. 8.) - "feed my sheep. Which sheep ? The people of this or that city or region or even kingdom? My sheep, Christ says. Is it not clear to everybody that he did not mean some, but handed over all. There is no exception where there is no distinction. And perhaps the others, his fellow-disciples, were present when, giving a charge to one, he commended unity to all in one flock with one pastor, according to that (Cant. vi.): One is my dove, my beautiful one, my perfect one. Where unity is there is perfection."
When Our Lord said: I know my sheep, he spoke of all; when he said feed my sheep, he still means it of all; for Our Lord has but one fold and one flock. And what else is it to say: feed my sheep, but: Take care of my flock, of my pastures, or of my sheep and my sheepfold? It is then entirely under the charge of S. Peter. For if he said to him: Feed my sheep, either he recommended all to him or some only; if he only recommended some-which? I ask. Were it not to recommend to him none, to recommend to him some only without specifying which, and to put him in charge of unknown sheep? If all, as the Word expresses it, then he was the general pastor of the whole Church. And the matter is thus rightly settled beyond doubt. It is the common explanation of the Ancients, it is the execution of his promises. But there is a mystery in this institution which our S. Bernard does not allow me to forget, now that I have taken him as my guide in this point. It is that Our Saviour thrice charges him to do the office of pastor, saying to him first: Feed my lambs; secondly, my lambs; thirdly, my sheep: not only to make this institution more solemn, but to show that he gave into his charge not only the people, but the pastors and Apostles themselves, who, as sheep, nourish the lambs and young sheep, and are mothers to them.
And it makes nothing against this truth that S. Paul and the other Apostles have fed many peoples with the Gospel doctrine, for being all under the charge of S. Peter, what they have done belongs also to him, as the victory does to the general, though the captains have fought : nor, that S. Paul received from S. Peter the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii, 9), for they were companions in preaching, but S. Peter was greater and chief in the pastoral office ; and the chiefs, call the soldiers and captains comrades.
Nor that S. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and S. Peter of the Jews; because it was not to divide the government of the Church, nor to hinder either the one or the other from converting the Gentiles and the Jews indifferently, nor because the chief authority was not in the hands of one; but it was to assign them the quarters where they were principally to labour in preaching, in order that each one attacking impiety in his own province the world might the sooner be filled with the sound of the Gospel.
Nor that he would seem not to have known that the Gentiles were to belong to the fold of Our Lord, which was confided to him: for what he said to the good Cornelius: In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him (Acts x.), is nothing different from what he had said before: Whosoever shall call upon, the name of the Lord shall be saved (ii.), and the prophecy which he had explained: And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed (iii.). He was only uncertain as to the time when the bringing back of the Gentiles was to begin, according to the holy Word of the Master: You shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth (i.), and that of S. Paul: To you behoved us to speak first the word God but seeing you reject it, we turn to the Gentiles (xiii.), just as Our Lord had already opened the mind of the Apostles to the intelligence of the Scriptures when he said to them: Thus it behoved.. . . that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning with Jerusalem (Luke ult.).
Nor that the Apostles instituted deacons without the command of S. Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles (vi.); for S. Peter's presence there sufficiently authorised that act; besides, we do not deny that the Apostles had full powers of administration in the Church, under the pastoral authority of S. Peter. And we bishops, in union with the Holy See of Rome, ordain both deacons and priests without any special authorization.
Nor that the Apostles sent Peter and John into Samaria (Ib. viii.), for the people also sent Phinees, who was the High Priest, and their superior, to the children of Ruben and Gad (Jos. xxii.); and the centurion sent the chiefs and heads of the Jews, whom he considered to be greater than himself (Luke vii.); and S. Peter being in the council, himself consented to and authorized his own mission.
Nor finally, that which is made so much of- at S. Paul withstood S. Peter to the face (Gal ii. ) for every one knows that it is permitted to the inferior to correct the greater and to admonish him with charity and submission when charity requires; witness our S. Bernard in his books On Consideration; and on this subject the great S. Gregory (In Ezech. ii. 6) says these all golden words: " "He became the follower of his inferior, though before him in dignity; so that he who was first in the high dignity of the Apostolate might be first in humility.?
CHAPTER VI.
SIXTH PROOF. FROM THE ORDER IN WHICH THE EVANGELISTS NAME THE APOSTLES.
IT is a thing very worthy of consideration in this matter that the Evangelists never name either all the Apostles or a part of them together without putting S. .Peter ever at the very top, ever at the head of the band. This we cannot consider to be done accidentally; for it is perpetually observed by the Evangelists; and it is not four or five times that they are thus named together, but very often. And besides, as to the other Apostles, they do not keep any particular order.
The names of the twelve Apostles are these, says S. Matthew (x.): The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the publican, James of Alpheus and Thaddeus, Simon Chananeus, and Judas Iscariot. He names S. Andrew the 2nd; S. Mark names him the 4th; and to better show that it makes no difference, S. Luke, who in one place has put him 2nd, in another puts him 4th. S. Matthew puts S. John 4th; S. Mark puts him 3rd; S. Luke in one place 4th, in another 2nd. S. Matthew puts S. James 3rd; S. Mark puts him 2nd. In short, it is only S. Philip, S. James of Alpheus and Judas who are not sometimes higher, sometimes lower. When the Evangelists elsewhere name all the Apostles together there is no principle except as regards S. Peter, who goes first everywhere. Well now, let us imagine that we were to see in the country, in the streets, in meetings, what we read in the Gospels (and in truth it is more certain than if we had seen it)-if we saw S. Peter the first and all the rest grouped together,-should we not judge that the others were equals and companions, and S. Peter the chief and captain.
But, besides this, very often when the Evangelists talk of the Apostolic company they name only Peter, and mention the others as accessory and following: And Simon and who were with him followed after him (Mark i.): But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep (Luke ix.). You know well that to name one person and put the others all together with him, is to make him the most important and the others his inferiors.
Very often again he is named separately from the others, as by the Angel: Tell his disciples and Peter (Mark xvi): But Peter standing up, with the eleven . . . they said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles (Acts ii.): Peter then answering and the Apostles said, Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas (i Cor. ix.)? What does this mean, to say: Tell his disciples and Peter-Peter and the Apostles answered? Was Peter not an Apostle? Either he was less or more than the others, or he was equal. No man, who is not altogether mad, will say he was less. If he is equal and stands on a level with the others, why is he put by himself? If there is nothing particular in him, why is it not just as well to say: Tell his disciples and Andrew, or John? Certainly it must be for some particular quality which is in him more than in the others, and because he was not a simple Apostle. So that having said: Tell his disciples, or, as the rest of the Apostles, how can one longer doubt that S. Peter is more than Apostle and disciple? Only once in the Scriptures S. Peter is named after S James, James and Cephas and John gave the right hands of fellowship (Gal. ii.).
But in truth there is too much occasion to doubt whether in the original and anciently S. Peter was named first or second, to allow any valid conclusion to be drawn from this place alone. For S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, both in the commentary and in the text, have written Peter, James, John, which they could never have done if they had not found this same order in their copies: S. Chrysostom has done the same in the commentary. All this shows the diversity of copies, which makes the conclusion doubtful on either side. But even if the copies we now have were originals, one could deduce nothing from this single passage against the order of so many others; for S. Paul might be keeping to the order of the time in which he received the hand of fellowship, or without concerning himself about the order might have written first the one which came first to his mind.
But S. Matthew shows us clearly what order there was amongst the Apostles, that is, that one was first, and the remainder were equal without 2d or 3d. First,says he, Simon who is called Peter; he does not say 2d, Andrew, 3d, James, but goes on simply naming them, to let us know that provided S. Peter was first all the rest were in the same rank, and that amongst them there was no precedence. First, says he, Peter, and Andrew. From this is derived the name of Primacy. For if he were first (primes), his place was first, his rank first, and this quality of his was Primacy.
It is answered to this that if the Evangelists here named S. Peter the first, it was because he was the most advanced in age amongst the Apostles, or on account of some privilege which existed amongst them. But what is the worth of such a reason as this, I should like to know? To say that S. Peter was the oldest of the society is to seek at hazard an excuse for obstinacy; and the Scripture distinctly tells us he was not the earliest Apostle when it testifies that S. Andrew led him to Our Lord. The reasons are seen quite clearly in the Scripture, but because you are resolved to maintain the contrary, you go seeking about with your imagination on every side. Why say that S. Peter was the oldest, since it is a pure fancy which has no foundation in the Scripture, and is contrary to the Ancients? Why not say rather that he was the one on whom Christ founded his Church, to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who was the confirmer of the brethren? -for all this is in the Scripture. What you want to maintain you do maintain; whether it has a base in Scripture or not makes no difference. And as to the other privileges, let anybody go over them to me in order, and none will be found special to S. Peter but those which make him head of the Church.
CHAPTER VII.
SEVENTH PROOF. OF SOME OTHER MARKS WHICH ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE PRIMACY OF S. PETER.
IF I wanted to bring together here all that is to be found, I should make this proof as large as I want to make all the section, and without effort on my part. For that excellent theologian, Robert Bellarmine, would put many things into my hands. But particularly has Doctor Nicholas Sanders treated this subject so solidly and so amply that it is hard to say anything about it which he has not said or written in his books On the Visible Monarchy. I will give some extracts.
Whoever will read the Scriptures attentively will see this Primacy of S. Peter everywhere. If the Church is compared to a building, as it is, its rock and its secondary foundation is S. Peter (Matt. xvi.).
If you say it is like a family, it is only Our Lord who pays tribute as head of the household, and after him S. Peter as his lieutenant(lb xvii.).
If to a ship, S. Peter is its captain, and in it Our Lord teaches (Luke v.).
