r/ ixv
LI BRARY
OF
ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.
III.— THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY.
Library of St. Francis De Sales,
WORKS OF THIS DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH.
BY THE
Very Rev. H. B. Canon MAC KEY, O.S.B.
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE
Right Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, O.S.B.
. Bishop of Newport
III.-THE CATHOLIC CONTROVERSY
Edited from the Autograph MSS. at Rome and at Annbcy.
THIRD EDITION,
REVISED AND AUGMENTED,
LONDON: BURNS & OATES, Limited.
NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO : BENZIGER BROTHERS.
1909.
t - ' /
/ / '
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
The following Treatise is the message or teaching of
S. Francis de Sales to the Calvinists of the Chablais,
reluctantly written out because they would not go to
hear him preach. The Saint neither published it nor
named it. We have called it " The Catholic Contro-
versy," partly to make our title correspond as nearly
as possible with the title "Les Controverses," given
by the French editor when the work was posthumously
published, chiefly because its scope is to state and
justify the Catholic doctrine as against Calvin and
his fellow-heretics. It is the Catholic position, and
the defence of Catholicism as such. At the same
time it is incidentally the defence of Christianity,
because his justification of Catholicism lies just in
this that it alone is Christianity ; and his argument
turns entirely on the fundamental question of the
exclusive authority of the Catholic Church, as the
sole representative of Christianity and Christ. This
is the real point at issue between the Church and
the sects, and therefore he, as officer of the Church,
begins by traversing the commission of those who
teach against her. He shows at length, in Part I.,
that she alone has Mission, that she alone is sent to
teach, and that thus their authority is void, and their
teaching but the vain teaching of men.
SEP 8 1982
vi Translator s P7^eface.
This teaching he tests in Part II. by the Eule of
Faith. Assuming as common ground that the Word
of God is the Eule of Faith, he shows that the so-
called reformers have composed a false Scripture, and
that they err also in rejecting Tradition or the un-
written Word of God. And then, proceeding to the
central point of his case, he shows that while the
Word of God is the formal Eule of Faith, is the
external standard by which faith is to be measured
and adjusted, there is need of a judge who may
explain, apply, and declare the meaning of the Word.
That judge is the Holy Catholic Church. She is thus
the necessary exponent of the Eule of right-believing,
and each of the voices by which she utters her
decision becomes also a part of the Eule of Faith, viz.,
her own general body, Councils, Fathers, and her
supreme Head and mouthpiece, the Pope, the successor
of S. Peter and Vicar of Christ. Miracles and harmony
of doctrines may be considered the complement of
the Eule of Faith. In all these matters the Saint
proves conclusively that the Catholic Church alone
fulfils the necessary conditions.
In Part III. he comes to the doctrines of the Church
in detail, but of this Part there only remain to us three
chapters on the Sacraments and an Essay on Purgatory.
This may suffice as to the aim and subject-matter
of the Treatise. Of its intrinsic merits the author's
name is sufficient guarantee, but we add more direct
testimony because it is a new revelation of the Saint.
The Bull of Doctorate calls it " a complete demon-
stration of Catholic doctrine." Alibrandi, in the Pro-
cessus, speaks of " the incredible power of his words,"
and says in particular that no other writer, as far as
Translator s Preface. vii
he knows, has "so conclusively, fully, and lucidly
explained the Church's teaching on the primacy, in-
fallible magistermiii, and other prerogatives of the
successors of S. Peter." Hamon, in his Life of the
Saint,^ says : " If we consider it, not as disfigured by
its first editor, who made it unrecognisable in trying
to perfect it, but as it left its author's hands, we see
that it is of inestimable value, that it presents the
proofs of the Catholic Church with an irresistible
force." Its first editor, Leonard, says : " We are
entirely of the opinion that this book deserves to be
esteemed beyond all the others he has composed."
The Mother de Chaugy, superior of Annecy, in her
circular letter of 1661 to the Houses of the Visitation,
writes thus : " It is considered that this Treatise is
calculated to produce as much fruit amongst heretics
for their conversion as the Introduction to a Devout
Life amongst Catholics for devotion. And their Lord-
ships our Judges (for the cause of Canonization) say
that S. Athanasius, S. Ambrose and S. Augustine have
not more zealously defended the faith than our Blessed
Father has done."
Cardinal Zacchetti, in introducing the cause of
Beatification, gives a furtlier proof of its excellence
in describing the effect it had on the obstinate men for
whom it was composed : " When the inhabitants of
the Chablais were forbidden by magisterial decree to
attend his sermons or frequent his company, he began
to fight with his pen, and wrote to them a letter
accompanied with certain selected arguments for the
Catholic faith, by which he recalled so great a multi-
tude of wandering souls to the Church that he happily
* I. 167.
viii Translator s Preface,
raised up and restored first Thonon and then the
other parishes."
And the power of the work lies not in its substance
only but also in its manner. It is true controversy,
yet unlike all other controversy. He seems to follow
the same method as in his practical theology, making
the difficult easy, turning the rough into smooth.
What S. Thomas and the grand theologians have done
for learned men, S. Francis has done for the general
people. He ever seems to have little ones in his
mind, to be speaking and writing for them. We see
in this Treatise the leading of the same spirit which
made him love to preach to children, and to nuns,
and to the poor country people ; which made him keep
in his own establishment and teach with his own lips
the poor deaf-mute of whom we read in his Life. It
is in great measure this spirit which gives him such
an affinity with our age in that sympathy with the
weak and miserable which is one of its best and
noblest tendencies. And here again we have a strik-
ing proof of his genius. " It is perhaps harder," say
the Bollandists in their petition for his Doctorate
(xxxv), "to write correctly on dogmatic, moral, and
ascetic subjects in such a way as to be understood by
the unlearned and not despised by the learned, than
to compose the greater works of theology; it is a
difficulty only overcome by the best men."
We must now satisfy our readers that we offer them
a faithful text of a work of such extreme value. This
is the more necessary on the ground that it is an
unfinished and posthumous production, and it is
especially incumbent upon us, because we put forward
our edition as representing in English ^ first edition^
Translator s Preface, ix
the first printing of the true text. Ours is veritably
a new work by S. Francis brought out in this nine-
teenth century.
The original was written on fugitive separate
sheets, which were copied and distributed week by
week, sometimes being placarded in the streets and
squares. The Saint did not consider them of suffi-
cient importance to be mentioned in the list of his
works contained in the Preface to the Love of God,
but they were carefully written, and he preserved a
copy more or less complete which bears marks of
being revised by him later, and which he speaks of
to the Archbishop of Vienne (L. 170), as "studies"
suitable for use in a future work on "a method of
converting heretics by holy preaching."
The first we hear of a portion of these sheets is in
the " Life " by his nephew, Charles Auguste de Sales,
who gives a rather full and very accurate analysis of
them. They are labelled in his " Table des Preuves "
(63) as follows: "Fragment of the work of S. Francis
de Sales, Provost of Geneva, on the Marks of the
Church and the Primacy of S. Peter ; written partly
with his own hand when he was at Thonon for the
conversion of the Chablais. We have the original on
paper." These fragments were the chief part of the
article on Scripture, the article on Tradition, the chief
part of the article on the Pope, and half that on
the Church. The parts "written with his own hand"
were those on Scripture and Tradition.
This abstract was made before 1633 (^^^ Saint died
at the end of 1622), and exactly a quarter of a century
after that date, when Charles Auguste had been bishop
fourteen years, he " discovered " the whole manuscript
X Translator s Preface,
as we have it now, except a comparatively small
portion which was, and is. preserved at Annecy. The
MS. was contained with other papers in a plain deal
box which for greater security during those disturbed
times had been cemented into the thick wall of an
archive-chamber. Of this fact he gave the following
attestation : —
" We testify to all whom it may concern that on
the 14th May of the present year 1658, when we were
in our chateau of La Thuille, from which we had been
absent fourteen years, and were turning over the records
of our archives, we found twelve large manuscript books,
in the hand of the venerable servant of God and our
predecessor, Francis de Sales, in which are treated
many points of theology which are in controversy
between Catholic doctors and the heretics, especially
concerning the authority of the Supreme Eoman Pontiff
and Yicar of Jesus Christ and successor of Blessed
Peter. We also found three other books on the same
matters, which were written by another hand except
as to three pages which are in the hand of the afore-
said servant of God. All these we consigned to the
Eev. Pather Andrew de Chaugy, Minim, Procurator
in the cause of Beatification of the servant of God." *
Father de Chaugy, who sent, or probably took, them
to Eome, gives the following attestation. The names of
* The Bisliop does not mention the sheets he had handled before
1633, but we have no doubt, from internal evidence, that they formed
part of what he found in 1658, though they were probably placed in
the deal coffer by another hand. They are all together at the end of
the MS., except that the part on the Pope has been brought next to
that part of the autograph which treats of the same subject, thus
placing the parts on Scripture and Tradition one step away from their
companion sheets.
Translator s Preface, xi
witnesses will easily be recognised by those who are
familiar with the Saint's life : —
" I, Brother Andrew de Chaugy, Minim, Procurator
of the Religious of the Visitation for the Canonization
of the venerable servant of God, M. de Sales, Bishop
and Prince of Geneva, certify that I have procured to
be witnessed that these present Manuscripts, which
treat of the authority and primacy of S. Peter and of
the sovereign Pontiffs his successors, are written and
dictated in the hand and style of the venerable servant
of God, M. Francis de Sales.
" Those who have witnessed them are M. the Marquis
de Lullin, Governor of the Chablais ; the Reverend
Father Prior of the Carthusians of Ripaille ; M. Sera-
phin. Canon of Geneva, aged 8o years ; M. Jannus,
Superior of Brens in Chablais ; M. Gard, Canon of the
Collegiate Church of Our Lady at Annecy ; M. F.
Fauvre, who was twenty years valet to the servant of
God.
"All the above witnesses certify that the said
writings are of the hand and composition of this great
Bishop of Geneva, and they even certify that they have
heard him preach part of them when he converted
the countries of Gex and Chablais."
M. de Castagnery and M. de Blancheville testify
that "part was written by the Saint, and that the
other part, written by the hand of his secretary, was
corrected by him."
From the many other attestations, given by the
chief officials, ecclesiastical and civil, of the diocese
and county, we select a part of one given by the Rev.
Father Louis Rofavier, Chief Secretary to the Commis-
sion of Beatification and Canonization.
xii Translator s Preface,
"... Amongst other most authentic papers there
were found some cahiers in folio, written by the Saint's
own hand, and others by a foreign hand but noted and
corrected by him, which proved to be one of the
Treatises of Controversy composed by him during his
mission to the Chablais . . . which Treatise was in-
serted in the Acts, and produced under requisition, that
the court of Eome might have due regard to so excellent
a work in defence of the Holy Koman Church. The
requisition and production having been made it was
judged fit to send the original to our Holy Father Pope
Alexander YII. ... I have had the honour of hand-
ling it and of inserting it in the Acts, and moreover of
having a faithful copy of it made to be hereafter pub-
lished." The Marquis de Sales speaks of "two or
three copies."
The autograph, with the attestations in original,
was deposited by the Pope in the archives of the Chigi
family to which he belonged ; and there we will leave
it for the present while we follow the fortunes of the
copy which had been made for publication. It was
placed in the hands of Leonard of Paris, editor of the
Saint's other works, who brought it out in 1672. We
have only to endorse M. Hamon's above quoted con-
demnation of this edition. Leonard himself says :
" We have not added or diminished or changed any-
thing in the substance of the matter, and only softened
a few of the words." But such an editor puts his own
meaning on the expressions he uses. As a fact there
is not a single page or half-page which does not contain
serious omissions, additions, and faulty alterations of
matters more or less substantial. The verbal changes
are to be counted by thousands ; in fact the nerve is
Translator's Preface. xiil
quite taken out of the expression, the terse, vigorous
and personal sixteenth century language of the man of
genius being buried under the trivial manner of the
everyday writer employed by L(^onard eighty years
later. The style and wording of the original make it a
monument of early French literature and the nascent
powers of the French tongue.
Leonard, again, has garbled the Saint's quotations,
and almost habitually given the wrong references to
the Fathers. In the MS. the citations are in almost
every case correct as to the sense though free as to the
words, and the references are most exact, though too
hastily and briefly jotted down to be of much use to
a careless and self-sufficient editor.