If to a fishery, S. Peter is first in it; the true disciples of Our Lord fish only with him (Ib. and John xxi.).
If to draw-nets (Matt. xiii.), it is S. Peter who casts them into the sea, S. Peter who draws them; the other disciples are his coadjutors. It is S. Peter who brings them to land and presents the fish to Our Lord (Luke v., John xxi).
Do you say it is like an embassy? S. Peter is first ambassador (Matt. x.).
Do you say it is a brotherhood Peter is first, the governor and confirmer of the rest (Luke xxii.).
Would you rather have it a kingdom? S. Peter receives its keys (Matt. xvi.).
Will you consider it a flock or fold of sheep and lambs? S. Peter is its pastor and shepherd-general (John xxi.).
Say now in conscience, how could Our Lord testify his intention more distinctly. Perversity cannot find use for its eyes amid such light. S. Andrew came the first to follow Our Lord; and it was he who brought his brother, S. Peter, and S. Peter precedes him everywhere. What does this signify except that the advantage one had in time the other had in dignity?
But let us continue. When Our Lord ascends to heaven, all the holy Apostolic body goes to S. Peter, as to the common father of the family (Acts i.).
Peter rises up amongst them and speaks the first, and teaches the interpretation of weighty prophecy (Ib.).
He has the first care of the restoration and increase of the Apostolic college (Ib.). It s he who first proposed to make an Apostle, which is no act of light authority; for the Apostles have all had successors, and by death have not lost their dignity. But S. Peter teaching the Church shows both that Judas had lost his Apostolate and that another was needed in his place, contrary to the ordinary course of this authority, which in the others continues after death, and which they will even exercise on the Day of Judgment, when they shall be seated around the Judge, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The Apostles have no sooner received the Holy Ghost than S. Peter, as chief of the Evangelic Embassy, being with his eleven companions, begins to publish, according to his office, the holy tidings of salvation to the Jews in Jerusalem. He is the first catechist of the Church, and preacher of penance; the others are with him and are all asked questions, but S. Peter alone answers for all as chief of all (Acts ii.).
If a hand is to be put into the treasury of miracles confided to the Church, though S. John is present and is asked, S. Peter alone puts in his hand (lb. iii.).
When the time comes for beginning the use of the spiritual sword of the Church, to punish a lie, ,it is S. Peter who directs the first blow upon Animas and Sapphira (Ib. v.): from this springs the hatred which lying heretics bear against his See and succession; because, as S. Gregory says (In Ezech. ii, 18) " Peter by his word strikes liars dead."
He is the first who recognises and refutes heresy in Simon Magus (Ib. viii): hence comes the irreconcileable hatred of all heretics against his See.
He is the first who raises the dead, when he prays for the devout Tabitha (Ib. ix.).
When it is time to put the sickle into the. harvest of paganism, it is S. Peter to whom the revelation is made, as to the head of all the labourers, and the steward of the farmstead (Ib. x.).
The good Italian centurion, Cornelius, is ready to receive grace of the Gospel; he is sent to S. Peter, that the Gentiles may by his hands be blessed and consecrated: he is the first in commanding the pagans to be baptized (Acts x.).
When a General Council is sitting, S. Peter as president therein opens the gate to judgment and definition; and his sentence [is] followed by the rest, his private revelation becomes a law (lb. xv.).
S. Paul declares that he went to Jerusalem expressly to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days (Gal i.). He saw S. James there, but to see him was not what he went for, only to see S. Peter. What does this signify? Why did he not go as much to see the great and most celebrated Apostle S. James as to see S. Peter? Because we look at people in their head and face, and S. Peter was the head of all the Apostles.
When S. Peter and S. James were in prison the Evangelist testifies that prayer was made without ceasing by the Church to God for S. Peter, as for the general head and common ruler (Acts xii.).
If all this put together does not make you acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church and of the Apostles, I confess that Apostles are not Apostles, pastors not pastors, and doctors not doctors. For in what other more express words could be made known the authority of an Apostle and pastor over the people than those which the Holy Ghost has placed in the Scriptures to show that S. Peter was above Apostles, pastors, and the whole Church?
CHAPTER VIII.
EIGHTH PROOF. TESTIMONIES OF THE CHURCH TO THIS FACT.
IT is true that Scripture suffices, but let us see who wrests it and violates it. If we were the first to draw conclusions in favour of the Primacy of S. Peter, one might think that we were wresting it. But how do things stand? It is most clear on the point, and has been understood in this sense by all the primitive Church. Those, then, force it who bring in a new sense, who gloss it against the natural meaning of the words, and against the sense of Antiquity. If this be lawful for everybody, the Scripture will no longer be anything but a toy for fanciful and perverse wits.
What is the meaning of this: that the Church has never held as patriarchal sees any but those of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch? One may invent a thousand fancies, but there is no other reason than that which S. Leo produces (Ad Anat..): because S. Peter founded these three sees they have been called and esteemed patriarchal, as testify the Council of Nice, and that of Chalcedon, in which a great difference is made between these three sees and the others. As for those of Constantinople and Jerusalem, the above named Councils show how differently they are considered from those three others founded by S. Peter.
Not that the Council of Nice speaks of the See of Constantinople.; for Constantinople was of no importance at all at that time, having only been built by the great Constantine, who dedicated and named it in the twenty-fifth year of his Empire: but the Council of Nice treats of the see of Jerusalem, and that of Chalcedon of the see of Constantinople.
By the precedence and pre-eminence of these three sees, the ancient Church testified sufficiently that she held S. Peter for her chief, who had founded them. Otherwise why did she not place also in the same rank the see of Ephesus, founded by S. Paul, confirmed and assured by S. John; or the see of Jerusalem, in which S. James had conversed and presided ?
What else did she testify, when in the public and patent letters which they anciently called formatae, after the first letter of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, there was put the first letter of Peter, except that after Almighty God, who is the absolute King, the lieutenant's authority is in great esteem with all those who are good Christians?
As for the consent of the Fathers concerning this point, Surius, Sanders, and a thousand others have taken away from posterity all occasion of doubting it. I will only bring forward the names by which the Fathers have called him, which sufficiently show their belief concerning his authority.
Optatus of Milevis called him "the head of the Churches" (Contra Parm. ii).
They have called him "Head of the Church," as S. Jerome (adv. Jov. i.), and S. Chrysostom (Hom. ii in Matt.).
"Happy foundation of the Church," as S. Hilary (in Matt. xvi.), and
"Janitor of heaven, the first of the Apostles," as S. Augustine (in J. 56) after S. Matthew.
"Mouth and crown of the Apostles," as Origen (in Luc. xvii.), and S. Chrysostom (in Matt. 55).
?Mouth and prince of the Apostles," as the same S. Chrysostom (in J. 87).
"Guardian of the brethren, and of the whole world " (Ib. ult.).
?Pastor of the Church and head stronger than adamant " (Id. in Matt. 55).
"The immovable rock, immovable pedestal, the great Apostle, first of the disciples, first called and first obeying " (Id. in Poen. 3).
" Firmament of the Church, leader and master of Christians, column of the spiritual Israel, guardian of the feeble, master of the heavens, mouth of Christ, supreme head of the Apostles " (Id. in ador. caten. et glad. Apost. princ. Petri).
" Prince of the Church, port of faith, master of the world" (Id. in SS. P. et P. et Eliam).
"First in the supremacy of the Apostolate " (Greg. in Ezech. xviii.).
" High Priest of Christians " (Euseb. in Chron. 44).
" Master of the army of God " (Id. Hist. ii. 14).
"Set over the other disciples" (Bas. de Judie. Dei 9).
" President of the world " (Chrys. in Matt. I I ).
"The Lord of the house of God, and prince of all his possession" (Bern. Ep. 137, ad Eugen.).
Who shall dare to oppose this company? Thus they speak, thus they understand the Scripture, and according to it do they hold that all these names and titles are due to S. Peter.
The Church then was left on earth by her Master and Spouse with a visible chief and lieutenant of the Master and Lord. The Church is therefore to be always united together in a visible chief-minister of Christ.
CHAPTER IX.
THAT SAINT PETER HAS HAD SUCCESSORS IN THE VICARGENERALSHIP OF OUR LORD. THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR SUCCEEDING HIM.
I HAVE clearly proved so far that the Catholic Church was a monarchy in which Christ's head-minister governed all the rest. It was not then S. Peter only who was its head, but, as the Church has not failed by the death of S. Peter, so the authority of a head has not failed; otherwise it would not be one, nor would it be in the state in which its founder had placed it. And in truth all the reasons for which Our Lord put a head to this body, do not so much require that it should be there in that beginning when the Apostles who governed the Church were holy, humble, charitable, lovers of unity and concord, as in the progress and continuation thereof, when charity having now grown cold each one loves himself, no one will obey the word of another nor submit to discipline.
I ask you: if the Apostles, whose understanding the Holy Spirit enlightened so immediately, who were so steadfast and so strong, needed a confirmer and pastor as the form (forme) and visible maintenance of their union, and of the union of the Church, how much more now has the Church need of one, when there are so many infirmities and weaknesses in the members of the Church? And if the wills of the Apostles, so closely united in charity, had need of an exterior bond in the authority of a head, how much more afterwards when charity has grown so cold is there need of a visible authority and ruler? And if, as S. Jerome says, in the time of the Apostles: " One is chosen from amongst all, in order that, a head being established, occasion of schism may be taken away," (Adv. Jov. i. 26) how much more now, for the same reason, must there be a chief in the Church? The fold of Our Lord is to last till the consummation of the world, in visible unity: the unity then of external government must remain in it, and nobody has authority to change the form of administration save Our Lord who established it.
All this has been well proven above, and it follows therefrom that S. Peter has had successors, has them in these days, and will have them even to the end of the ages.
I do not profess here to treat difficulties to the very bottom. It is enough for my purpose to indicate some principal reasons and to expose our belief precisely. Indeed, if I were to take notice of the objections which are made on this point, while I should find small difficulty I should have great trouble, and most of them are so slight that they are not worth losing time over. Let us see what conditions are required for succeeding to an office.
There can only be succession to one who, whether by deposition or by death, gives up and leaves his place; whence Our Lord is always head and sovereign Pontiff of the Church, to whom no one succeeds, because he is always living, and has never resigned or quitted this priesthood [or] pontificate; though here below, in the Church militant, he partly exercises it by his ministers and servants, his authority, however, being too excellent to be altogether communicated. But these ministers and representatives, as many pastors as ever there are, can give up and do give up, either by deposition or by death, their offices and dignities.
Now we have shown that S. Peter was head of the Church as prime minister of Christ, and that this office or dignity was not conferred on him for himself alone, but for the good and profit of the whole Church; so that Christianity being alway to endure, this same charge and authority must be perpetual in the Church militant: but how would it be perpetual if S. Peter had no successor? For there can be no doubt that S. Peter is pastor no longer, since he is no longer in the Church militant, nor is he even a visible man, which is a condition requisite for administration in the visible Church.
It remains to learn how he made this quittance, how he left this pontificate of his; whether it was by laying it down during his life or by natural death. Then we will see who succeeded him and by what right.
And on the one hand nobody doubts that S. Peter continued in his charge all his life. For those words of Our Lord: Feed my sheep, were to him not only an institution into this supreme pastoral charge, but an absolute commandment, which had no other limitation than the end of his life, any more than that other: Preach the Gospel to every creature, (Mark ult.) which the Apostles laboured in until death. Whilst therefore S. Peter lived this mortal life, he had no successor, -he did not lay down his charge, and was not deposed from it. For he could not be so (except by heresy, which never had access to the Apostles, least of all to their head) unless the Master of the fold had removed him, which was not done.
It was death then which removed him from this guard and general watch which he was keeping as ordinary pastor over the whole sheepfold of his Master. But who succeeded in his place? As to this, all antiquity agrees that it was the Bishop of Rome, for this reason that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome -therefore the diocese of Rome was the last seat of the head of the Church: therefore the Bishop of Rome who came after the death of S. Peter, succeeded to the head of the Church, and consequently was head of the Church. Some one might say that he succeeded the head of the Church as to the bishopric of Rome, but not as to the kingship of the world. But such a one must-show that S. Peter had two sees., of which the one was for Rome, the other for the universe, which was not the case. It is true true that he had a seat at Antioch, but he who held it after him had not the Vicar-generalship, because S. Peter lived long afterwards, and had not laid down that charge; but having chosen Rome for his see he died Bishop thereof, and he who succeeded him, succeeded him simply, and sat in his seat, which was the general seat over the whole world, and over the bishopric of Rome in particular. Hence, the Bishop of Rome remained general lieutenant in the Church, and successor of S. Peter. This I am now about to prove so solidly that only the obstinate will be able to doubt it.
CHAPTER X.
THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME IS TRUE SUCCESSOR OF S. PETER, AND HEAD OF THE MILITANT CHURCH.
I HAVE presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and died such. This the opposite party deny; many of them even deny that he ever was at Rome; but I am not obliged to attack all these negatives in detail, because when I shall have fully proved that S. Peter was and died Bishop of Rome, I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my contention, and from which again will follow a clear certainty that S. Peter was at Rome and died there.
And now here is my first witness, S. Clement, disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote to the brother of the Lord; which is so authentic that Rufinus became the translator of it about twelve hundred years ago. Now he says these words: "Simon Peter, the chief apostle, brought the King of ages to the knowledge of the city of Rome, that it also might be saved. He being inspired with a fatherly affection, taking my hand in the assembly of the brethren, said: I ordain this Clement, Bishop, to whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine." And a little further on: "to him I deliver the power of binding and loosing which was delivered to me by the Lord." And as to the authority of this epistle, Damasus in the Pontifical, in the life of Clement, speaks of it thus: "In the letter which was written to James you will find how to Clement was the Church committed by Blessed Peter." And Rufinus, in the preface to the book of the Recognitions of S. Clement, speaks of it with great honour, and says that he had turned it into Latin, and that S. Clement bore witness in it to his own institution, and said "that S. Peter had left him as successor in his chair." This testimony shows us both that S. Peter preached at Rome and that he was Bishop there. For if he had not been Bishop how would he have delivered to S. Clement a chair which he would not have held there?
The second, S. Irenaeus (iii. 3): To the greatest and oldest and most famous Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." And a little further on: "The blessed Apostles therefore, founding and instituting the Church, delivered to Linus the office of administering it as Bishop; to him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement receives the episcopate.
The third, Tertullian (de Pr. xxxii.) : "The Church also of the Romans publishes,"-that is, shows by public instruments and proofs-" that Clement was ordained by Peter." And in the same book (xxxvi.): "Happy Church, into which the Apostles poured with their blood their whole doctrine!" -and he speaks of the Roman Church, "where Peter's passion is made like to the Lord's." Whereby you see that S. Peter died at Rome and instituted S. Clement there. So that joining this testimony to the others, it is seen that he was Bishop there and died teaching there.
The fourth, S. Cyprian (Ep. 55, ad Corn.): "They dare to sail off to the chair of Peter, and to the head Church, whence the sacerdotal unity has come forth;" and he is speaking of the Roman Church.
Eusebius (Chron. ann. 44) : "Peter, by nation a Galilaean, the first pontiff of Christians, having first founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Rome, where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five years bishop of the same city."
Epiphanius (ii. 27) : "The succession of bishops at Rome is in this order; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, &c."
Dorotheus (in Syn.) : " Linus was Bishop of Rome after the first ruler, Peter."
Optatus of Milevis (de Sch Don.) : "You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first intrusted to Peter, in which Peter, head of all the Apostles, sat." And a little further on: " Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement."
S. Jerome (ad Dam.): " With the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross do I treat : I am united in communion with thy Blessedness, in the chair of Peter."
S. Augustine (Ep 53, ad Gen.): " To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement."
In the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon (Act. iii.), when the legates of the Holy See would deliver sentence against Dioscorus, they speak in this fashion: "Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy. synod, together with the thrice blessed and ever to be praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the foundation of the Catholic Church, has stripped him of the episcopal dignity and also ejected him from the priestly ministry." Give a little attention to these particulars; that the Bishop of Rome alone deprives him, by his legates and by the Council; that they unite the Bishop of Rome with S. Peter. For such things show that the Bishop of Rome holds the place of S. Peter.
The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, in its letter to Felix II., uses remarkable words on this point, and amongst other things, relates that, in the Council of Nice it had been determined that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without the consent of the Holy See of Rome, but that the 'canons which had been made to that effect had been burnt by the Arian heretics. And in fact, Julius I., in the Rescript against the Orientals in Favour of Athanasius (CC. 2, 3), cites two canons of the Council of Nice which relate to this matter, which work of Julius I. has been cited by Gratian, four hundred years ago, and by Isidore nine hundred: and the great Father, Vincent of Lerius, makes mention of it a thousand years back. I say this because all the canons of Nice are not in existence, only twenty remaining: but so many grave authors cite others beyond the twenty, that we are obliged to believe what is said by those good Fathers of Alexandria above-named, that the Arians have got the greater part destroyed. For God's sake let us cast our eyes on ancient and pure Church of the first six centuries, and regard it from all sides. And if we find it firmly believes that the Pope was successor of S. Peter, what rashness will it be to deny it?
This, methinks, is a reason which asks no credit, but pays in good coin. S. Peter has had successors in his vicarship: and who has ever in the ancient Church had the reputation of being successor of S. Peter, and head of the Church, except the Bishop of Rome? In truth all ancient authors, whosoever they be, all give this title to the Pope, and never to others.
And how then shall we say it does not belong to him ? Truly it were to deny the known truth. Or let them tell us what other bishop is the head of the Church, and successor of S. Peter. At the Council of Nice, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is not seen that any bishops usurp the primacy for himself: it is attributed, according to ancient custom, to the Pope; no other is named in equal degree. In short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, of any bishop in the first five hundred years that he was head or superior over the rest, except of the Bishop of Rome; about him indeed it was never doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. On what ground, then, after fifteen hundred years passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition? I should never end were I to try to catalogue all the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we have in the Ancients' writings: but this will suffice just now to prove that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died Bishop at Rome.
CHAPTER XI.
SHORT DESCRIPTION OF THE LIFE OF S. PETER, AND OF THE INSTITUTION OF HIS FIRST SUCCESSORS.
THERE is no question which the ministers fight over so pertinaciously as this. For they try by force of conjectures, presumptions, dilemmas, explanations, and by every means, to prove that S. Peter was never at Rome: except Calvin, who, seeing that this was to belie all antiquity, and that it was not needed for his opinion, contents himself with saying that at least S. Peter was not long Bishop at Rome: "On account of the consent of writers, I do not dispute that he was at Rome. But that he was bishop, especially for a long time, I cannot admit." But in truth, though he were Bishop of Rome for but a very short time, if he died there he left there his chair and his succession. So that as to Calvin we should not have great cause for discussion, provided that he was resolved to acknowledge sincerely that S. Peter died at Rome, and that he was bishop there when he died. And as to the others we have sufficiently proved above that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome.
The statements which are made to the contrary are more captious than hard to resolve; and because he who shall have the true account of the life of S. Peter before his eyes will have enough answer for all the objections, I will briefly say what I think the more probable, in which I will follow the opinion of that excellent theologian, Gilbert Genebrard, Archbishop of Aix, in his Chronology, and of Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, in his Controversies, who closely follow S. Jerome, and Eusebius in Chronico.