Finally, Leonard has made most serious mistakes
as to order. He has quite failed to grasp the true
division of Part II., simple and logical as it is. He
has mingled in almost inextricable confusion the
sections on the Church, the Councils, the Fathers,
miracles, and reason,* he has unnecessarily repeated
sections on Scripture and on the Indefectibility of the
Church, while saying no word of a second recension
of the section on the Pope which contains some
important additions to the first. He has dragged
out of their proper places parts on the unity of the
Church, on miracles, and on the analogy of faith, and
thrust them respectively into the sections on the
Pope, on the sanctity of the Church, and on the
Fathers. In some places he alters the past tense into
* For instance, Discours XLVI. is made np of a part on the Fathers,
a part on the analogy of faith, and two parts, properly distinct from
one another, on the unity of the Church. At each change he puts
a note to apologise for the Saint's digressions.
XIV Translator^ s Preface,
the future to suit his changes, instead of letting him-
self be guided back to the true order, and when he
finds the Saint speaking of the last Part as Part III.
he drops the numeral rather than give up his mistake
in making it Part IV. He says the division into
three parts is the Saint's own. So it is ; but Leonard
does not follow it. He makes four parts, dividing
Part II. into two, and then goes on to blame S.
Francis for making a sub-section into a section. He
divides the Treatise into ^' discours'' which is just
what they were not. They had been ; that is, the
book was worked up from sermons, but the Saint's
very point was to turn these into ordinary writings,
and he always speaks of his own divisions as chapters
and articles.
Such was Leonard's edition of 1672, and we find
no further edition until that of Blaise in 182 1, which
is merely a reprint as far as the Saint's own words
go. It has thus almost all the faults of the first
edition, with such deliberate further alterations as
approved themselves to the Galilean editor. Some of
the quotations are verified and references corrected,
the discredit of the mistakes being attributed to the
author instead of the first editor. The notes are the
special feature, the special disgrace, of this edition.
The editor cannot forgive S. Francis for upholding the
full authority of the Pope, and the true principles of
the Church with regard to such matters as miracles
and heresy ; and his notes on the chapters treating
of these subjects are full of such expressions as these :
" the saintly author's innumerable negligences ; "
" facts whose falsehood is generally recognised ; "
" this sketch of the life of S. Peter must be corrected
Translator's Preface, xv
by reference to Fleury and others ; " " with what supe-
riority Bossuet treats the question ! " " the Saint here "
(speaking of the shameless Marot) " quits his usual
moderation ; " " there reigns such an obscurity, such
confusion in his citations ; " " he has quoted wrongly
according to his custom ; " "this miracle is no better wit-
nessed than most ; " " the relation of so many miracles
shows that in his time there was little criticism ; "
'' here he argues in a vicious circle." Blaise's chief
indignation is reserved for the famous list of papal
titles, on which he permits himself the following
remark, at the end of a note of three pages : " S.
Francis de Sales has collected at hazard fifty tiJes
accorded to the Apostolic See. It would have been
easy to augment the number without having recourse
to forged records, false decretals, and a modern doctor,
and still that would not be found which is sought for
with so much ardour."
We see how low the credit of the work must have
been brought by a corrupt text and such annotations
as these. It was not till 1833 that the publication
by Blaise, in a supplementary volume, of part of the
section on papal authority began to give an idea of
the way in which the Saint had been misrepresented.
Blaise's naive commendation of this part is the
condemnation of all the rest, which is neither better
nor worse than the section he amended : " this piece
already forms part of our collection of the Works in
the ' Controversies/ but so disfigured that we do not
hesitate to offer it here as unpublished {inddite)!^
What he did for a part we have done, in an English
version, for the whole. Vives in 1858 and Migne in
1 86 1 brought out editions in which the new part was
xvi Translator s Preface.
printed and which had the grace to omit the Gallican
notes, but otherwise the text remained the same as
in the previous editions, no serious attempt apparently
being made to follow up Blaise's discovery. Even
the Abb^ Baudry, who spent his life in collecting,
throughout France and Northern Italy, materials bear-
ing on the life and works of S. Francis, and who
made researches in the Vatican Library, only got so
far as to have heard that the autograph was in the
Chigi Library. It was brought forward at the Vatican
Council, and made an immense impression upon the
Fathers. But it was reserved for the present pub-
lishers and translator to have the singular honour of
resuscitating this glorious work, and of bringing it out
in its true and full beauty.
This autograph, still preserved in the Chigi Library,
is a richly bound volume of foolscap size containing
155 sheets numbered on one side, thus making 310
pages. It is in bold writing, perfectly clear and easy
to read, but with corrections and slips. Nearly every
page has a cross at the top. The arranging and
numbering of the sheets is not the Saint's, and there
is much disorder here. There are some repetitions,
chiefly on the Pope and on Scripture, and slight varia-
tions, as might be expected in a work composed as this
was, the Saint probably making more than one copy
himself. We call it the autograph ; two portions of
it, however, are not autograph, but, as the attesta-
tions say, written by a secretary, and only noted and
corrected by the Saint; — viz. (i.) sheets 76 to 90,
containing the chief part of the section on Purgatory :
(2.) one of the two recensions of the part on the
Pope, and about half the section on the Church,
Translator' s Preface, xvii
sheets 121 to 155. We mention this in order to be
strictly accurate, but there is no difference to be made
between the autograph and the non-autograph parts.
All the sheets were together, the section on Purgatory
is taken up by the Saint in the middle of a sentence
and completed by himself, the non-autograph part
on the Church fits exactly into the autograph part,
was analysed by Charles Auguste as the Saint's work
within ten years after his death, and contains two
chapters which occur again in autograph in Part I.
The two recensions of the part on the Pope only
differ in order and in a few sentences, those on Scrip-
ture are both in the Saint's hand. The non-autograph
part on the Church is extremely difficult to read, being
badly written in German characters and badly spelt.
With the autograph is a co^y, of the same date,
bound in the same way, and very possibly one of the
several copies spoken of by the Marquis De Sales.
The writing is like print, large and clear, except in
the last part, containing the second recension on the
Pope and half the section on the Church, which are
written in a cramped hand, and being copied from
the difficult German character are full of misspells
and grammatical errors. The copy contains 207
sheets, numbered only on one side, forming 414
pages. It is not quite complete, omitting the chief
part of the article on Scripture, the first half of that
on the Church, and the whole of Tradition. Except
that it is not complete this copy is an exact transcript
of the original, with which it has been most carefully
collated. Our version has been made from this copy,
graciously lent to us by Prince Chigi. The translator's
brother has transcribed for him the omitted parts.
III. h
xviii Translator's Preface,
This Eoman MS. is our chiei but not our only
source. There is also an autograph portion of the
work at Annecy, certified by the Vicar General of the
diocese, Poncet, in an attestation given June 1 1 th,
1875, and by the Mother Superior, exactly fitting in
to the other MS. It contains some further most
important portions on the Pope and on the Church,
and almost all we have on Councils. This autograph
has been printed for private circulation in the Pro-
cessus, of which we have procured a certified copy.
Our first duty was to arrange the Treatise in its
proper order. Here the autograph and the copy were
different from each other and from the printed text.
The parts misplaced had to be brought back, and the
whole distributed according to the logical plan laid
down by the saintly author in the introduction to Part
II. The Annecy autograph had to be rightly joined
with the Eoman. Then came the question of omit-
ting repetitions, viz., the parts on scandal, on Scripture,
and on the Pope. Then had to be studied the many
single sentences and words about which any dilfficulty
arose. Such difficulties were not frequent concerning
the autograph part, but in the non-autograph part
they frequently occurred. The original was hard to
make out, the copy was not of great assistance here,
the printed text was all wrong. Sometimes the consi-
deration of one word would occupy an hour or more
in Eome or in England. But success was at last
obtained, except in the three instances mentioned in
the notes,* and scarcely amounting to two lines in
* We have forgotten to mention that we took the responsibility of
putting Fisher (p. 154) where the Annecy text spells "Fucher;" and
(p. 180) of translating fleet (camre?^e«— ships) where the printed French
Translator^ s Preface. xix
all. Tne quotations had to be carefully verified and
the true references given : the original was found to be
correct in almost every instance. In fine, titles had to
be placed to the three parts, and to such articles and
chapters as had not received their headings from the
Saint. We will now indicate the points which we
consider to deserve special notice.
(i.) The General Introduction will be seen to be
made up, in the French text, of two parts. The end-
ing of the first appears in the middle of the united
parts. As the same words form the end of the whole
Introduction (p. lo), we have omitted them on p. 4.*
There is a second copy of that part of the Introduction
which treats of scandal, carefully corrected by the
Saint. We give it at the end of our Preface.
(2.) The Discours which is called the first in the
French being repeated in the second and third, we
have omitted it, greatly clearing the text. The Saint
gives no guide to the divisions here ; we have there-
fore made our own divisions and titles of the first
four chapters.
(3.) The Introduction to Part 11. has a second
treatment in another part of the MS., but there is no
practical difference between the two. This Intro-
duction is important as regulating the number of Parts,
text has caravanes, which is certainly wrong. Our MS. copy has Car-
varanie. The same incident is related in the Etendard de la Croix (II. 4)
as having taken place in Visle Camarane.
* The following lines, of no substantial importance, have been
inadvertently omitted on this p. 4. "Yon will see in this Treatise
good reasons — and which I will prove good — which will make you
see clearly as the day that you are out of the way that must be followed
for salvation ; and this not by fault of your holy guide, but in punish-
ment of having left her."
XX Translator s Preface.
and the order of articles and chapters. Three Parts,*
and three Parts only, are mentioned, and this division
is confirmed in the Introduction to the next and
last Part. The eight articles of Part II. are clearly
indicated on p. 86.
(4.) Of the first part of Article I., on Holy Scrip-
ture, we have two very similar recensions. The first
editor, who has been followed in subsequent French
editions, adopted the plan of giving first the four
chapters of the one, afterwards the four chapters of
the other, with the efiect of burdening his text and
confusing his readers. We have united the chapters
which have the same titles, our table of contents
showing the way in which the chapters have been
blended. We have made an exception as to c. 7
(the matter of which is given again in cc. 5, 8),
because the arguments are put differently and from
a different point of view. In c. 5 the Saint gives the
heretical violation of Scripture as a consequence of
their belief in private inspiration, in the others he
gives them absolutely. In this part, particularly at
the end of Discours xxxiii., the MS. gives many slight
directions for locating the different points treated.
Similar indications appear here and there throughout,
and we need scarcely say that the Saint's intentions
have been religiously observed by us.
(5.) In cc. 9, 1 1 of this Article I. we have quota-
* "We have just discovered in an obscure corner of the MS. a sentence
which belongs to this subject, p. 87, and which is important as giving
the object of Part III. " And because I could not easily prove that we
Catholics have most strictly kept them (the Rules of Faith), without
making too many interruptions and digressions, I will reserve this
proof for Part III., which will also serve as a very solid confirmation
of all this second Part."
Translator's Preface, xxi
tions from Montaigne. The fact of quoting him was
made an objection against conferring the Doctorate,
on the ground that Montaigne was not only a pro-
fane but also an irreligious and immoral writer. The
objection is sufficiently answered by Alibrandi's refer-
ence to the practice of S. Paul and the Fathers, but
there is a much fuller defence than that, both of the
Saint and of Montaigne. It is enough here to say that
these passages are taken from the grand and most
religious essay " On Prayer," near the beginning of
which Montaigne speaks as follows of what he calls
his fantaisies informes et irresolues. " And I submit
them to the judgment of those whose it is to regulate
not only my actions and my writings but my thoughts
likewise. Equally well taken by me will be their
condemnation or their approbation, and I hold as
impious and absurd anything which by ignorance or
inadvertence may be found contained in this rhapsody
contrary to the holy decisions and commands of the
Catholic, Apostolic, and Eoman Church, in which I die
and in which I was born. Wherefore, ever submitting
myself to the authority of their censure, &c."
(6.) Immediately after Scripture and Tradition we
place the article on the Church. The French editions
have here put that on the Pope, probably on account,
originally, of a marginal note in the MS. at the
beginning of that section: "this chapter to be put
first for this part." The same note it probably was
which led them to make this article the commence-
ment of a Part III. It ought to have been clear that
the Saint used the word part not for a division of his
work but in the sense of subject.
We have said that nothing can be more incorrect
xxii Translator's Preface,
and confusing than the order of the French printed
texts in this Article III. The first four pages are
right, though under a wrong title, but on p. 153 we
come to a broken sentence : ^ " every proposition which
stands this test ..." Leonard quickly finished it
off with " is good," and then goes off in the same
DiscouTs to the subject of Councils. We have been
fortunate enough to find the continuation of the sen-
tence and chapter in the Annecy autograph, which
we now begin to use for the first time. " . . .1
accept as most faithful and sound." It is not necessary
to make further mention of the errors of the French
editions down to our Chapter IV. Our Chapter 11.
begins with another section from the Annecy MS.