Our Lord then ascended into heaven in the eighteenth year of Tiberius, and commanded his Apostles to stay in Jerusalem twelve years, according to the ancient tradition of Thraseas, martyr, not all indeed but some of them (to verify the word spoken by Isaias (lxv.), and as SS. Paul and Barnabas seem to imply (Acts xiii. 46)), for S. Peter was in Lydda and in Joppa before the twelve years had expired:- it was enough that some Apostles should remain in Judaea as witnesses to the Jews. S. Peter then remained in Judaea about five years after the Ascension, preaching and announcing the Gospel, and at the end of the first year, or soon afterwards, S. Paul was converted, who after three years went to Jerusalem to see Peter,(Gal. i. 18), Iwith whom he stayed fifteen days. Peter then having preached about five years in Judaea towards the end of the fifth year went to Antioch, where he remained Bishop about seven years, that is, till the second year of Claudius,_but meanwhile making evangelic journeys into Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and elsewhere, for the conversion of the nations. From thence, having committed his episcopal charge to the good Evodius, he returned to Jerusalem, on his arrival in which place he was imprisoned by Herod to please the Jews (Acts xii. 6) about the time of the Passover. But escaping from the prison soon afterwards under the direction of the angel, he came, that same year, which was the second of Claudius, to Rome, where he established his chair, which he held about twenty-five years, during which he did not omit to visit various provinces, according to the necessity of the Christian commonwealth; but amongst other things, about the eighteenth year of the Passion and Ascension of the Saviour, which was the ninth of Claudius, he was driven with the rest of the Hebrews from Rome, and went away to Jerusalem, where the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated, in which S. Peter presided. Then Claudius being dead, S. Peter returned to Rome, taking up again his first work of teaching and of visiting from time to time various provinces, where at last Nero, having imprisoned him for death, with S. Paul his companion, Peter, yielding to the holy importunities of the faithful, was about to make his escape and get out of the city by night; when meeting Our Saviour by the gate he said to Him: Domine quo vadis?-Lord, whither goest thou? He answered: I go to Rome to be crucified anew:* (* Amb. contra Aux. ; Origen in Gen. iii ; Athan. pro fuga ; Jerome de Vir. ill. ; Eusebius in Chron ; Ado; Tertull. de praescr.) an answer which S. Peter well knew pointed towards his cross. So that, after having been about five years in Judaea, seven years in Antioch, twenty-five years at Rome, in the fourteenth year of Nero's empire he was crucified, head downwards, and on the same day S. Paul had his head cut off.
But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S. Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the administration of the Roman bishopric. So that to him who would know why some authors place S. Clement first in order after S. Peter, and others S. Linus, I will make him an answer by S. Epiphanius, an author worthy of credit, whose words are these (Haer. 27):
?Let no man wonder that Linus and Cletus took up the episcopate before S. Clement, he being a disciple of the Apostles, contemporary with Peter and Paul; for they also were contemporaries of the Apostles; whether therefore whilst they were alive he received from Peter the imposition of the hands of the episcopate, and refusing the office waited, or, after the departure of the Apostles was appointed by the bishop Cletus, we do not clearly know."
Because therefore S. Clement had been chosen by S. Peter as he himself testifies, and yet would not accept the charge before the death of Linus and Cletus, some, in consideration of the election made by S. Peter, place him the first in order, others, looking, at the refusal he gave and at his leaving the exercise of it to Linus and Cletus, place him the fourth.
Besides, S. Epiphanius may have had reason to doubt about the election of S. Clement made by S. Peter, for want of having had sufficient proofs; while possibly Tertullian, Damasus, Rufinus, and others may have had means of ascertaining the truth; and this may be the reason why S. Epiphanius speaks thus indecisively. Tertullian, who was more ancient, states positively: "The Church of the Romans publishes that Clement was ordained by Peter," that is, proves by documents and public acts. As for myself I prefer, and reasonably, to place myself on the side of those who are certain; because he who doubts what a man of probity and sense distinctly certifies contradicts the speaker; on the contrary, to be sure of that which another doubts about is simply to imply that the doubter does not know all, as indeed he has first confessed himself, by doubting, for doubting is nothing but not certainly knowing the truth of a thing.
And now, having seen by this short account of the life of S. Peter, which bears every mark of probability, that S. Peter did not always stay in Rome, but, having his chair there, did not omit to visit many provinces, to return to Jerusalem and to fulfill the apostolic office, all those frivolous reasons which are drawn from the negative authority of the Epistle of S. Paul will no longer have entrance into your judgments. For if it be said that S. Paul, writing to Rome and from Rome, has made no mention of S. Peter, we need not be surprised, for, perhaps, he was not there at that time.
So, it is quite certain that the First Epistle of S. Peter was written from Rome, as S. Jerome witnesses (De Vir. Ill.: Peter," says he, "in his first Epistle, figuratively signifying Rome under the name of Babylon, says "The Church which is in Babylon, elected together, saluteth you." This that most ancient man Papias, a disciple of the Apostles, had previously attested, as Eusebius records. But would this consequence be good- S. Peter, in that Epistle, gives no sign that S. Paul was with him, therefore Paul was never in Rome? This Epistle does not contain everything, and if it does not say that he was there, it also does not say that he was not. It is probable that he was not there then, or that if he were it was not expedient to name him in that place for some reason. I say the same of S. Paul's letter.
Lastly, to adjust the times of the life of S. Peter to the reigns of Tiberius, Caius Caligula, and Nero, we can lay them out something in this fashion. In the eighteenth year of Tiberius, Our Lord ascended into heaven, and Tiberius survived Our Lord in this world about six years; five years after the Ascension, in the last year of the Empire of Tiberius, S. Peter came to Antioch, where having stayed about ten years, that is, what remained of Tiberius, four years of Caius Caligula, and two of Claudius -towards the end of the second of Claudius he came to Rome, where he remained seven years, that is, till the ninth of Claudius, when the Jews were driven out of Rome, which caused S. Peter to withdraw into Judaea. About five years afterwards, Claudius being dead in the fourteenth year of his reign, S. Peter returned to Rome, where he stayed till the fourteenth and last year of Nero. This makes about thirty-seven years that S. Peter lived after the death of his Master, of which he lived twelve partly in Judaea partly in Antioch, and twenty-five he lived as Bishop of Rome.
CHAPTER XII. CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE ABOVE BY THE TITLES WHICH ANTIQUITY HAS GIVEN TO THE POPE.
HEAR in few words what the Ancients thought of this matter, and in what rank they held the Bishop of Rome. This is the way they speak, whether of the See of Rome and its Church, whether of the Pope: for all comes to the same.
Chair of Peter. - Cyp. Lib. i., EP- 3,[Editio Erasmi].
Principal Church - Ib. 55 [ad Corn.]
Commencement of sacerdotal unity - lb. iii. 13.
Bond of unity: sublime summit of the priesthood lb. iv. 2.
Church in which is the superior authority Iren. iii. 3,
Root and matrix of the Church Cyp. iv. 8.
Seat on which our Lord established the whole Church Anac. Ep. i, ad omnes Episc., &c. [from S. Siricius, Ep I ad Himer.]
Hinge and head of all Churches Ib. 3
Refuge of bishops Marcellus, Ep. i, ad Episc. Antioch.
Supreme Apostolic seat Syn. Alex. Ep. ad Fel. ubi Ath.
Head of the pastoral honour Prosper "de Ingratis" [lin. 40].
Supremacy of the Apostolic chair. Aug. Ep. 162 [Migne 43].
Principal dignity of the Apostolic priesthood Prosper "de Voc. Gen." ii. 16. In prxf. Cone. Chat.; Valent. Imperator.
Head of all Churches Victor Ut. "de persec. Van." ii.; Justinianus "de summa Trin."
Head of the world, of the universe, by religion . Leo M. in Nat. SS. P. et P.; Prosper "de Ingratis."
Set over the rest of the Churches - Syn. Rom. sub Gelasio.
The presiding Church - Ign. ad Rom. in inscriptione.
The first see to be judged by no one - Syn. Sinuessana 300 Episc.
First seat of all Leo Ep. 61 [ad Theod.]
Most safe harbour of Catholic communion Hieron. Ep. 16.
Apostolic fountain Innoc. ad Patres Milev. inter .Epist. S. Auf. 93 [Migne 182].
Thus do they name the Roman Church; now see how they style the Pope:
Bishop of the most holy Catholic Church - Cyp. iii. 11.
Most holy and most blessed Patriarch - Conc. Chalc., Act iii.
Head of the Council of Chalcedon. - In relatione.
Head of the Universal Church Ibid. xvi.
Most blessed Lord ; elevated to the Apostolic Dignity; father of fathers; supreme pontiff of all prelates - Steph. Episc. Carthag. in Ep. ad Damas. nomine Cone. Carthag.
High Priest - Hieron. Proef. Evang. ad Dam.
Prince of Priests Id testatur tota antiq. apud. Valent. ep. ad Theodos. initio. Cone. Chalc.
Ruler of the house of the Lord - Amb. in I Tim. iii.
Guardian of the Lord's vineyard - Cone. Chalc. ep. ad Leon.
Vicar of Christ - Cy. i. 3
Confirmer of the brethren - Bern. Ep. 190.
Great priest; supreme pontiff; prince of bishops; heir of the Apostles; Abel in primacy; Noe in government; Abraham in patriarchate; Melchisedech in order; Aaron in dignity; Moses in authority; Samuel in judgment; Peter in authority; Christian unction; shepherd of the Lord's fold; key-bearer of the Lord's house; shepherd of all shepherds; called in plenitude of power. - Ib. de Consid. ii. 8.