We have brought back the chapter On the unity of the
Church in headship to its proper place here (c. 3),
and relegated the parts on Fathers, and Councils, and
the Pope, to their proper places elsewhere. With
regard to the exquisite passage on the analogy be-
tween the Creed and the Blessed Sacrament, whilst it
certainly does not come between the Fathers and the
Church where Leonard has thrust it (Discours XLVI.),
we cannot be certain that it belongs strictly to Article
VIIL (c. 2), where we have placed it, though it treats of
the same subject. It exactly occupies sheet 3 i of the
* We find in a detached note elsewhere an amplification of the
sentence immediately preceding this. " As those who look at the neck
of a dove see it change into as many various colours as they make
changes of their point of view and their distance, so those who observe
the Holy Scripture, through which, as through a neck, we receive
heavenly nourishment, seem to themselves to see there all sorts of
opinions according to the diversity of their passions. Is it not a
marvellous thing to see how many kinds of heresies there have been up
to now, the source of which their authors all confidently professed to
show in the Holy Scriptures ? "
Translator's Preface, xxiii
Eoman autograph, and we are inclined to think that
it was a sheet sent round separately. It may have
been an abstract of his little printed work, Considera-
tions on the Creed, and perhaps may have helped to
produce the good effect referred to in a letter to Favre
(5), written about the time when it would be going
about : " The ministers have confessed that we drew
good conclusions from the Holy Scriptures about the
mystery of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar."
(7.) Our text now runs on in substantial agreement
with the French until the end of the article on the
Church, except that we have transferred part of the
section on Miracles to its proper place as Article VIL,
and omitted from cc. 13, 14 what is already given in
Part I.
The verbal corrections, however, required in this
article are very numerous. After c. 3 the MS. ceases
for a time to be autograph, and the German character
has puzzled our copyist and much more the French
editor. Some examples may be of interest.
" Si fecond " becomes " et tailleurs " in the copy •,
Leonard removing the difficulty by substituting a safe
but irrelevant text. "Frederick Staphyl" is in the copy
"Sedenegue Stapsit," afterwards "Seneque Staphul"
or " Staphu," Blaise supplying the note — " unknown
work of an unknown author." Viv^s gives " Tilmann,
Heshisme et Oraste ; " he also has " Yallenger " for
" Bullinger," and " Tesanzaiis " for " Jehan Hus ; "
both editors have "Tanzuelins" instead of "Zuingliens."
There is some excuse for the word " vermeriques,"
which we have translated "fanatic" (p. 174); it turns
out to be " suermericos," a favourite word with Coch-
Iseus, probably from schwdrmer. "Diego of Alcala"
XXIV Translator's Preface,
becomes "Diogenes of Archada," "Judas" is put for
" Donatus ; " " Heshushius," or " Zosime," or " Zuingle,"
for " Ochin." " Treves," '' patriarche," " ou moyne,"
become respectively " Thebes," " paterneche," " ^
moins." " Cochin " is turned into '* Virne." * Chid-
abbe " escapes perversion because it is in autograph
elsewhere, but Blaise, forgetting that the African S.
Augustine is speaking, sagely informs us that "this
mountain is in the environs of Thonon." The note
on p. 191 represents a not unimportant restoration of
the text. The copy had sapines, the printed text
hesoins; the context easily guided one to the right
word, psaulmes.
In Article IV. we return to the Saint's own clear
hand in the MS. and so to greater verbal correctness.
Most of this invaluable section is supplied by the
Annecy MS.
(9.) Article VI., on the Pope, has been fairly well
edited from the Koman MS. We are able to supply
from the Annecy autograph a large and most impor-
tant addition on the qualities of an ex cathedrd
judgment (pp. 299-311),
Of this Article we find two recensions in the Roman
text, one in autograph, and the other, which lacks the
first two chapters, not. The autograph is much superior
on the whole, but the order of the other recension is
better, and in this we have followed it. From it also
we have introduced into our translation the important
* One of Blaise's attacks on the Saint's "criticism" turns on this
word. The statement here attributed to the Bishop of Virne is put
down, in the Standard of the Cross, to the Bishop of Cecine. This latter
word only requires the change of the first e into 0 to make it an
Italianized Cochin.
Translator's Preface, xxv
passage (pp. 2^6-7) : " And if the wills, &c." to end
of paragraph. On the same p. 276 occurs the pregnant
statement that the headship of Peter is the form of
Apostolic unity, that is, that the Apostles formed one
body precisely by virtue of their union with Peter.
This word forme was correctly printed in Blaise's
edition of this part in 1833, but Viv^s and Migne have
altered it into fermeU. We have paid particular atten-
tion to the important list of Papal titles (pp. 291-2).
Blaise had certainly a right to complain of the mistakes
in the references here, but they are the fault of the
first editor, not of the author, and on careful examina-
tion we find that of the fifty-three titles all are correct
except perhaps two ; of which one cannot be traced,
another attributes to Anacletus a letter which belongs
to Siricius. Almost the same list is given in the first
chapter of the Fabrian code. Article V.
We have now said what we think necessary as to
the substance of this work and as to our editing. As to
its manner we only repeat that to many this volume
will be a new revelation of the Saint. The same
calm sanctity, the same heavenly wisdom, the same
charisma of sweetness, pervade all his works, but as
a controversialist, as a champion of the Church, he
here puts on that martial bearing, takes up those
mighty weapons, proper to inspire confidence into
his comrades and to make his enemies quail before
him.
It is remarkable that after a sleep of ten genera-
tions the Saint should appear first to preach again his
true words in a country so similar to that for which
they were first preached and providentially written.
And though the heresy is more inveterate, yet it 13
XXVI Translator s Preface,
therefore the more excusable, and he comes, as he did
not come to the Chablais, first recommended by his
moral and devotional teaching. It is providential,
too, that he should wait so long, that he should
slumber during the fierce Galilean and Jansenist
struggles of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,
that his words on these controverted matters should
up to now be so doubtful that neither friend nor foe
could safely dare to quote them. He appears like an
ancient record, or rather like an ancient Prophet, to
witness to the plain and simple belief of the Church
in the days before these storms arose ; to prove to
us that the Church's exclusive right to teach, the
necessity of having Mission from her, the evilness of
heresy, the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope
are not inventions, not doctrines of to-day or yester-
day, but the perpetual and necessary truths of Catholic
faith. And this is the particular excellence of S.
Prancis : he defends the Church from accusations of
falseness, but indirectly he still more fully clears her
doctrines of the charge of novelty.* It might well
be thought that the Controversy of the sixteenth
century would be somewhat out of date now. But
this is not true of the present work, not only on
account of the intrinsic efficacy of its argument and
language, not only on account of the sort of prophetic
insight by which he reaches in advance of his time
and answers objections that had scarcely yet arisen,
but chiefly because there lies behind the strength of
his reasons the weight of his authority as a witness,
* We have drawn this out at some length in our pamphlet en-
titled " Four Essays on the Life and Writings of S. Francis De Sales,"
pp. 98-114.
Translator s Preface, xxvii
as a Doctor, we had almost said, in these days of rapid
movement, as a Father of the Church. And there is
no Doctor who better represents the true Catholic
supernatural spirit, far removed from rationalism on
the one hand, from superstition and fanaticism on the
other. Instead of being an extremist, as Gallicans
would nickname true believers, he was accused, in his
own time, of lessening the fulness of Catholic doctrine.
He says (p. 2) : " It will be seen that I deny a
thousand impieties attributed to Catholics : this is not
in order to escape from the difficulty, as some have
said, but to follow the holy intention of the Church."
He preaches the full but simple Catholic truth, and
his teaching was at last accepted as such by the
72,000 heretics of the Chablais. They had rejected
Catholic doctrine when misunderstood, but when they
understood what it was they hesitated indeed, from
worldly motives, as to accepting it at all, but then
they took it with simplicity as a whole, making no
hesitation as to a part, or on the ground of inconsis-
tency of part with part. Modern heretics would make
such a distinction, there are even within the Church
those who try to do so. For such we add, by way
of conclusion to our Preface and of introduction to the
Saint's argument, the testimony of an unsuspected
witness of his own age :
" What seems to me," says Montaigne, in the Essay
" On Custom," " to bring so much disorder into our
consciences in these troubles which we are in as to
religious matters is this dispensation which Catholics
make in their belief. They fancy they act as moderate
and enlightened men when they grant their adversaries
some article which is in debate. But besides that
xxviii Translator^ s Preface,
they do not see what an advantage it is to the man
who attacks you to begin to yield to him, and to draw
back yourself, and how this encourages him to pursue
his advantage, — those articles which they choose as
the lightest are sometimes very important. We must
entirely submit to the authority of our ecclesiastical
tribunal or entirely dispense ourselves from it; it is
not for us to determine the amount of obedience we
owe to it. Besides, — and I can say it as having tried
it, because I formerly used this liberty of choosing
for myself and of personal selection, holding in light
esteem certain points of observance belonging to our
Church, which appear on the face of them somewhat
idle or strange ; — when I came to discuss them with
learned men I have found that these things have a
strong and very solid base, and that it is only folly
and ignorance which make us receive them with less
reverence than the rest"*
WEOBLEY.
Feait of S. Francis de Sales,
2gth January 1886.
* ["We append here the Saint's second treatment of the subject of
scandal, see. p. 5.] There is nothing of which the Holy Scripture gives
more warning, history mofe testimony, our age more experience, than
of the facility with which man is scandalized. It is so great that there
is nothing, however good it may be, from which he does not draw some
occasion of his ruin ; being unhappy indeed in this that having every-
where opportunities of drawing profit he turns and takes them all to
his own disadvantage and misery. We may put so exactly into prac-
tice what Plutarch teaches, — to draw benefit even from our enemy —
that even sin, our capital enemy and the sovereign evil of the world,
can bring us to the knowledge of self, to humility and contrition.
And a good man's fall makes him afterwards walk straighter and
more circumspectly. So true is the word of S. Paul : We Jcnoio that all
things work together unto good to them that love God (Rom. viii. 28).
Not indeed that sin within us helps us, or when no longer in us can
Translator's Preface, xxix
work us any good, for sin is bad in every sense, but from it can be
derived occasions of great good which it would never of itself produce,
imitating the bees which went and made honey within the putrid
carcase of the fierce lion which Samson had slain. Is it not then a
strange thing that being able to profit by all things, however bad they
may be, we should turn all to our harm ? If indeed we only took evil
from what is evil it would not be a great wonder, for that is what
first offers ; if we drew evil from indifferent and harmless things
nature would not be so much outraged, for these are arms which all
hands may use : — though our baseness would still be great in that hav-
ing it in our power to change everything into good by so easy and
cheap an alchemy, for which one single spark of charity suffices, we
were of so ill a disposition as to remain in our misery and procure our
own hurt. But it is a wonderful thing, and passing all wonder, that
in good, profitable, holy, divine things, in God himself, the malice of
men finds matter to occupy itself with, to feed and to thrive upon ;
that in a subject of infinite beauty it finds things to blame ; in this
illimitable sea of all goodness it finds evil, and in the sovereign
felicity the occasion of its misery.
The great Simeon predicted of Our Lord, having him in his arms
and the Holy Ghost in his soul, that the child would be the ruin of
many and a sign to be contradicted. Almost the same had Isaias said
long before when he called Our Lord a stone of stumbling and of
scandal, according to the interpretation of S. Paul. Is there not here
reason for lamenting the misery of man who stumbles and falls over
the stone which had been placed for his firm support, who founds his
perdition on the stone of salvation ? . . . But the necessity there is
in this world that scandals should come must not serve as an excuse
to him who by his bad life gives it, nor to him who receives it from
the hand of the scandalizer, nor to him who of his own malice goes
seeking and procuring it for himself. For as to those who give it,
they have no other necessity than what lies in the design and resolu-
tion which they have themselves made of living wickedly and viciously.
They could if they liked, by the grace of God, avoid infecting and
poisoning the world with the noisome exhalations of their sins, and
be a good odour in Jesus Christ. The world, however, is so filled with
sinners that, although many amend and are put back into grace, there
always remains an infinite number who give testimony that scandal
must needs come. Still, woe to him by ivhom scandal cometh.