I should never end if I tried to heap together all the titles which the Ancients have given to the Holy See of Rome and to its Bishop. The above ought to suffice to make even the most perverse wits see the extravagant lie which Beza continues to tell after his master Calvin, in his treatise On the Marks of the Church, where he says that Phocas was the first to give authority to the Bishop of Rome over the rest, and to place him in Primacy.
What is the use of uttering so gross a lie? Phocas lived in the time of S. Gregory the Great, and every one of the authors I have cited is earlier than S. Gregory, except S. Bernard, whom I have quoted, from his books On Consideration, because Calvin holds these so true that he considers truth itself has spoken in them.
It is objected that S. Gregory would not let himself be called Universal Bishop. But universal Bishop may be understood of one who is in such sort bishop. of the universe that the other bishops are only vicars and substitutes, which is not the case. For the bishops are truly spiritual princes, chiefs and pastors; not lieutenants of the Pope, but of Our Lord, who therefore calls them brethren. Or the word may be understood of one who is superintendent over all, and in regard of whom all the others who are superintendents in particular are inferiors indeed but not vicars or substitutes. And it is in this sense that the Ancients have called him Universal Bishop, while S. Gregory denies it in the other sense.
They object the Council of Carthage, which forbids that any one shall call himself Prince of Priests; but it is for want of something to go on with that they put this in:- for who is ignorant that his was a provincial Council affecting the bishops of that Province, in which the Bishop of Rome was not, the Mediterranean Sea lies between them.
There remained the name of Pope, which I have kept for the ending of this part of my subject, and which is the ordinary one by which we call the Bishop of Rome. This name was common to bishops; witness S. Jerome, who thus styles S. Augustine in an Epistle (97): "May the Almighty keep thee safe, Lord, truly holy and reverend pope." But it has been made particular to the Pope by excellence, on account of the universality of his charge, whence, he is called in the Council of Chalcedon, Universal Pope, and simply Pope, without addition or limitation. And this word means nothing more than chief father or grandfather. Paposaviasque trementes anteferunt patribus seri nova curd nepotes.(ausonius ad nep.)
And that you may know how ancient this name is amongst good men-[hear] S. Ignatius, disciple of the Apostles: "When thou wast," says he, "at Rome with Pope Linus." (Ad Mariam Zarbensem) Already at that time there were papists, and of what sort!
We call him His Holiness, and we find that S. Jerome already called him by the same name: "I beseech thy Blessedness, by the cross, &c. . . . I following Christ alone am joined in communion with thy Blessedness, that is, the chair of Peter" (Ad Dam. ep. 15). We call him Holy Father, but you have seen that S. Jerome so calls S. Augustine.
For the rest, those who, explaining chapter ii. of the 2nd of Thessalonians, to make you believe the Pope is Antichrist, may have told you that he makes himself be called God on earth, or Son of God, are the greatest liars in the world: for so far are the popes from taking any ambitious title, that from the time of S. Gregory they have for the most part called themselves Servants of the Servants of God. Never have they called themselves by such names as you say except in the ordinary acceptation, as every one can be if he keep the commandments of God, according to the power given to them that believe in His name (John i.). Rightly indeed might those call themselves children of the devil who lie so foully as do your ministers.
CHAPTER XIIL IN HOW GREAT ESTEEM THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE OUGHT TO BE HELD.
IT is certainly not without mystery that often in the Gospel where there is occasion for the Apostles in general to speak, S. Peter alone speaks for all. In S. John (vi.) it was he who said for all: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known that thou art the Christ the Son of God. It was he, in S. Matthew (xvi.), who in the name of all made that noble confession: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. He asked for all: Behold we have left all things, &c. (Matt. xxvii.) In S. Luke (xii.): Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?
It is usual that the head should speak for the whole body; and what the head says is considered to be said by all the rest. Do you not see that in the election of S. Matthias it is he alone who speaks and determines?
The Jews asked all the Apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren? (Acts. ii.). S. Peter alone answers for all: Do penance, &c. And it is for this reason that S. Chrysostom and Origen have called him "the mouth and the crown of the Apostles," as we saw above, because he was accustomed to speak for all the Apostles; and the same S. Chrysostom calls him "the mouth of Christ," because what he says for the whole Church and to the whole Church as head and pastor, is not so much a word of man as of Our Lord: Amen, I say to you he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me (John xiii.). Therefore what he said and determined could not be false. And truly if the confirmer be fallen, have not all the rest fallen? -if the confirmer fall or totter, who shall confirm him? -if the confirmer be not firm and steady, when the others grow weak who shall strengthen them? For it is written that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch, and if the unsteady and the feeble would hold up and support the feeble, they shall both come to ground. So that Our Lord; giving authority and command to Peter to confirm the others, has in like proportion given him the power and the means to do this; otherwise vainly would he have commanded things that were impossible. Now in order to confirm the others and to strengthen the weak, one must not be subject to weakness oneself, but be solid and fixed as a true stone and a rock. Such was S. Peter, in so far as he was Pastor-general and governor of the Church.
So when S. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, -was it not enough to say that S. Peter, as foundation-stone of the ecclesiastical government and administration, could not be crushed and broken by infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell? For who knows not that if the foundation be overthrown, if that can be sapped, the whole building fails. In the same way, if the supreme acting shepherd can conduct his sheep into venomous pastures, it is clearly visible that the flock is soon to be lost. For if the supreme acting shepherd leads out of the path, who will put him right? if he stray, who will bring him back?
In truth, it is necessary that we should follow him simply, not guide him; otherwise the sheep would be shepherds. And indeed the Church cannot always be united in General Council, and during the first three centuries none were held. In the difficulties then which daily arise, to whom could one better address oneself, from whom could one take a safer law, a surer rule, than from the general head, and from the vicar of Our Lord? Now all this has not only been true of S. Peter, but also of his successors; for the cause remaining the effect remains likewise. The Church has always need of an infallible confirmer, to whom she can appeal; of a foundation which the gates of hell, and principally error, cannot overthrow; and has always need that her pastor should be unable to lead her children into error. The successors, then, of S. Peter all have these same privileges, which do not follow the person but the dignity and public charge.
S. Bernard calls the Pope another "Moses in authority." Now how great the authority of Moses was every one knows. For he sat and judged concerning all the differences amongst the people, and all difficulties which occurred in the service of God: he appointed judges for affairs of slight importance, but the great doubts were reserved for his cognizance: if God would speak to the people, it is by his mouth and using him as a medium. So then the supreme pastor of the Church is competent and sufficient judge for us in all our greatest difficulties; otherwise we should be in worse condition than that ancient people who had a tribunal to which they might appeal for the resolution of their doubts, particularly in religious matters. And if any one would reply that Moses was not a priest, nor an ecclesiastical pastor, I would send him back to what I have said above on this point. For it would be tedious to make these repetitions. In Deuteronomy (xvii.): Thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say that preside in the place which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee according to his law: neither shalt thou incline to the right hand nor to the left hand. But he that shall be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest . . . that man shall die. What will you say to this necessity of accepting the judgment of the sovereign pontiff? -that one was obliged to accept that judgment which was according to the law, not any other? Yes, but in this it was needful to follow the sentence of the priest; otherwise, if one had not followed it but had examined into it, it would have been vain to have gone to him, and the difficulty and doubt would never have been settled. Therefore it is said simply: He that shall be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest and the decree of the judge shall die. And in Malachy (ii. 7): The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth. Whence it follows that not everybody could answer himself in religious matters, nor bring forward the law after his own fancy, but must do so according as the pontiff laid it down. Now if God had such great providence over the religion and peace of conscience of the Jews as to establish for them a supreme judge in whose sentence they were bound to acquiesce, there can be no doubt he has provided Christianity with a pastor, who has this same authority, to remove the doubts and scruples which might arise concerning the declarations of the Scriptures.
And if the High Priest wore on his breast the Rational of judgment (Ex. xxviii.), in which were the Urim and the Thummim, doctrine and truth, as some interpret them or illuminations and perfections, as others say (which is almost the same thing, since perfection consists in truth and doctrine is only illumination) -shall we suppose that the High Priest of the New Law has not also the efficacy of them? In truth, all that was given out and out to the ancient Church, and to the servant Agar, has been given in much better form to Sara and to the Spouse. Our High Priest then still has the Urim and the Thummim on his breast.