And as to those who forge scandals for themselves, tickling them-
selves to make themselves laugh in their iniquities, who, like their
forerunner, Esau, at the slightest difiiculty to their understanding in
matters of faith, or to their will in the holy commandments, persuade
XXX Translator s Preface,
themselves that they will die if they do not alienate the portion which
they have in the Church, — since they will have malediction and seek
it, no wonder if they are accursed. Both the one and the other, the
giver and the taker of scandal, are very wicked, but he who takes it
without having it given to him is as much more cruel than the man
who gives it as to destroy oneself is a more unnatural crime than to
kill another.
In fine, he who takes the scandal which is given, that is, who has
some occasion of scandalizing himself and does so, can have no other
excuse than Eve had with regard to the serpent, and Adam with regard
to Eve, which Our God found unacceptable. And all of them, the
scandalizer, the scandalized, and the taker of scandal, are inexcusable and
guilty, but unequally. For the scandalized man has more infirmity, the
scandalizer more malice, and the taker of scandal goes to the extreme
of malice. The first is scandalized, the second is scandalous, the third
scandalous and scandalized together. The first is wanting in firmness,
the second in kindness towards others, the third in kindness towards
himself. . . .
How greatly this third form of scandal has been in use up to this
present the universal testimony of ecclesiastical history shows us
in a thousand places. We shall scarcely find as many instances of all
the other vices as we shall find of this alone. Scandal, whether
passive or taken, appears so thickly in the Scriptures that there is
scarcely a chapter in which its marks are not seen. It would be point-
ing out daylight at high noon to take much pains to produce the
passages. These will serve for all. Did not those of Capharnaum
scandalize themselves in good earnest over Our Lord's words, as S.
John relates (vi.), saying : This is a hard saying, and who can hear it?
And on what an occasion ! Because Our Lord is so good as to desire
to nourish them with his flesh, because he says words of eternal life,
do they turn against him. And over what do those labourers scandalize
themselves — those (Matt, xx.) who murmured because the lord of the
vineyard gave to the last comers as to the first — save over kindness
and liberality and benefits ? "What ! says the good lord, is thy eye evU
because I am good ? Who sees not, in that holy banquet and supper
which was given to Our Lord at Bethany (John xii.), how Judas
grows indignant and murmurs when he sees the honour which devout
Magdalen does to her Saviour — how the sweetness of the odour of that
poured out ointment off"ends the smell of that hideous reptile ? Al-
ready then did they stumble over that holy stone. But since then —
who could recount all that history tells us of the same ? All those
who have abandoned the true Church, under what pretext soever,
have made themselves [his imitators]. . . .
NOTE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
Since the appearance of the first edition of this
translation the French complete and definitive text
of the original has been prepared and published,
forming the first volume of the " GEuvres de Saint
Franpois de Sales." In the researches necessary for
this purpose various discoveries were made in addition
to those which had already been utilised for the first
English edition : a certain amount of new matter
was found; the exact intention of the Author as to
the order of his subjects became more evident; a
number of verbal corrections were able to be effected.
These discoveries had to be taken into account
when it became necessary to make a second edition
of the translation. The new material, which con-
cerns the important subject of miracles and of the
anology of faith with reason, was of course introduced
as it stood, and will be found on pages 317 to 330
of the present volume. With regard to the order of
the divisions, as the only serious difference in that
respect between the MS. and on previous editions
was the attachment of the section on the " Marks of
the Church " to the first part entitled " Mission " in
our version, instead of to the second, " The Eule of
Faith," it did not seem necessary to make a change.
The verbal corrections regard principally the greater
xxxii Note to the Second Edition,
perfection of the French style, and are as a rule
unimportant in a translation. They have therefore
been adopted only on the few occasions when they
were really important for the sense. The references
to authors have been revised and corrected, but they
are not given with the same fulness as in the French
text. To this latter, it may be said in passing, are
added an historical introduction to the work, and a
list of writers posterior to the thirteenth century
cited by the saintly Author, which do not figure in
the present version.
ANNECY.
Feasl of our Holy Father
St. Benedict, 1899.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
[The Roman numerals refer to the French ' * jDzscowrs."]
PAOE
Translator's Preface to the First Edition . . v
Author's General Introduction i
Note to the Second Edition xxxi
Part L
MISSION.
CHAP.
I. — The lack of mission in the ministers of the new pre-
tended church leaves both them and their fol-
lowers without excuse. [II.] . . . .II
II. — That the pretended reformers had no mediate mission
either from the people or the Bishops. [III., IV.] 13
III. — The pretended reformers had no immediate or extra-
ordinary mission from God. [V.] . . . . iS
I v. — An answer to the two objections which are made by
the supporters of the theory of immediate mission.
[VI.] 26
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. [VII.] . 32
VI. — Answer to the objections made against the visibility
of the Church. [VIII.] 37
VII. — That in the Church there are good and bad, predesti-
nate and reprobate. [IX.] 41
VI il. — Answer to the objections of those who would have
the Church to consist of the predestinate alone.
[X.] 46
III. c
xxxiv Contents.
CHAP. PAOH
IX.— That the Church cannot perish. [XI.] ... 54
X. — The counter- arguments of our adversaries, and the
answers thereto. [XII.] Oo
XL— That the Church has never been dispersed nor hidden.
[XIII.] 63
XII.— The Church cannot err. [XIV.] .... 68
XIII.— The ministers have violated the authority of the
Church. [XV.] 74
Part H.
THE RULE OF FAITH.
Introduction S2
ARTICLE I.
Holy Scripture first Kule of Faith.— That the pke-
TENDED Reformers have violated Holy Scripture,
THE First Rule of our Faith.
CHAP. PAOB
1. — The Scripture is a tiue rule of Christian faith.
[XVI., part of XXL] 87
II. — How jealous we should be of its integrity. [XVII.,
part of XXL] 89
HI. — What are the sacred books of the Word of God.
[XVIIL, part of XXIL] 91
IV. — First violation of the Holy Scripture made by the
reformers : by cutting off some of its parts. [XIX.] 96
V. — 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.
[Part of XX.] 103
VI. — Answer to an objection. [Part of XXIL, part of XX.] 1 10
VII. — How greatly the reformers have violated the integrity
of the Scriptures. [Part of XXIIL] . . .114
Contents, xxxv
CRAP. PAGE
VIII. — How the majesty of the Scriptures has been violated
in the interpretations and versions of the heretics.
[XXIV., part of XXIIL] 119
IX. — Of the profanations contained in the versions made
into the vulgar tongue. [XXV.] . . . .122
X.— Of the profanation of the Scriptures through the
facility they pretend there is in understanding
Scripture. [Part of XXVI.] 129
XI.— On the profanation of the Scriptures in the versified
psalms used by the pretended reformers. [Part of
XXVL, part of XXIIL] 133
XII. — Answer to objections, and conclusion of this first
article. [XXVII.] 137
ARTICLE XL
That the Church of the Pretendees has violated the
Apostolic Traditions, the Second Rule of our Faith.
CHAP. PAGE
I. — What is understood by Apostolic traditions. [XXVIIL] 142
II. — That there are Apostolic traditions in the Church.
[XXIX] 146
ARTICLE IIL
The Church : Third Rule of Faith. How the Ministers
HAVE VIOLATED THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, THE
Third Rule of our Faith.
CHAP. PAGE
I. — That we need some other rule besides the "Word of
God. [Part of XLIV. ; Annecy autograph.] . 149
XL — That the Church is an infallible guide for our faith.
That the true Church is visible. Definition of the
Church. [Annecy autograph; part of XLVIL] . 157
III. — The Catholic Church is one. Mark the first. It is
tinder one visible head, that of the protestants is
not. [Part of XLVIII., XXXV.] . . . .161
xxxvi Cojiteitts,
CBAr. fAOB
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 so-called reformed church
is not. [XLIX.] 170
V. — Of the sanctity of the Church : second mark. [L.] . 176
VI. —Second mark {continued). The true Church ought to
be resplendent in miracles. [LIII.] . . -177
VII. — Sanctity of the Church [continued). The Catholic
Church is accompanied with miracles, the pre-
tended is not. [LIV.] 180
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. [LV.] 188
IX. — Sanctity of the Church {continued). The true Church
must practice the perfection of the Christian life.
[LVL] 190
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.
[LVII.] 199
XI.— Of the universality or catholicity of the Church:
third mark. [LVIII.] 203
XIL — Catholicity of the Church {conti7iued). The true
Church must be ancient. The Catholic Church is
most ancient, the pretended quite new. [LIX.] . 205
XIII.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true
Church must be perpetual. Ours is perpetual, the
pretended is not. [LX.] 208
XIV.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true
Church ought to be universal in place and per-
sons. The Catholic Church is thus universal, the
pretended is not. [LXI,] 210
XV.— Catholicity of the Church {continued). The true
Church must be fruitful. The Catholic Church is
fruitful, the pretended barren. [LXIIL] . .213
XVI.— That the Church is Apostolic : fourth mark. [LXI V.] 216
Contents. xxxvii
ARTICLE IV.
That the Ministeks have Violated the Authority of
Councils, the Fourth Rule of our Faith.
CHAP. PAGE
I. —Of the qualities of a true Council. [Annecy autog.] . 217
II. — How holy and sacred is the authority of universal
Councils. [Ann.] 223
III. — How the ministers have despised and violated the
authority of Councils. [Ann., part of XLIV. ;
XLV.] 227
ARTICLE y.
That the Ministers have Violated the Authority of
the Ancient Fathers of the Church, Fifth Rule of
our Faith.
CHAP. PAGE
I. — The authority of the ancient Fathers is venerable.
[Part of XL VI.] 234
ARTICLE VL
The Authority of the Pope, the Sixth Rule of our
Faith.
CHAP. PAGK
I. — First and second proofs. Of the first promise made
to S. Peter : Upon this rock I ivill build my
Church. [XXX.] 237
II. — Resolution of a difficulty. [XXXI.] .... 244
III. — Third proof. Of the second promise made to S.
Peter : And I ivill give thee the keys of the king-
dom of heaven. [XXXII.] 249
IV. — Fourth proof. Of the third promise made to S. Peter :
I have prayed for thee, k,Q. [XXXIV.] . . 257
V. — Fifth proof. The fulfilment of these promises : Feed
my sheep. [XXXIII.] 259
VI. — Sixth proof. From the order in which the Evange-
lists name the Apostles. [XLI.] .... 265
xxxviii Contents.
CHAP. PAOB
VII. — Seventh proof. Of some other marks which are
scattered throughout the Scriptures of the primacy
of S. Peter. [XLII.] 269
VIIL— Testimonies of the Church to this fact. [XLIII.] . 273
IX, — That S. Peter has had successors in the vicar-general-
ship of Our Lord. The conditions required for
succeeiUng him. [XXXVI. ] .... 276
X. — That the Bisliop of Rome is true successor of S. Peter
and head of the militant Church. [XXXVII.] . 280
XI. — Short description of the life of S. Peter, and of the
institution of his first successors. [XXXVIII.] . 285
XII. — Confirmation of all the above by the titles Avhich
antiquity has given to the Pope. [XXXIX.] . 290
XIII. — In how great esteem the authority of tlie Pope ought
to be held. [XL. ; Annecy autograph] . . . 295
XIV. — How the ministers have violated this authority.
[Ann. ; part of XLVII.] . . . . .305
ARTICLE VIL
Miracles : The Seventh Rule of Faith.
I. —How important miracles are for confirming our faith.
[LL ; part of LIL] 312
I[. How greatly the ministers have violated the faith due
to the testimony of miracles. [Part of LIL ; ncAv
Annecy autograph.] 317
ARTICLE VIIL
Harmony of Faith and Reason : Eighth Rule of Faith.
CHAP. PXGS
L — In what sense reason and experience are a rule of
right believing. [New Annecy autograph.] . . 326
II.— That the teaching of the pretended reformers contra-
dicts reason. [LXV. ; new Annecy autograph.] . 329
III._That the analogy of the faith cannot serve as a
rule to the ministers to establish their doctrine.
[LXVL ; part of XLVL] ... ^ . 333
IV._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. [LXVIL] . 341
Contents^ xxxix
CHURCH DOCTRINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
PAGE
Introduction. [LXVIIL] ....,,. 345
ARTICLE I.
OF THE SACRAMENTS.
CHAP.
I. — Of the name of Sacrament. [LXIX.]. , . . 349
II. — Of the form of the Sacraments. [LXX.] . . . 350
III. — Of the intention required in the admini.st ration of the
Sacraments. [LXXI.] ...,,, 357
ARTICLE IL
PURGA TORY
Introduction. [LXXIL] • • 363
I.— Of the name of Purgatory. [LXXIIL] . . .365
II. — Of those who have denied Purgatory, and of the
means of proving it. [LXXIV.] .... 366
III. — Of some passages of the Scripture in which mention
is made of purgation after this life, and of a
time and a place for it. [Part of LXXV.] . . 369
IV. — Of another passage out of the New Testament to this
effect. [Part of LXXV.] 372
V. — Of some other passages by which prayer, alms-deeds,
and holy actions for the departed are authorised.
[LXXVL] 376
VI. — Of certain other i)laces of Scripture by which we
prove that some sins can be pardoned in the other
world. [LXXVIL] 382
VII. — Of some other places fiom which, by various con-
sequences, is deduced the truth of Purgatory
[LXXVIII.] 3S7
xl Contents,
CHAP, PAGE
VIII. — Of the Councils which ha^-e received Purgatory as an
article of faith. [LXXIX.] 388
IX. — Of the testimony of the ancient Fathers to the truth
ofPurgator}^ [Part of LXXX.] . . . .390
X, — Of two principal reasons, and of the testimonies of
outsiders in favour of Purgatory. [Part of LXXX.] 392
AUTHOR'S GENERAL INTRODUCTION.*
Gentlemen, having prosecuted for some space of time
the preaching of the Word of God in your town,
without obtaining a hearing from your people save
rarely, casually, and stealthily, — wishing to leave
nothing undone on my part, I have set myself to put
into writing some principal reasons, chosen for the
most part from the sermons and instructions which I
have hitherto addressed to you by word of mouth, in
defence of the faith of the Church. I should indeed
have wished to be heard, as the accusers have been ;
for words in the mouth are living, on paper dead.
" The living voice," says S. Jerome, " has a certain
indescribable secret strength, and the heart is far more
surely reached by the spoken word than by writing." f
This it is which made the glorious Apostle S. Paul
say in the Scripture : How shall they believe him of
whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear
without a preacher ? . . . Faith then cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of Christ.X My best chance,
then, would have been to be heard, in lack of which
this writing will not be without good results, (i.)
It will carry to your houses what you will not receive
* Addressed to the inhabitants of Thonon. [Tr.]
t Ep. ad Paulinum, J Rom. x.
III. A
2 The Catholic Controversy,
at our house, at our meetings. (2.) It will satisfy
those who, as sole answer to the arguments I bring
forward, say that they would like to see them laid
before some minister, and who believe that the mere
presence of the adversary would make them tremble,
grow pale, and faint away, taking from them all
strength; now they can be laid before them. (3.)
Writing can be better handled ; it gives more leisure
for consideration than the voice does; it can be
pondered more profoundly. (4.) It will be seen that
I deny a thousand impieties which are attributed to
Catholics ; this is not in order to escape from the diffi-
culty, as some have said, but to follow the holy inten-
tion of the Church; for I write in everybody's sight,
and under the censorship of superiors, being assured
that, while people will find herein plenty of ignorance,
they will not find, God helping, any irreligion or any
opposition to the doctrines of the Roman Church.
I must, however, protest, for the relief of my con-
science, that all these considerations would never have
made me take the resolution of writing. It is a trade
which requires apprenticeship, and belongs to learned
and more cultivated minds. To write well, one must
know extremely well ; mediocre wits must content
themselves with speech, wherein gesture, voice, play
of feature, brighten the word. Mine, which is of the
less, or, to say the downright truth, of the lowest
degree of mediocrity, is not made to succeed in this
exercise ; and indeed I should not have thought of
it, if a grave and judicious gentleman had not invited
and encouraged me to do it : afterwards several of my
chief friends approved of it, whose opinion I so highly
value that my own has no belief from me save in default
Author s Introdtcctton. 3
of other. I have then put down here some principal
reasons of the Catholic faith, which clearly prove that
all are in fault who remain separated from the Catholic,
Apostolic, and Roman Church. And I address and offer
it to you with good heart, hoping that the causes which
keep you from hearing me will not have power to
hinder you from reading what I write. Meanwhile, I
assure you, that you will never read a writing which
shall be given you by any man more devoted to your
spiritual service than I am ; and I can truly say that I
shall never receive a command with more hearty accept-
ance, than I did that which Monseigneur, our most
reverend Bishop, gave me, when he ordered me, accord-
ing to the holy desire of His Highness, whose letter he
put into my hand, to come here and bring you the holy
Word of God. Nor did I think that I could ever do
you a greater service. And in fact I thought that
as you will receive no other law for your belief than
that interpretation of the Scripture which seems to
you the best, you would hear also the interpretation
which I should bring, viz., that given by the Apostolic
Roman Church, which hitherto you have not had
except perverted and quite disfigured and adulterated
by the enemy, who well knew that had you seen it in
its purity, never would you have abandoned it. The
time is evil ; the Gospel of Peace has hard striving
to get heard amid so many rumours of war. Still I
lose not courage ; fruits a little late in coming pre-
serve better than the forward ones. I trust that if
Our Lord but once cry in your ears his holy Ephpheta,
this slowness will result in much the greater sureness.
Take then, gentlemen, in good part, this present which
I make you, and read my reasons attentively. The
4 The Catholic Controversy,
hand of God is not withered nor shortened, and readily
shows its power in feeble and low things. If you
have with so much promptitude heard one of the
parties, have yet patience to hear the other. Then
take, I charge you on the part of G-od, take time and
leisure to calm your understanding, and pray God to
assist you with his Holy Spirit in a question of such
great importance, in order that he may address you
unto salvation. But above all I beg you never to let
other passion enter your spirits than the passion of
Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, by which we all
have been redeemed and shall be saved, unless we
are wanting on our part; since he desires that all
men should he saved and should come to the knowledge
of his truth* I beseech his sacred Majesty that he
would deign to help me and you in this aJBPair, as he
deigned to regard the glorious Apostle S. Paul [whose]
conversion [we celebrate] to-day.
All comes back to the saying of the prophet. De-
struction is thy own, 0 Israel ! t Our Lord was the
true Saviour who came to enlighten every man and to
be a light unto the revelation of the Gentiles, and the
glory of Israel ; whereas Israel takes hereby occasion
of ignominy. Is not this a great misfortune ? And
when it is said that he is set for the ruin of many,
this must be understood as to the actual event, not as
to the intention of the divine Majesty. As the Tree
of the knowledge of good and evil had no virtue to
teach Adam either good or evil, though the event gave
it this name, because Adam by taking the fruit ex-
perienced the evil which his disobedience caused him.
The Son of God came for peace and benediction, and
* I Tim. li. 4. t Osee xiiL 9.
Author s Introduetton. 5
not for evil to meu ; unless some madman would dare
to cast up to our Lord his holy Word : Woe to that
man through whom scandal cometh, * and would condemn
him by his own law to have a millstone tied about
his neck and be cast into the depths of the sea. Let
us then confess that not one of us men is scandalised
save by his own fault. This is what I undertake to
prove by force of argument. 0 my God, my Saviour,
purify my spirit ; make this your word distil sweetly
into the hearts of my readers, as a sacred dew, to cool
the ardour of the passions which they may have ;
and they shall see how true, in you, and in the Church
your Spouse, is that which you have said.
It was, I think, that great facility which men find
for taking scandal, which made Our Lord say that
scandals needs must come,^ or, as S. Matthew says,
Woe to the world because of scandals; J for if men take
occasion of their harm from the sovereign good itself,
how could there not be scandals in a world where
there are so many evils ? §
Now there are three sorts of scandals, and all three
very evil in their nature, but unequally so. There is
a scandal which our learned theologians call active.
And this is a bad action which gives to another an
occasion of wrong-doing, and the person who does this
action is justly called scandalous. The two other sorts
of scandal are called passive scandals, some of them^
passive scandals ah extrinseco, others ab intrinseco. For
of persons who are scandalised, some are so by the bad
actions of another, and receive the active scandal, let-
ting their wills be affected by the scandal ; but some
* Matt, xviii. 7. f Luke xvii. i. X xviii, 7.
§ See, iu note to Preface, a fuller treatment of the subject of scandal.
6 The Catholic Controversy.
are so by their own malice, and, having otherwise no
occasion, build and fabricate them in their own brain,
and scandalise themselves with a scandal which is all
of their own making. He who scandalises another
fails in charity towards his neighbour, he who scan-
dalises himself fails in charity towards himself, and he
who is scandalised by another is wanting in strength
and firmness. The first is scandalous, the second
scandalous and scandalised, the third scandalised only.
The first scandal is called datum, given, the second
acceptum^ taken, the third rece'ptum, received. The
first passes the third in evil, and the second so much
passes the first that it contains first and second, being
active and passive both together, as the murdering and
destroying oneself is a cruelty more against nature
than the killing another. All these kinds of scandal
abound in the world, and one sees nothing so plentiful
as scandal : it is the principal trade of the devil ;
whence Our Lord said, Woe to the world because of
scandals. But scandal taken without occasion holds
the chief place by every right, [being] the most frequent,
the most dangerous, and the most injurious.
And it is of this alone that Our Lord is the object
in souls which are given up as a prey to iniquity.
But a little patience : Our Lord cannot be scandalous,
for all in him is sovereignly good ; nor scandalised,
for he is sovereignly powerful and wise; — how then
can it happen that one should be scandalised in him,
and that he should be set for the ruin of many ? It
would be a horrible blasphemy to attribute our evil
to his Majesty. He wishes that every one should be
saved and should come to the knowledge of his truth.
He would have no one perish. Our destruction is
Author s Introduction, 7
from ourselves, and our hel'p from his divine good-
ness.* Our Lord then does not scandalise us, nor
does his holy Word, but we are scandalised in him,
which is the proper way of speaking in this point, as
himself teaches, saying : Blessed is he that shall not he
scandalised in me.t And when it is said that he has
been set for the ruin of many, we must find this
verified in the event, which was that many were
ruined on account of him, not in the intention of the
supreme goodness, which had only sent him as a light
for the revelation of the Gentiles and for the glory of
Israel. But if there are men who would say the
contrary, they have nothing left [as I have said] but
to curse their Saviour with his own words : Woe t6
him by whom scandal cometh.
I beseech you, let us look in ourselves for the cause
of our vices and sins. Our will is the only source of
them. Our mother Eve indeed tried to throw the
blame on the serpent, and her husband to throw it on
her, but the excuse was not valid. They would have
done better to say the honest peccavi, as David did,
whose sin was immediately forgiven.
I have said all this, gentlemen, to make known to
you whence comes this great dissension of wills in
matter of religion, which we see amongst those who in
their mouths make profession of Christianity. This is
the principal and sovereign scandal of the world, and,
in comparison with the others, it alone deserves the
name of scandal, and it seems to be almost exactly the
same thing when Our Lord says it is necessary that
* The Saint adds in margin : This is the will of God, your sanctifica'
tion. I Thess. iv. 3. [Tr.]
•*" Matt. xi. 6,
8 The Catholic Controversy,
scandals come, and St. Paul says that there must he
hei^esies ; * for this scandal changes with time, and, like
a violent movement, gradually grows weaker in its evil-
ness. In those Christians who begin the division and
this civil war, heresy is a scandal simply taken, passive
ah intrinseco, and there is no evil in the heresiarch save
such as is entirely in his own will; no one has part
in this but himself. The scandal of the first whom he
seduces already begins to be divided ; — but unequally,
for the heresiarch has his share therein on account of
his solicitation, the seduced have a share as much the
greater as they have had less occasion of following
him. Their heresy having taken root, those who are
born of heretical parents among the heretics have ever
less share in the fault : still neither these nor those
come to be without considerable fault of their own,
and particularly persons of this age, who are almost
all in purely passive scandal. For the Scripture which
they handle, the neighbourhood of true Christians, the
marks which they see in the true Church, take from
them all proper excuse ; so that the Church from whom
they are separated can put before them the words of
her Lord : Search the Scripticres, for you think in them
to have life everlasting : and the same are they that give
testimony of meA The works that I do in the name of
my Father, they give testimony of me.^
Now I have said that their scandal is purely or
almost purely passive. For it is well known that the
occasion they pretend to have for their division and
departure is the error, the ignorance, the idolatry,
which they aver to be in the Church they have aban-
doned, while it is a thing perfectly certain that the
* I Cor. xi. 19. t Johu v. 39. J lb. x. 25.