Now whether this doctrine and truth were nothing but these two words inscribed on the Rational, as S. Augustine seems to think and Hugh of S. Victor maintains, or whether they were the name of God, as Rabbi Solomon asserts according to Vatablus and Augustine bishop of Eugubium, or whether it was simply the stones of the Rational, by which Almighty God revealed his will to the priest, as that learned man Francis Ribera holds; -the reasons why the High Priest had doctrine and truth in the Rational on his breast was without doubt because he declared the truth of judgment, as by the Urim and Thummim the priests were instructed as to the good pleasure of God, and their understandings enlightened and perfected by the Divine revelation: thus the good Lyra understood it, as Ribera has in my opinion sufficiently proved. Hence when David wished to know whether he should pursue the Amalecites he said to the priest Abiathar: Bring me hither the ephod (I Kings xxx. 7), or vestment for the shoulders, which was without doubt to discover the will of God by means of the Rational which was joined to it, as this Doctor Ribera continues learnedly to prove. I ask you, -if in the shadow there were illuminations of doctrine and perfections of truth on the breast of the priest to feed and confirm the people therewith, what is there that our High Priest shall not have, the priest of us, I say, who are in the day and under the risen sun? The High Priest of old was but the vicar and lieutenant of Our Lord, as ours is, but he would seem to have presided over the night by his illuminations, and ours presides over the day by his instructions; both of them as ministering for another and by the light of the Sun of Justice, who though he is risen is still veiled from our eyes by our own mortality; -for to see him face to face belongs ordinarily to those alone who are delivered from the body which goes to corruption. This has been the faith of the whole ancient Church, which in its difficulties has always lead recourse to the Rational of the See of Rome to see therein doctrine and truth. It is for this reason that S. Bernard has called the Pope "Aaron in dignity, " and S. Jerome the Holy See "the most safe harbour of Catholic communion," and " heir of the Apostles," for he bears the Rational to enlighten with it the whole of Christendom, like the Apostles and Aaron, in doctrine and truth. It is in this sense that S. Jerome says to S. Damasus: "He who gathereth not with thee scattereth, that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist;" and S. Bernard says (Ep. 190) that the scandals which occur, particularly in the faith, must be brought before the Roman See : "for I think it proper that there chiefly should the damage of faith be repaired where faith cannot fail; for to what other see was it ever said : I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not?" And S. Cyprian (Ep. 55): They dare to sail off to the Apostolic See and to the chief (principalem) Church, forgetting that those are Romans, to whom wrong faith cannot have access." Do you not see that he speaks of the Romans because of the Chair of S. Peter, and says that error cannot prevail there. The Fathers of the Council of Milevis with the Blessed S. Augustine demand help and invoke the authority of the Roman See against the Pelagian heresy, writing to Pope Innocent in these terms: "We beseech you to deign to apply the pastoral solicitude to the great dangers of the infirm members of Christ; since a new heresy and most destructive tempest has begun to arise amongst the enemies of the grace of Christ" And if you would know why they appeal to him, what do they say? "The Lord has by his highest favour placed thee in the Apostolic See." This is what this holy Council with its great S. Augustine believed, to whom S. Innocent replying in a Letter which follows the one just quoted amongst those of S. Augustine: " Carefully and rightfully," he says, "have you consulted the secret oracles of the Apostolic honour: his, I say, with whom, besides those things which are outside, remains the solicitude of all the churches as to what doctrine is to be held in doubtful things. For you have followed the fashion of the ancient rule, which you and I know to have been always held by the whole world. But this I pass over, for I do not believe that it is unknown to your wisdom; how indeed have you confirmed it by your actions, save knowing that throughout all the provinces answers to petitioners ever emanate from the Apostolic See? Especially when questions of faith are discussed, I consider that all our brethren and co-bishops must refer to Peter only, that is, to the author of their name and honour; even as your charity has now referred that which may advantage all churches in general throughout the whole world.? Behold -the honour and credit, in which was the Apostolic See with the most learned and most, holy of the Ancients, yea with Entire Councils. They went to it as to the true Ephod and Rational of the new law. Thus did S Jerome go to it in the time of Damasus, to whom, after having said that the East was cutting and tearing to pieces the robe of Our Lord, seamless and woven from the top throughout, and that the little foxes were spoiling the vineyard of the Master, he says: "As it is difficult, amongst broken cisterns that can hold no water, to discern where is that fountain sealed up, and garden enclosed, therefore I considered, that I must consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by Apostolic mouth." I shall never end if I try to bring forward the grand words which the Ancients have uttered on this point: he who wishes can read them quoted in the great Catechism of Peter Canisius, in which they have been given in full by Busembaum. S. Cyprian refers all heresies and schisms to the contempt of this chief minister( Ad Comel. contra Feliciss.); so does S. Jerome (Ep. 165 adv. Lucif.); S. Ambrose holds for one same thing ".to communicate and agree with the Catholic bishops and to agree with the Roman Church (De excessu Fratris, 46.): "he protests that he follows in all things and everywhere the form of the Roman Church. S. Irenaeus will have every one be united to this Holy See, "on account of its principal power." The Eusebians bring before it the accusations against S. Athanasius; S. Athanasius, who was at Alexandria, a principal and patriarchal see, went to answer at Rome, being called and cited to appear there: his adversaries would not appear, "knowing," says Theodoret, " that their lies were manifested in open court." The Eusebians acknowledge the authority of the see of Rome when they call S. Athanasius thither, and S. Athanasius when he presents himself. But particularly do those Arian heretics the Eusebians confess the authority of the see of Rome when they dare not appear there for fear of being condemned.
But who does not know that all the ancient heretics tried to yet themselves acknowledged by the Pope? Witness the Montanists or Cataphrygians, who so deceived Pope Zephyriilus, if we may believe Tertullian (not now the man he had been but become a heretic himself), that he issued letters of reunion in their favour, which, however, he promptly revoked by the advice of Praxeas. In fine, he who despises the authority of the Pope will restore the Pelagians, Priscillians and others, who were only condemned by provincial councils with the authority of the Holy See of Rome. If I wished to occupy myself in showing you how much Luther made of it in the beginning of his heresy I should astonish you with the great alteration in this old dotard. Look at him in Cochlaeus: "Prostrate at the feet of Your Beatitude, I offer myself with all I am and have; give me life, slay me, call, recall, approve, reject; I shall acknowledge the voice of Christ presiding and speaking." These are his words in the dedicatory letter which he wrote to Pope Leo X. on certain conclusions of his, in the year 1518. But I cannot omit what this great archminister wrote in 1519, in certain other resolutions of other propositions; for in the thirteenth he not only acknowledges the authority of the Holy Roman See, but proves it by six reasons which he holds to be demonstrations. I will summarise them:
1st reason- the Pope could not have reached this height and this monarchy except by the will of God; but the will of God is always to be venerated, therefore the primacy of the Pope is not to be called in question.
2nd. We must give in to an adversary rather than break the union of charity; therefore it is better to obey the Pope than to separate from the Church.
3rd. We must not resist God who wills to lay on us the burden of obeying many rulers, according to the word of Solomon in his Proverbs (xxviii. 2).
4th. There is no power which is not from God, therefore that of the Pope which is so fully established is from God.
5th. Practically the same.
6th. All the faithful so believe, and it is impossible that Our Lord should not be with them; now we must stay with Our Lord and Christians in all things and everywhere: He says afterwards that these reasons were unanswerable, and that all the Scripture comes to support them. What do you think of Luther, -is he not a Catholic? And yet this was at the beginning of his reformation. Calvin gives the same testimony, though he goes on to embroil the question as much as he can; for speaking of the See of Rome he confesses that the Ancients have honoured and revered it, that it has been the refuge of bishops, and more firm in the faith than the other sees, which last fact he attributes to a want of quickness of understanding.
CHAPTER XIV.
HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THIS AUTHORITY.
UNDER the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII; or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was (*). Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did: Let another take his bishopric. (Acts i.) When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died whilst he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extrazagantes which begins Benedictus Deus. But when he is clothed with the pontifical garments, I mean when he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form. Thus we say that we must appeal to him not as to a learned man, for in this he is ordinarily surpassed by some others, but as to the general head and pastor of the Church and as such we must honour, follow, and firmly embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast the Urim and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.
But he cannot err when he is in cathedra , that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church, and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to understand in a collect of Pentecost, conducts and directs his Church into all truth: But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth or, will lead you into all truth (John xvi. 13). And how does the Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry and office of preachers and pastors? But if the pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of lambs; that is, not the people only but also the other pastors: he succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge: Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposition of this he who seeks the truth under other leading loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the Church, he leads it by its pastor, he therefore who follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit.
But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said he shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same that she should use the diligence which is required for keeping the true way, as the Apostles did, who, having to give an answer to an important question, debated, comparing the Holy Scriptures together; and when they had diligently done this they concluded by the: It hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us; that is, the Holy Spirit has enlightened us and we have walked, he has guided us and we have followed him, up to this truth. The ordinary means must be employed to discover the truth, and yet in this must be acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led,-by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its Pastor, who however does not walk at hazard, but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the Urim and Thummim of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations, and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who follows him and puts himself under the discipline of his crook! Happy the man who embarks in his boat, for he shall feed on truth, and shall arrive at the port of holy doctrine !
Thus he never gives a general command to the whole Church in necessary things except with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who, as he is not wanting in necessary things even to second causes, because he has established them, will not be more wanting to Christianity in what is necessary for its life and perfection. And how would the Church be one and holy, as the Scriptures and .Creeds describe her? -for if she followed a pastor, and the pastor erred, how would she be holy; if she followed him not, how would she be one? And what confusion would be seen in Christendom, while the one party should consider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy themselves in controlling the decision of their superior?
It remains therefore that according to Divine Providence we consider as closed that which S. Peter shall close with his keys, and as open that which he shall open, when seated in his chair of doctrine teaching the whole Church.
If indeed the ministers had censured vices, proved the inutility of certain decrees and censures, borrowed some holy counsels from the ethical books of S. Gregory, and from S. Bernard's De Consideratione, brought forward some good plan for removing the abuses which have crept into the administration of benefices through the malice of the age and of men, and had addressed themselves to His Holiness with humility and gratitude, all good men would have honoured them and favoured their designs. The good Cardinals Contarini the Theatine, Sadolet, and Pole, with those other great men who counselled the reformation of abuses in this way, have thereby deserved immortal commendation from posterity. But to fill heaven and earth with invectives, railings, outrages,to calumniate the Pope, and not only in his person, which is bad enough, but in his office, to attack the See which all antiquity has honoured, to wish to go so far as to sit in judgment upon him, contrary to the sense of the whole Church, to style his position itself anti-Christianism- who shall call this right? If the great Council of Chalcedon was so indignant when the Patriarch Dioscorus excommunicated Pope Leo, who can endure the insolence of Luther, who issued a Bull in which he excommunicates the Pope and the bishops and the whole Church? All the Church gives him (the Pope) patents of honour, speaks to him with reverence. What shall we say of that fine preface in which Luther addressed the Holy See: "Martin Luther to the most Holy Apostolic See and its whole Parliament, grace and health. In the first place, most holy see, crack but burst not on account of this new salutation in which I place my name first and in the principal place." And after having quoted the Bull against which he was writing, he begins with these wicked and vile words: "Ego autem dico ad papam et bullce hujus minas, istud : qui prce minis moritur ad ejus sepulturam compulsari debet crepitibus ventris." And when writing against the King of England,- ?Living," said he, "I will be the enemy of the papacy, burnt I will be thy enemy." What say you of this great Father of the Church? Are not these words worthy of such a reformer? I am ashamed to read them, and my hand is vexed when it lays out such shameful things, but if they are hidden from you, you will never believe that he is such as he is,- and when he says: "It is ours not to be judged by him but to judge him."