Author s Introduction, 9
Church in her general body cannot be scandalous, or
scandalised, being like her Lord, who communicates to
her by grace and particular assistance what is proper to
him by nature : for being her Head he guides her
feet in the right way. The Church is his mystical
body, and therefore he takes as his own the honour
and the dishonour that are given to her ; so it cannot
be said that she gives, takes, or receives any scandal.
Those then who are scandalised in her do all the wrong
and have all the fault : their scandal has no other
subject than their own malice, which keeps ever tick-
ling them to make them laugh in their iniquities.
See then what I intend to show in this little treatise.
I have no other aim than to make you see, gentlemen,
that this Susanna is wrongfully accused, and that she
is justified in lamenting over all those who have turned
aside from her commandments in the words of her
Spouse : They ham hated me without cause*
This I will do in two ways : (i.) ^7 certain general
reasons ; (2.) by particular examples which I will bring
forward of the principal difficulties, by way of illus-
tration. All that so many learned men have written
tends and returns to this, but not in a straight line.
For each one proposes a particular path to follow. I
will try to reduce all the lines of my argument to this
point as to the centre as exactly as I can. The first
part will serve almost equally for all sorts of heretics :
the second will be addressed rather to those whose
reunion we have the strongest duty to effect. So many
great personages have written in our age, that their
posterity have scarcely anything more to say, but have
only to consider, learn, imitate, admire. I will there-
* John XV. 25.
lo The Catholic Controversy.
fore say nothing new and would not wish to do so.
All is ancient, and there is almost nothing of mine
beyond the needle and thread : the rest I have only
had to unpick and sew again in my own way, with
this warning of Vincent of Lerins : " Teach, however,
what thou hast learnt ; that whilst thou sayest things
in a new way thou say not new things." ^
This treatise will seem perhaps to some a little too
meagre : this does not come from my stinginess but
from my poverty. My memory has very little stored
up, and is kept going only from day to day; and I
have but very few books here with which I can enrich
myself. But still receive favourably, I beg you,
gentlemen of Thonon, this work, and though you have
seen many better made and richer, still give some little
of your attention to this, which will perhaps be more
adapted to your taste than the others are ; for its air
is entirely Savoyard, and one of the most profitable
prescriptions, and the last remedy, is a return to one's
natal air. If this profit you not, you shall try others
more pure and more invigorating, for there are, thank
God, of all sorts in this country. I am about there-
fore to begin, in the name of God, whom I most
humbly beseech to make his holy Word distil sweetly
as a refreshing dew into your heart. And I beg you,
gentlemen, and those who read this, to remember the
words of S. Paul: Let all hitterness and anger ^ and
indignation, and clamour^ and blasphemy he taken away
from you, with all malice. Ameoi.f
* Comm. 1"«^- cap. xxxvii. + Eph. iv. 31.
'"AAA
PART I.
AIM 6 6 ( 0 n»
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
1 2 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
and legate of Our Lord, according to that of the
Apostle : * We art therefore ambassadors for Christ /
And to say that the whole of Christendom has failed,
that the whole Church has erred, and all truth dis-
appeared,— 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 whom 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
* 2 Cor. V. 20.
CHAP. II.] Mission. 13
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 medi-
ately or immediately. We say mission is given medi-
ately when we are sent by one who has from God the
power of sending, according to the order which he has
appointed in his Church ; and such was the mission
of S. Denis 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
the Apostles were sent, receiving from Our Lord's
own mouth this commandment : Go ye into the, whole
worlds and 'preach the Gospel to every creature ; * and
as Moses received his mission to Pharao 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 he sent ? t
CHAPTEE XL
THAT THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAD NO MEDIATE
MISSION EITHER FROM THE PEOPLE OR THE BISHOPS.
And first, as to 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
* Mark xvi. 15. t Rom. x. 15.
14 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
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
people 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 (i.) 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
S. 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 imposi-
* The Saint in a detached note elsewhere draws particular attention
to the necessity of mission shown in the fact that Jeroboam is rebuked
not for dividing the kingdom but for dividing the Church, and making
temples in the high places, and priests of the lowest of the people, who
were not sons of Levi. (3 Kings xii. 31.)
CHAP. II.] Mission. 15
tion 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 S. 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 mis-
sion, 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 talce the
honour to himself hut he that is called hy God, as Aaron
was (Heb. x. 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. i) in this word, Take
unto thee also Aaro7i 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."" For after
this magnificent mission the people remain sheep, and
* Amen, Amen, I say to you; the servant is not greater than his Lord^
neither is an A;posUe greater than he that sent him (John xiii. i6).
1 6 The Catholic Controversy, [part l
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
belongs to the chief pastor, not to the people. I omit
the disorder which would arise if the people sent ; for
they could 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
necessary then that the sheep should receive the shepherd
from elsewhere, and should not give him to themselves.'''^
The people therefore were not able to give legiti-
mate mission or commission to these new ambassadors.
But I say further that even if they could 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 ? — out-
side 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 Luther 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, unless they have recourse to the invisible
mission received from the principalities and powers of
the world of this darkness, and the spiritual wicked-
* Here may be added a detached note of the Saint's. •' Acts xv. 24 :
Forasmuch as we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled
you with words, to whom we gave no commands. If they had given
charge, much less would they themselves teach without charge."
CHAP. II.] Mission. 17
nesses 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, CEcolampadius, — 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 {'parler
Frangais) 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 now-a-days without having
touched any of our ancients and foregoers : it would
have required a very long speaking-tube (sarhacane)
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 missiou was possessed by our bishops,
and particularly by their head, the Eoman Bishop. But
we formally deny that your ministers have had any
communication of it, to preach what they have
preached. Because (i.) 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.
III. B
1 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
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 preach 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
A^ere not true it could not give them mission. (2.)
Besides, though they had had mission in the Eoman
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, QEcolampadius, and Calvin
were not bishops : how then could they communicate
any mission to their successors on the part of the
Eoman 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 ^^ and Epiphanius t reckon Aerius with
heretics because he held the contrary.
CHAPTEE IIL
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
* De Ecer. 53. t Eoeres. 75.
CHAP. III.] Mission, 19
extraordinarily by God because the ordinary mission
had been ruined and abolished, with the true Church
itself, under the tyranny 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
extraordinary 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 grace 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. If 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
20 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
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 : hy the hands of the apostles many
signs and wonders were done amongst the people (Acts
xix. V.) ; 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 communica-
tion 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 there that these new ministers should
be believed on 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, hut of him that sent me
(ibid. vii. 1 6) ; You doth knoiv me, and you know tvhence
I am; and I am not come of myself (ibid. 28). But
OHAP. III.] Mission, 21
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 else-
where he says to them : Do you not believe that I am
in the Father and the Father in me ? Otherwise believe
for the luorhs 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 ex-
traordinary mission be received when disowned by the
ordinary authority which is in the Church of Our Lord.
For, (i.) 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. (2.) God is not the
author of dissension, but of union and peace (l 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
2 2 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
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 hy ivliat 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.
xiii.) 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 pro-
perly 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
CHAP. III.] Mission. 23
sent to him by the priests and Levites (John i. 19),
the tenor of which implies the great esteem and re-
putation in which he was with them ; and the very
Pharisees who were seated on 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 prin-
cipal fulfilment of his mission, — did he not will to
have the prophetic testimony of him who was High
Piiest at that time. And this is what S. Paul teaches
when he will have no man to take the, pastoral
honour to himself, hut he, that is called ly 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 ivords in his mouth ; and
I will he 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, hut he who said to him:
Thou art my Son, this day have I hegotten thee ; and.
Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Mel-
chisedech. I beg you to ponder this expression — Jesus
Christ is a high priest according to the order of Melchise-
24 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
deck. 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 1
begotten thee : Thou art a priest for ever according to
the order of Melchisedech. And everywhere the voca-
tion is externally perceptible : the word in the cloud
was heard, and in David heard and read ; but S. Paul
when 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 him-
self with bringing forward the testimony which was
perceptible, and given by means of the ordmary Scrip-
tures and the received Prophets.
I say, thirdly, that the authority of the extraordinary
mission never destroys the ordinary, and is never given
to overthrow it. Witness all the Prophets, who never
set up altar against altar, never overthrew the priest-
hood of Aaron, never abolished the constitutions of
the Synagogue. Witness Our Lord, who declares that
every kingdom divided against itself shall he 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
CHAP. III.] Mission, 25
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, 'perfection of the saints . . .
till we all meet in the unity of faith, and of the know-
ledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the
measure of the age of the fulness of Christ. That we may
not now he children, tossed to and fro, and carried aboict
with every wind of doctrine, in the wickedness of men
and in their craftiness (Eph. iv.) Such is the strong
argument which S. Paul uses to prove that if the
ordinary pastors and doctors had not perpetual suc-
cession, and were liable to have their authority abro-
gated 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, who
on every occasion would boast of having an extraor-
dinary vocation. 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 fur-
nishes so many examples that this is one of the strongest
proofs that can be brought forward in this connection.
For if the extraordinary may take away the ordinary
ministration, to which shall we give the guardianship
of it — to Calvin or to Luther, to Luther or to Pacio-
montanus, to Paciomontanus or to Brandratus, to Bran-
dratus 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 on so good a
foundation and in such wise proportions that the gates
of hell shall never prevail against it. And if they have
26 The Catholic Controversy. [part l
never prevailed nor shall prevail, then the extraor-
dinary 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 IMME-
DIATE MISSION.
I HAVE not been able hitherto to find but two objec-
tions 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 othei
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 these
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
CHAP. IV.] Mission. 27
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 bolder 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 our 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 congreoations
of the Prophets approved by the Synagogue, as may
be gathered from many passages of the Scriptures.
There were such in Eamatha, 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 : ^''' whence the
Jews regard Samuel as the founder of the congrega-
tions of Prophets.
It is supposed that all those who prophesied exer-
cised the office of preaching; — which is not true, as
appears from what occurred with the officers of Saul
and with Saul himself : t in such sort that the vocation
* I Kings iii. 21. f Ibid. xix.
2 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part l
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 in a great
book which was shown him, took Urias the priest,
though the things were yet to come, and Zacharias the
prophet as witnesses,* as if he were taking the testi-
mony of all the Priests and Prophets. And does not
Malachy bear witness t that the lijps of the priest shall
keep knowledge^ and they shall seek the law at his mouth :
because he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts ? — so far
were they from ever having withdrawn the Jews from
the communion 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 these : but at such
times as they did a thing which had an appearance of
* Isa. viii. i, 2. + ii. 7.
CHAP. IV.] Mission. 29
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 be-
come 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
on our side. For instance, S. Gregory Thaumaturgus,
on the authority of S. Basil ; S. Anthony, on the testi-
mony of Athanasius ; the Abbot John, on the testimony
of S. Augustine ; S. Benedict, S. Bernard, S. Francis,
and a thousand others. If, then, there is question
between us of the prophetic authority, this is on 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 Suhsidium de Eucha7%stid, and the
book entitled Querela Luther ii, 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:*
Hearken not to the words of the projphets that prophesy
* xxiii.
30 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
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
frophets said, that prophecy 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 pro-
phecies and visions ? that it is Carlostadt, 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 dis-
turbance by their own authority, and you of having
followed them, in which you are inexcusable. The
good little Samuel, humble, gentle, and ho]y, 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 magis-
trates ; (2.) by our bishops ; (3.) by his extraordinary
voice. No, no ! Let them not bring this forward,
CHAP. IV.] Mission. 31
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 ex-
traordinary 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 ac-
knowledsje that theirs is a vocation of man, and that
their ears have tingled to the old Adam ; by no means
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 con-
tradicted and opposed your first ministers, and still
opposes those of the present day, is so clearly marked
on all sides that no one, blind as he may be, can pre-
tend 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 dis-
regard 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 mere knowledge of certain
sciences, to break all the ties of the most religious
obligation of obedience which is in the world, namely,
32 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
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 I
invite you on the part of the living God.
CHAPTEE V.
THAT THE INVISIBLE CHURCH FROM WHICH THE INNO-
VATORS PRETEND TO DERIVE THEIR MISSION IS A
FIGMENT ; AND THAT THE TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST
IS VISIBLE.
Our adversaries, clearly perceiving that by this touch-
stone 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 be-
yond 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 invisible assembly. Here are
our reasons.