But I detain you too long on a subject which does not require great examination. You read the writings of Calvin, of Zwingle, of Luther: take out of these, I beg you, the railings, calumnies, insults, detraction, ridicule, and buffoonery which they contain against the Pope and the Holy See of Rome, and you will find that nothing will remain. You listen to your ministers; impose silence upon them as regards railings, detraction, calumnies against the Holy See, and you will have your sermons half their length. They utter a thousand calumnies on this point: this is the general rendezvous of all your ministers. On whatever subjects they may be composing their books, as if they were tired and spent with their labour they stay to dwell on. the vices of the Popes, very often saying what they know well not to be the fact. Beza says that for a long time there has been no Pope who has cared about religion or who has been a theologian. Is be not seeking to deceive somebody?-for he knows well that Adrian, Marcellus, and these five last have been very great theologians. What does he mean by these lies? But let us say that there may be vice and ignorance: "What has the Roman Chair done to thee," says S. Augustine, (Contra lit. Petil. ii. 51 )" in which Peter sat and in which now Anastasius sits? . . . Why do you call the Apostlic Chair the chair of pestilence? If it is on account of men whom you consider to be declaring and not keeping the law- did Our Lord, on account of the Pharisees, of whom He said: they say and do not do any injury to the chair in which they sat? Did He not commend that chair of Moses, and reprove them, saving the honour of their chair? For He says: Super cathedram , &c., (Matt. xxiii. 2). If you considered these things you would not, on account of the men you speak against, blaspheme the Apostolic chair, with which you do not communicate. But what does it all mean save that they have nothing to say, and yet are unable to keep from ill-saying.?
* note: a useful clarification of the Honorius case is presented at the Biblical Evidence for Catholicism site.
Faith and Reason
CHAPTER I.
THAT THE TEACHING OF THE PRETENDED REFORMERS CONTRADICTS REASON.
I HAVE put off the showing of the absurdities which are in the doctrine of our adversaries to the end of the treatise an the rules of faith, these absurdities being a consequence of therr believing without rule and sailing without compass. And [put off showing] that they have not the efficacy of the doctrine of Catholicism; for not only are they not Catholics, but cannot be, effecting the destruction of the body of Our Lord, instead of acquiring new members for it.
Also when Luther says (Apud. Cochl., ann. 1523) that infants in Baptism have the use of their understanding and reason, and when the synod of Wittenberg (Ann. 1536. L. 3: Miscell tract.) says that infants in Baptism have movements and inclinations like to the movements of faith and charity, and this without understanding :-is not this to mock God, nature, and experience?
And when it is said that "in sinning we are incited, pushed, necessitated by the will, ordinance, decree, and predestination of God,"-is this not to blaspheme against all reason, and against the majesty of the supreme goodness ? Such is the fine theology of Zwingle [de prud. 5, 6], Calvin (Instit. I. 17, 18; de Praed.; Instruct. contra Lib.), and Beza (contra Castal.). " But," says Beza, "you will say that they Gould not resist the will of God, that is, the decree; I acknowledge it: but as they could not so they would not: they could not wish otherwise, I own, as to the event and working (energiam), but yet the will of Adam was not forced." Goodness of God, I call you as my witness! You have pushed me to do evil; you have so decreed, ordained, and willed; I could not act otherwise, I could not will otherwise, -what fault of mine is there? O God of my heart! chastise my will, if it is able not to will evil and wills to will it; but if it cannot help willing evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what fault of mine can there be? If this is not contrary to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.
The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin and the others (Calv. ant. Sess. conc. Tr.; Luther de lib. Christ.): what follows, except that Our Lord is a tyrant who commands impossible things? If it is impossible, why is it commanded?
Works, good as ever they may be, rather deserve hell than Paradise: shall then the justice of God, which will give to every one according to his works, give to every one hell?
This is enough, but the absurdity of absurdities, and the most horrible unreason of all is this: that while holding that the whole Church may have erred for a thousand years in the understanding of the Word of God, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin can guarantee that they understand it aright: this absurdity is greater when a mere wretched minister (ministrot), while preaching as a word of God that all the visible Church has erred, that Calvin and all men can err, dares to pick and choose amongst the interpretations of the Scripture that one which pleases him, and to certify and maintain it as the Word of God: and you yourselves carry the absurdity still further when, having heard that everybody may err in matter of religion -even the whole Church- without trying to find for yourselves some other religion amongst a thousand sects, which all boast of rightly understanding the Word of God, and rightly preaching it, you believe so obstinately in the minister who preaches to you, that you will hear no more? If everybody can err in the understanding of the Scripture, why not you and your minister? I wonder that you do not always walk trembling and shaking: I wonder how you can live with so much assurance in the doctrine which you follow, as if you could not err, and yet you hold as certain that every one has erred and can err.
The Gospel soars far above all the most elevated reasonings of nature, it never goes against them, never injures them nor dissolves them: but these fancies of your evangelists obscure and destroy the light of nature.
CHAPTER II
THAT THE ANALOGY OF THE FAITH CANNOT SERVE AS A RULE TO THE MINISTERS TO ESTABLISH THEIR DOCTRINE
IT is a saying full of pride and ambition amongst your ministers, and one which is ordinary with them, that we must interpret the Scriptures and test the exposition of them by the analogy of the faith. The simple people when they hear this analogy of the faith, think that it is some word of secret potency and cabalistic virtue; and they wonderingly admire every interpretation which is given, provided that this word be brought into the field. In truth the ministers are right when they say that we must interpret the Scripture, and prove our expositions of it by the analogy of faith; but they are wrong in not doing what they say. The poor people hear nothing but their bragging about this analogy of faith, and the ministers do nothing but corrupt, spoil, force it, and tear it to shreds.
Let us look into this, I beg you. You say that the Scripture is easy to understand, provided that one adjust it to the rule and proportion, or analogy, of the faith. But what rule of faith can they have who have no Scripture except one entirely glossed, wrested, and strained by interpretations, metaphors, metonymies? If the rule is subject to irregularity, who shall regulate it? And what analogy or proportion of faith can there be, if a man proportion the articles of faith with conceptions the most foreign to their true sense? If the fact of proportion with the articles of faith is to serve you to decide upon doctrine and religion, leave the articles of faith in their natural shape; do not give them a form different from that which they have received from the Apostles. I leave you to guess what use the Symbol of the Apostles can be to me in interpreting the Scriptures, when you gloss it in such a way that you put me in greater difficulties about its sense than ever I was in about the Scriptures themselves.
If any one ask how the same body of Our Lord can come to be in two places, I shall say that this is I H easy to God, and I shall confirm it by this reason of are faith: I believe in God the Father Almighty. But if you gloss both the Scripture and the article of faith itself, how will you confirm your gloss? At this rate there will be no first principle except your notions. If the analogy of faith be subject to your glosses and opinions, you must say so openly, that we may know what you are at, which will now be this - to interpret Scripture by Scripture and analogy, adjusting everything to your own interpretations and ideas.
I apply the whole question [of the Real Presence] to the analog of the faith: this explanation agrees perfectly with that first word of the Creed where Credo takes away all difficulties of human reason; the omnipotentem strengthens me, the mention of creation heartens me; - for why shall He who made all things out of nothing, not make the body of Christ out of bread? That name of Jesus comforts me, for His mercy and His will to do great things for me are there expressed. That he is the Son, consubstantial with the Father, proves to me his illimitable power. His being conceived of a Virgin, against the course of nature; his not disdaining to lodge within her for our sakes; his being born with penetration of dimension, an act which goes beyond and above the nature of a body - these things assure me both of his will and of his power.
His death supports me;- for he who died for us, what will he not do for us? His sepulchre cheers me, and his descent into hell;for I shall not doubt his descent into the obscurity of my body, &c. His resurrection gives me fresh life; for this new penetration of the stone, the agility, subtlety, brightness, and impassibility of his body, are no longer according to the grosser laws which we conceive of. His ascension makes me rise to this faith; for if his body penetrate matter, raise itself, by his sole will, and place itself, without place, at the right hand of the Father, why shall it not, here below, be where seems good to him, and occupy space only as he wills it to do? His being seated at the right hand of the Father shows me that everything is put under him, heaven, earth, distances, places, dimensions. That from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead urges me to the belief of the illimitability of his glory, and [teaches me] therefore that his glory is not attached to place, but that wherever he goes he carries it with him; he is, then, in the most holy Sacrament without quitting his glory or his perfections.
That Holy Ghost, by whose operation he was conceived and born of a Virgin, can equally well by his operation effect this admirable work of Transubstantiation. The Church,which is holy and cannot lead us into error, which is Catholic and therefore is not restricted to this miserable world, but is to extend in length from the Apostles, in breadth throughout the world, in depth as far as to Purgatory, in height to heaven, including all nations, all past ages, canonized saints, our forefathers of whom we have hope, prelates, councils old and recent -[she, through all these her members] sings in every place, Amen, Amen, to this holy belief.
This is the perfect Communion of Saints, for it is the food common to angels, and sainted souls in Paradise, and ourselves; it is the true bread of which all Christians participate. The forgiveness of sins, the author of forgiveness being there, is confirmed; the seed of our resurrection sown, life everlasting bestowed. Where do you find contradiction in this holy analogy of faith? So much the reverse, that this very belief in the most holy Sacrament, which in truth, reality, and substance, contains the true and natural body of Our Lord, is actually the abridgment of our faith, according to that of the Psalmist (cx. 4): He hath made a memory [of his wonderful works]. O holy and perfect memorial of the Gospel! O admirable summing up of our faith! He who believes, O Lord, in Your presence in this most holy Sacrament, as Your holy Church proposes it, has gathered and sucked the sweet honey of all the flowers of Your holy Religion: hardly can he ever fail in faith.
But I return to you, gentlemen, and simply ask what passages you will any longer oppose to me against such clear ones as these- This is my body. That the flesh profiteth nothing?(John vi.) - no, not yours or mine, which are but carrion, nor our carnal sentiments; not mere flesh, dead, without spirit or life; but that of the Saviour which is ever furnished with the life-giving Spirit, and with his Word. I say that it profits unto life eternal all who worthily receive it what say you? - that the words of Our Lord are spirit and life? -who denies it save yourselves, when you say they are but tropes and figures? But what sense is there in this consequence: -the words of Our Lord are spirit and life, therefore they are not to be understood of his body? And when he said: The Son of man shall be delivered up to be mocked and scourged, &c (Luke xviii. 32). (I take as examples the first that come), were his words not spirit and life? - say then that he was crucified in figure. When he said: If therefore you see tlze Son of man ascending where he was before (John vi.), does it follow that he only ascended in figure? And still these words are comprised among the rest, of which he said: They are spirit and life. Finally, in the Holy Sacrament, as in the holy words of our Lord, the spirit is there which vivifies the flesh, otherwise it would profit nothing; but nonetheless is the flesh there with its life and its spirit. What further will you say? - that this Sacrament is called bread? So it is; but as Our Lord explains I am the living bread (Ib.)
These are fully sufficient examples: - as for you, what can you show like these? I show you an is, show me the is not, which you maintain, or the signifies. I have shown you the body, show me your effectual sign; seek, turn, turn again, make your spirit spin as fast as you like, and you shall never find it. At the very most you will show that when the words are somewhat strained, a few phrases in the Scriptures may be found like those you pretend to find here; but to esse from posse is a lame consequence: I say that you cannot make them fit; I say that if everybody takes them as he likes, the greater number will take them wrongly. But let us just see a piece of this work while it is being done. You produce for your belief: The words which I speak are spirit and life; and this you fasten on: As often as you shall eat this bread; you add: Do this in commemoration of me; you bring up: You shall show forth the death of the Lord until he comes; But me you shall not have always. (I Cor. xi.; John xii.) But consider a little what reference these words have to one another. You adjust all this to the anomology [= disproportion] of your faith, and how? Our Lord is seated at the right hand, therefore he is not here. Show me the thread with which you sew this negative to this affirmative: because a body cannot be in two places.
Ah! you said you would join your negative with analogy by the thread of Scripture: -where is this Scripture, that a body cannot be in two places? Just observe how you mingle the profane employment of a merely human reason with the Sacred Word? But, say you, Our Lord will come to judge the living and the dead from the right hand of his Father. What does this prove ? If it were necessary for him to come, in order to become present in the Holy Sacrament, your analogy would have some speciousness, though not even then any reality, -for when he does come to judge nobody says that it will be on earth; the fire will precede. There is your analogy : in good earnest which has worked the better, you or I?
If we let you interpret the Descent of Our Lord into hell as of the Sepulchre, or as of a fear of hell and of the pains of the damned, - the sanctity of the Church as the sanctity of an invisible and unknown Church, its universality as that of a secret and hidden Church, -the Communion of Saints as simply a general benevolence, the remission of sins as only a non-imputation; -when you shall have thus proportioned the Creed to your judgment, it will certainly be in good proportion with the rest of your doctrine, but who does not see the absurdity? The Creed, which is the instruction of the most simple, would be the most obscure doctrine in the world, and while it has to be the rule of faith, it would have to be regulated by another rule. The wicked walk round about.(Ps. xi.) One infallible rule of our faith is this: God is Almighty. He who says all excludes nothing, and you would regulate this rule, and would limit it so that it should not extend as far as absolute Power, or the Power of placing a body in two places, or of placing it in one without its occupying exterior space.
Tell me, then - if the rule need regulation, who shall regulate it? Similarly the Creed says that Our Lord descended into hell, and Calvin would rule that this is to be understood of an imaginary descent; somebody else refers it to the sepulchre. Is not this to treat the rule as a Lesbian one, and to make the level bend to the stone instead of cutting the stone by the level. Indeed as S. Clement and S. Augustine (Serm. 213, alias 119) call it rule, so S. Ambrose (Appendix, Serm. 33) calls it key. But if another key be required to open this key where shall we find it? Is it to be the fancy of your ministers, or what? Will it be the Holy Spirit? - but everybody will boast that he has a spare in this.
Good heavens! Into what labyrinths do they fall who quit the path of the Ancients! I would not have you think me ignorant of this, that the Creed alone is not the whole rule and measure of faith. For both S. Augustine (Contra Ep. Fund 4, 5)' and the great Vincent of Lerins (Comm. c. ii.) also call the sense of the Church (sentiment Ecclesiastique) rule of our faith. The Creed alone says nothing openly of the Consubstantiality, of the Sacraments, or of other articles of faith, but comprehends the whole faith in its root and foundation, particularly where it teaches us to believe the Church to be holy and Catholic; for by this it sends us to what the Church shall propose. But as you despise the whole of the doctrine of the Church, you also despise this noble, this notable and excellent part of it, which is the Creed, refusing belief in it until you have reduced it to the petty scale of your conceptions. Thus do you violate this holy measure and proportion which S. Paul requires to be followed, yea, even by the prophets themselves (I Cor. xiv.)
CHAPTER III.
CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE OF THIS SECOND PART BY A SHORT ENUMERATION OF MANY EXCELLENCES WHICH ARE IN THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS COMPARED WITH THE OPINION OF THE HERETICS OF OUR AGE.
SAILING thus then without needle, compass or rudder an the ocean of human opinions, you can expect nothing but a miserable shipwreck. Ah! I implore you, while this day lasts, while God presents you the opportunity, throw yourselves into the saving bark of a serious repentance, and take refuge on the happy vessel which is bound under full sail for the port of glory.
If there were nothing else, do you not recognize what advantages and excellences the Catholic doctrine has beyond your opinions ? The Catholic doctrine makes more glorious and magnificent the goodness and mercy of God, your opinions lower them. For example, is there not more mercy in establishing the reality of his body for our food than in only giving the figure and commemoration thereof and the eating by faith alone? All seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's (Phil. ii. 21). Is it not more honourable to concede to the might of Jesus Christ the Power to make the Blessed Sacrament, as the Church believes it, and to his goodness the will to do so, than the contrary? Without doubt it is more glorious to Our Lord. Yet because our mind cannot comprehend it, in order to uphold our own mind, all seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's.
Is it not more, in justifying man, to embellish his soul with grace, than without embellishing it to justify him by a simple toleration (connivence) or non-imputation? Is it not a greater favour to make man and his works agreeable and good than simply to take man as good without his being so in reality? Is it not more to have left seven Sacraments for the justification and sanctification of the sinner than to have left only two, one of which serves for nothing and the other for little? Is it not more to have left the Power of absolving in the Church than to have left it not? Is it not more to have left a Church visible, universal, of striking aspect, perpetual, than to have left it little, secret, scattered and liable to corruption? Is it not to value more the travails of Jesus Christ when we say that a single drop of his blood suffices to ransom the world, than to say that unless he had endured the pains of the damned he would have done nothing? Is not the mercy of God more magnified in giving to his saints the knowledge of what takes place here below, the honour of praying for us, in making himself ready to accept their intercession, in having glorified them as soon as they died, than in making them wait and keeping them in suspense, according to Calvin's words, until the judgment, in making them deaf to our prayers and remaining himself inexorable to theirs. This will be seen more clearly in our treatment of particular points. Our doctrine [then] makes more admirable the Power of God in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in justification and inherent justice, in miracles, in the infallible preservation of the Church, in the glory of the Saints.
The Catholic doctrine cannot have its source in any passion, because nobody follows it save an this condition, of captivating his intelligence, under the authority of the pastors. It is not proud, since it teaches not to believe self but the Church. What shall I say further? Distinguish the voice of the dove from that of the crow. Do you not see this Spouse, who has nought but honey and milk under her tongue, who breathes only the greater glory of her Beloved, his honour and obedience to him?
Ah! then, gentlemen, be willing to be placed as living stones in the walls of the heavenly Jerusalem. Take yourselves out of the hands of there men who build without a rule, who do not adjust their conceptions to the faith, but the faith to their conceptions. Come and offer yourselves to the Church, who will place you, unless you prevent her, in the heavenly building, according to the true rule and Proportion of faith. For never shall any one have a place there above who has not been worked and laid, according to rule and square, here below.
All the ancient sacrifices of a farinaceous nature were as it were the condiment of the bloody sacrifices. So the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is as it were the condiment of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and with most excellent reason united to it.
The Church is a mountain, heresy a valley; for heretics go down, from the Church that errs not to an erring one, from truth to shadow.
Ismael, who signified the Jewish synagogue (Gal. iv.), was cast out when he would play with Isaac, that is, the Catholic Church. How much more heretics, &c.
That of Isaias (liv. 17) agrees excellently with the Church as against heresy: No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that resisteth thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their justice with Me, saith the Lord.