(i.) Our Lord and Master sends us to the Church in
our difficulties and variances (Matt, xviii. i6, 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
CHAP, v.] Mission, 33
Churchy with S. Barnabas (ibid. xiii. 1,3); he is received
hy the Church (ibid. xv. 4) ; he confirmed the Churches
(ibid. 41); he ordained for them 'priests in every Ghwrch
(ibid. xiv. 22); he assembled the Church (ibid. 26) ; he
saluted the Church at Csesarea (ibid, xviii. 22) ; he per-
sectUed 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, persecuted it — was this in
figure or in faith only, and in spirit ? I am sure that
everybody must see that these were visible and per-
ceptible 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
ahout with varieties (Ps. xliv. 14, I5)> s-s a mountain
(Isa. ii. 2) ; as a sicn (Ps. Ixxxviii.) ; as a full moon ;
as the rainbow, a faithful and certain witness of the
favour of God towards men, who are all of the pos-
terity of Noe : such is the signification of this Psalm
in our version : Ut thronus ejus sicut sol in conspectu
meOj et sicut luna jperfecta in wternum 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 the daughters saw her
and declared her most blessed ? and then introducing
the daughters, full of admiration he makes them say :
TII. C
34 The Catholic Controversy, [part l
Who is she that cometh forth as the mo7^ning rising^
fair as the moon, hright 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 : Bet^trn,
return, 0 Sulamitess ; return, return, that we may
hehold thee ; and makes her answer : What shalt thou
see in the Sulamitess hut the companies of camps ? — is
not this again to declare her 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 fools shall not err therein ; — must she not be dis-
played 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 ? They 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,
Feed my sheep ; so were the Apostles, and they were
seen. I suppose that those to whom S. Paul said,
Take heed to yowselves and to all the flock, over which
the Holy Ghost hath placed you, to ride the Church of
God; — I suppose, say I, that they saw him; and
CHAP, v.] Mission, 35
when like good children they fell upon the neck of
this good shepherd, bathing 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 had said that they should see his face no more.
And then, Zwingle, QEcolampadius, 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.) It is the property of the Church to carry on
the true preaching of the Word of God, the true adminis-
tration 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 ivhom was Christ according to the flesh (Eom.
ix. 5), formed the visible Church, so the Apostles with
their disciples, children of the synagogue according to
the flesh and spirit, gave beginning to the Catholic
Church visibly, as the Psalmist says (xliv. 17): In-
stead of thy father, sons are horn to thee ; thou shalt
make them princes over all the earth.
For twelve patriarchs are born to thee twelve
Apostles, says Arnobius.* Those Apostles being
* Arnobii (Jiinioris), Conim. in Ps. xliv.
36 The Catholic Controversy, [part 1.
gathered together in Jerusalem with the little com-
pany 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 these 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 the priests 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 the Egyptians, Babylonians, Madian-
ites, 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 spirit
or phantom, which seems to be visible and is so only
by illusion ? No, no ; Why are you trouUed^ and
why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? See her 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
CHAP. VI.] Mission. 37
throughout her whole body, entirely beautiful as she
is, and you will see that she is visible ; for a spiritual
and invisible thing liath not flesh and bories, as yoto see
her to have (Luke ult.)
CHAPTEK 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.
( I .) 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 inte-
rior. 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
must 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
3^ The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
outside is not so excellent, as says the Spouse in the
Canticles (iv.) : Thij eyes are doves' eyes besides what is
hid within. . . . Honey and milk are under thy tongue,
that is, in thy heart ; — behold the interior. A7id 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 corporal, 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 tables of stone exteriorly,
as Jeremias says (xxxi. 33), the answer is ; that in the
interior of the Church and in its heart is all the chief
of its glory, but this fails not to shine out over the
exterior, by which it is known and recognised. So
when it is said in the Gospel (John iv. 23) that the
hour cometh, and oioiu 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 ( i Pet. ii. 5 ),
it is because all that proceeds from the Church tends
CHAP. VI.] Mission. 39
to the spiritual life, and because its greatest glory is in-
terior ; 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 the
Church, therefore the Church is not 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 is 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 moun-
tain like that of Sina, but a mystical ; from which it
does not follow that it is in any way invisible. In-
deed, it may reasonably be said that he is actually
speaking of the heavenly Jerusalem, that is, the
triumphant Church ; wherefore he adds the comjpany 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, — / believe in the
40 The Catholic Controversy, [part l
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):
tkou hast believed ; and to make him believing he says
to him, See my hands, and bring hither thy hand^
and jput it into my side, and he not faithless hut he-
lieving. See how sight hinders not faith but pro-
duces 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 ray 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 in-
terior 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.
CHAP VII.] Mission, 41
CHAPTEK 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 predestina-
tion, 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 per-
fect, and that the visible can err and can be blown
away by the wind of errors and idolatries, the invisible
not. And if 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 recognised and seen by God.
But we will clearly show that the true Church con-
tains the good and the bad, the reprobate and the elect ;
— and here are the proofs.
(i.) Was not that the true Church wliich S. Paul
called the pillar and ground of truth and the house of
the living God (i Tim. iii. 15)? Certainly; — for to
be a pillar of truth cannot appertain to an erring and
straying Church. Now the Apostle witnesses of this
true Church, the house of God, that there are in it
42 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
vessels unto honour and unto dishonour (2 Tim. ii. 20,)
that is, good and bad.
(2.) Is not that Church against which the gates of
hell shall not prevail (Matt. xvi. 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. v. 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 when we
are offended by some one of our brethren, after having
reprehended and corrected him twice, in two different
fashions, we should take him to the Church ? Tell the
Cliurch ; and if he will not hear the Church let him he
to thee as the heathen and the publican (Matt, xviii. 17).
Here one cannot escape — the consequence is inevi-
table. There is question of one of our bretliren who
is neither heathen nor publican, but under the disci-
pline and correction of the Church, and consequently
member of the Church, and yet there is no inconsis-
tency 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
CHAP, vil] Mission, 4
-1
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 ahideth
not in the house for ever ; but the Son ahideth for ever
(John viii. 35) ; — is it not the same as if he said that
in the house of the Church the elect and the reprobate
are for a time ? Wlio can this servant be who abide th
not in the house for ever except the one who shall he
cast into exterior darkness. And in fact Christ clearly
shows that he so understands it when he says immedi-
ately before, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant
of sin. Now this man, though he abide not for ever, 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. i. 2), and yet he wishes them to drive
out a certain incestuous man (ibid, v.) If he be driven
out he was there, and if he were there and the Church
were 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 wicked are of the true Church, when they can
even be pastors and bishops therein ? That is cer-
tain : is not Judas reprobate ? And yet he was
* In a detached note elsewhere the Saint draws special attention to
the force of this text. "From this," he says, "it is conclusively
shown that there are sinners in the Church." And he proceeds to
give an argument from the utility of their presence. "Those pas-
sages of the Psalm (cxviii.). Thou hast made me wise over my enemies,
then, over all my teachers, then, over ancients, &c., prove that we can
gain excellent knowledge and profit from our enemies. For, by over
{super), in the expression over my enemies, may be understood, says
Genebrard, by occasion of my enemies, from or out of my enemies. And
since the being made wise by means of enemies is put before the being
made wise by means of elders or teachers, it rightly follows that we
have richer sources of knowledge in the school of enemies than in that
of teachers," &c.
44 T^h^ Catholic Controversy, [part l
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 ride the Church of God (Acts xx. 28), but he assures
them also that some of their ow)i selves vjould rise up
speaking perverse things, to draw aiuay 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 lucra-
CHAP. VII.] Mission. 45
tive voyages to Hebrews, Arabs, Chaldseans, Greeks, and
Latins, — on his return, full of honour and of spiritual
riches, suffer shipwreck and perish in port, on 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 held 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 the true 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 on the ground
that it is composed of the predestinate alone.
I conclude all this discourse by the Gospel com-
parisons which show this truth clearly and completely.
S. John likens the Church to the threshing-floor of
46 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
a farm, on which is not only tlie wheat for the barn,
but also the chaff to be burnt with unquenchable fire
(Matt. iii. 1 2) ; are these not the elect and the repro-
bate ? 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 slothfid, 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 as
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, hut few are chosen (ibid.) All those who are
in the Church are called, ]>ut all who are therein are
not elect; and indeed Church does not mean election
but convocation.
CHAPTEE VIII.
ANS\^ER TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THOSE WHO WOULD
HAVE THE CHURCH TO CONSIST OF THE PREDES-
TINATE ALONE.
Where will they find the Scripture passage which
can furnish them any excuse for so many absur-
dities, and against proofs so clear as those we have
given ? Yet counter-reasons are not wanting in this
CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 47
matter : never does obstinacy leave its followers with-
out 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
luell 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 Cliurch 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
vje forgive them that tresimss against us. I suppose
S. James was elect, and yet he confesses (iii. 2),
In many things vje 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
(i 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 iind 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.
(i.) The Church as a whole is entirely fair, holy,
glorious, both as to morals and as to doctrine. Morals
48 The Catholic Controversy. [part l
depend on the will, doctrine on 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, 0 sworn enemies, shall convince me of sin ?
(John viii. 46.) And yet it does not follow that in
the Church there are no sinners. Eemember what I
have 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. Slie is an a?'my 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.
I o, 1 1 ). 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 expres-
CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 49
sions, and the Canticles are the chaste expressions
of love. All these qualities then are justly attri-
buted to the Church on 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 pilgrimage, 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.) ; / know my slieepy and no one shall snatch
them out of my hand: and they say that those sheep
ai'e 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 ivho are his;
and what S. John has said to apostates : they ivent ont
from tts, hut they ivere not of %ts {i 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
UL D
50 The Catholic Controversy. [part l
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 predesti-
nate are called sheep, so also are the reprobate.
Witness David : Why is thy wrath enJcindled against
the sheej? of thy pasture 1 (Ps. Ixxiii. i). I have gone
astray like a sheep that is lost (cxviii. ult.). And else-
where, where he says : Give ear, 0 thou that rulest
Israel ; thou that leadest Joseph like a sheep (Ixxix. i) :
— when 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 knows 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 he led as a sheep to the slaughter. And
so throughout the whole of c. xxxiv. of Ezechiel, where
there is no doubt but that the whole people of Israel
are called sheep, over which David has to reign (v. 23).
And in the same way, — who denies that Our Lord
knows 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
those disciples who went hack (John vi. 67) on account
of the doctrine of the real eating of his flesh, and yet
CHAP. VIII.] Mission* 51
he received them as disciples. It is a quite different
thing to belong to God according to the eternal fore-
knowledge, 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 knows 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
when he says that in a great house there are all sorts
of vessels and utensils, some indeed unto honour^ hut
some unto disho7iour (2 Tim. ii. 20).
So, what S. John says : They have go7ie oitt from
amongst us, hut 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,t " 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 tbeir 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 : on 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
* In J. xlv. t lb. Ixi.
52 The Catholic Controversy. [part l
for Father who has not the Church for mother ; " *
that is certain : similarly he who has not God for
Father has not the Church for mother ; most cer-
tainly : 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 founda-
tion of this reason ; but the second — that the repro-
bate 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 name 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, helieve for a ivhile, and in time of
temptation fall away (Luke viii. 13). So that we
totally deny this second proposition, that the repro-
bate are not children of God.t For being^ in the
Church they can be called children of God by Crea-
tion, Eedemption, Eegeneration, Doctrine, Profession
of faith ; although our Lord laments over them in
this sort by Isaias (i. 2) : / have brought wp 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 onl}^ are the
children within the Church, but so are the servants
* Cyp. de unit. Ecd. v.
+ Gal. iii. 26. For you are all the children of God hy faith in Clirist
Jesus ; — and yet he calls them senseless (iii. i), and removed, &c. (i. 6).
CHAP. VIII.] Mission, 53
too, with this dilTerence, 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 wlio knew well and
acknowledged that many hired servants in his father's
house abounded in bread, while he, true and lawful
son, was amongst tlie swine, perishing with hunger, a
proof of the Catholic faith in tliis point. 0 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 ! 0 how many
fair and sweet-smelling apples are on 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 cJiosen ; 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 Beren-
garius. 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, on the ground that he had
learnt nothing about his body but only about his soul.
54 The Catholic Controversy, [pabt j
CHAPTEK 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 perpe-
tuity. 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 ex-
tinguished. 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 he lifted up from the earthy will draw all
things to myself (John xii. 3 2) ? 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 heepeth his court, those
things which he possesseth are in peace : but if a stronger
than he come upon him, and overcome him, he will take
CHAP. IX.] Mission, 55
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 hody of Christ (Eph. iv. 12). Was the per-
fection 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
edi tiers or answer no : — and if it has not been com-
pleted, 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 (Eom. 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 on earth, preserved them and perpetu-
ally 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 cost him at the dearest but a simple word : he
56 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
%]p6ke and all tcere made (Ps. cxlviii. 5) ; and he pre-
serves it with a perpetual and infallible Providence.
How, I ask you, should he have abandoned the Church,
which cost him all his blood, so many toils and travails ?
He has drawn Israel out of Egypt, out of the desert,
out of the Eed 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 legiti-
mate wife in no esteem ! He shall so greatlv have
honoured the shadow, and will abandon the substance !
Oh ! how utterly vain and good for nothing would be
the promises on 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. 9) ; In his days shall
justice s^pring up, and abundance of peace, till the moon
he taken away for ever (Ixxi. 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 he as the sun hefore me, and as the moon
perfect for ever, and a faithful witness in heaven
(Ixxxviii. 38). And: / 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 ivhich shall not he de-
stroyed for ever. The angel says to Our Lady that of
his kingdom there shall he 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):
CHAP. IX.] Mission, 57
If he shall lay doivn his life for sin, he shall see a long-
lived seed, that is, of long duration : and elsewhere
(Ixi. 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 speak-
ing of the rising Church used this argument : If this
design or ivork he of men, it will fall to nx)thing ; hut if
it he 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 easily acknowledge that it could
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 these blind people alone, for every plant
which God hath not planted shall he rooted up (Matt.
XV. 13, 14).
S. Paul says that all shall he made alive ; hut each
one in his own order : the first-fruits Christy then they
58 The Catholic Controversy, Lp^^rt i.
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 on
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 pre-
servation ? 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 besjan 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
Eeformer. And he who thinks himself to be the
reformer or resuscitator thereof, attributes to himself
the honour due to Jesus Christ alone, and makes him-
self greater than the Apostles. The Apostles have
CHAP. IX.] Mission. 59
not brought the Church back to life, but have pre-
served 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 on 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 ? ^ Blowing is of no use : what is to be done
then ? Perhaps we must strike again with nails and
lance on 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.
" 0 impudent cry ! " says S. Augustine against the
Donatists,t " the Church is not, because you are not
in it ! " " No, no," says S. Bernard,t " tlu floods came,
and the winds hleiv, o,nd they heat upon that house, and
it fell not ; for it was founded upon a rock (Matt. vii.
25), and the rock was Christ (i 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 salva-
tion, 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
* In Ps. ci., S. 2. t S. 79 m Cant.
6o The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
that they scorn them, and hold them as silly fools and
madmen.
I will conclude this proof with S. Augustine,* 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 sowinoj it is to ijrow 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 should grow till the time of the
harvest. The sfood seed is the children of the kin^-
dom, 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 UOUNTER-AEGUMENTS OF OUR ADVERSARIES, AND
THE ANSWERS THERETO.
(i.) 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
* l)c Unit. Eccl. xvii.
OHAP. X.] Mission. 6i
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 K. 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 there-
by 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 Azarias predicted (II Par. xv. 3), that
it should be without priest and sacrifice.
(4.) Isaias says (i. 6) that from head to foot tlure
is no soundness. Answer : these are forms of speak-
ing, 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 under-
stand them of each particular person, but only of a
large porportion ; as appears by the example of Elias
who complained that he was alone, notwithstanding
that there were yet 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 good, no, not one ? — and who knows not on the
62 The Catholic Controversy, [part l
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, with-
out doubt, are to be understood all similar things
which are found in the threats and rebukes of the
Prophets.
(4.) 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 pre-
tence of the Church we are to trust to a lie ? Yea,
on the contrary, he who rests on 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 A/isible 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 si 1 all 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.).
CHAP. XL] Mission, 63
CHAPTEE XL
THAT THE CHUECH HAS NEVEE BEEN DISPERSED NOR
HIDDEN.
The ancients had wisely said that to distinguish
correctly the different times referred to in the Scrip-
tures 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 ;
and 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 dags shall he 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
64 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
shall never be in the desert thus hidden until that
extremity, and for that short time ; that she will he
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 moun-
tain as great as the world, — and a multitude of others.
I will content myself with putting before your con-
sideration 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. i) : The
Lord is great and exceedingly to he praised, in the city of
our God in his holy mountain. " This is the city,"
says S. Augustine,* " set on a mountain, that cannot
be hid. This is the light which cannot be concealed,
nor put under a lushel, 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 jmt
it under a hushel (Matt. v. 15), have placed so many
lights in the Church to go and hide them in certain
unknown corners ? S. Augustine continues : t " This
is the mountain which covers the whole face of the
earth : this is the city of which it is said : A city set
on a mountain cannot be hid. The Donatists (the
Calvinists) come up to the mountain, and wlien we say
to them, ascend ; — it is not a mountain, say they, and
they rather strike their heads against it than establish
their dwelling on it. Isaias, whom we read yesterday,
— cried out (ii. 2) : In the last days the mo^mtain of
the house of the Lord shcdl he prepared on the top of
* In Ps, xlvii.
t 111 Ep. I*" Joan. Tr. i. The order is slightly changed [Tr.].
CHAP. XI.] Mission. 65
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 domina-
tions of idols and demons ? — did it not increase until
it filled the whole earth ? It is then of this moun-
tain that is said the word, prepared on the top of moun-
tains ; 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 on 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 chang-
ing the names the ancient reasons press the Calvinists
as closely home as they did those ancient Donatists.
S. Jerome * enters into the fray from another side,
* Contra Lucif. 14, 15.
III. E
66 The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
which is just as dangerous to you as the former ; foi
he makes it clearly evident that this pretended dis-
persion, this retreat and hiddenness, destroy the glory
of the cross of Our Lord. For, speaking to a schis-
matic 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 sweet-
ness and savour of the whole world. And say not
like some do : ^ave 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 concern-
ing 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 vnll 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
CHAP. XL] Mission. 6y
certain unknown persons, and will not 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, had made his
name so glorious that all knees were to bow and bend
in reverence of him; but these people do not thus
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 (Isa. liii. 1 2), and had been reputed with male-
factors and robbers ; but these people make his in-
heritance narrow indeed, and so cut away his portion
that hardly during a thousand years shall he have a few
secret followers, yea, shall have had none at all ! For
I address myself to you, 0 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, 0 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, ido-
latry ? In no wise were you ignorant that God has
recommended to each one his neighbour. Certainly
with the heart we believe unto justice ; but for salvation
we must make confession of our faith (Eom. x. 10),
and how could you say : / have believed, therefore have
I spoken (Ps. cxv. i)? 0 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, 0 Luther, 0 Calvin, the true faith
68 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
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 hy the king to hear
thee ... 0 that they would make me judge over the
land, that all that have husiness might come to me, that I
might do them justice.* Thus did he seduce the
loyalty of the Israelites. 0 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 lealty
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
* 2 Kings XV.
CHAP. XII.] Mission. 69
and audacious proposition could they make to Chris-
tianity 4:han that ? If then the Church can err, 0
Calvin, 0 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 on the ship of
the Holy Spirit ; there is but one, and only that one
shall reach the port, all the rest are on 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 want-
ing 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
70 The Catholic Controversy. [pakt i.
was a scholar ? — such would be the Christian common-
wealth if the Church can err. For if the Church her-
self err, who shall not err ? and if each one in it err,
or can err, to whom shall I betake myself for instruc-
tion ? — 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 these
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 per-
fectly 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 hrother shall offend thee . . . tell the Churchy and
if he will not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the
heathen and the pvhlican (Matt, xviii.) Do you see
how Our Lord sends us to the Church in our differ-
ences, 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, grand-
CHAP. XII.] Mission, 71
fathers, 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 judg-
ments are irrevocable. The Church has condemned
Berengarius ; if any one would further discuss this
matter, I hold him as a heathen and a publican, iu
order to obey my Saviour, who leaves me no choice
herein, but gives me this order : Ld him he, to thee, as
a heathen and a puhlican. It is the same as S. Paul
teaches when he calls the Church the pillar and ground
of truth (i 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. Eor to
uphold the truth is a very different thing from guard-
ing the Scripture. The Jews guard a part of the
Scriptures, and so do many heretics ; but they are not
on 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
72 The Catholic Co7itroversy. [part i.
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 those 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 hehave him-
self? 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 tlie forces of the enemy, cannot make them-
selves 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
CHAP, xii.] Mission. 73
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
hath 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 im-
piety ? 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 com-
mands, and regulate our faith by this standard : And
if it would have been impious in the Apostles to con-
test with their Master, so will it be in him who con-
tests 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 he to the(
as a heathen and a publican.
74 The Catholic Controversy. [paet i.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE MINISTERS HAVE 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 ; other-
wise, 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
CHAP. XIII.] Mission. 75
Eome had not erred in things necessary for salvation
he would have done wrong to separate himself from it,
for being 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 Eoman Church, as it is now, errs in things neces-
sary 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, three, four, five
hundred years ago, save the Church Catholic and
Eoman, 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 asfain he is constrained to confess
that this disappearance of the Church arose from in-
tolerable error, and error in things necessary for salva-
tion. 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 vain-
ness 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 testi-
monies are understood, unless we would say that Our
Lord had sent us to speak to an invisible and unper-
ceivable 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
76 The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
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 sove-
reignty of the Church, absolving those she had con-
demned, condemning those whom she has absolved.
Examples follow.
Simon Magus said that God was the cause of sin,
says Vincent of Lerins (Com. i""* c. 24). But
Calvin and Beza say no less ; the former in the
treatise on eternal predestination, the latter in his
answer to Sebastian Castalio i''*" 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 convict 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.t I know
not whether your ministers think of what they are say-
ing, but when we bring forward miracles, what do they
say but that they are sorceries ? The glorious miracles
which Our Lord does, 0 men of this world, instead of
opening your eyes, how do you speak of them ? |
* See Claude de Sainctes on Atheism ; Francis Feuardent in liig
Dialogues ; Bellarmine Controv. Tom. iv. Lib. ii. c. 6 [where find quota-
tions from Calvin and Beza. Tr.] ; Hay in his (Questions and Answers.
t Porphyry and Eunomius did the same. See Jerome adv. Vig. (lo).
X See Calvin in Pref. to Instit. ; the Ceuturiators ; Peter Martyr
(c. viii. Jud.).
CHAP. XI.] Mission, "jj
The Pepusians, says S. Augustine * (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, t denied free-
will : Luther has composed a book against free-will,
which he calls de servo arhitrio : for Calvin I appeal
to yourselves.J
The Donatists believed that the Church was de-
stroyed throughout the world and remained only
with them (Aug. de Ecer. 69) : your ministers say the
same. Again, they believe that a bad man cannot
uaptize (lb. contra Pet. i. i); Wiclifi' 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 then, they shaved
the heads of the priests to take the sacred unction from
them, they took and tore away the veil from nuns to
degrade them.§
Jovinian, as S. Augustine testifies, || 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
* De Hcer. 27. f Prsef. in Dial. c. Pelag.
t The Saint adds in marginal note : Amb. Ep. 83 (Migne Ep. xxiii. ) :
'* "We rightly condemn the Manicheans on account of their Sunday
fasts."
§ See Optatus de sch. Don. ii. 17, vi, i.
II De Hcer. 82 : and see Jerome cont. Jov.
"j^f The Catholic Controversy, [part i.
virginity was no better than marriage, and that all
sins were equal. Your masters teach the same.
Vigilantius, as S. Jerome says,""'' 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 ? t
About the year 324, Eustathius despised the ordi-
nary 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 (m 'prcef) in which for these 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.| He said that faith
alone was sufficient for salvation, and justified (Aug.
licer. 54). As to the first point, see Beza in his
treatise on the marks of the Church ; as to the second,
does it not agree with that celebrated sentence of
Luther's, § 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.
* Cont. Vig. ; and Ep. ii. adv. eundem.
t For this and preceding paragraph the Saint refers to Luther (da
Nat. B.M. ; in i Pet. Ep. ; and Epithal) ; and Calvin {in Antid.
S. vi.).
+ Contra Eun. i. § de Cap. Bah. 1.
CHAP. XIII.] Mission. 79
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 : "''" 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.t As to the first, this
is your ordinary language, and that of Calvin (m
Antidoto, p. vi.). The second and third points are too
ordinary with you to have anything said about them.
The Manicheans rejected the sacrifices of the
Church, and images,^ as your people also do.
The Messalians despised Sacred Orders, Churches,
Altars, as says S. Damascene (Hseres. 80) ; and S.
Ignatius says : § 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. ||
Berengarius taught the same, long 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,1[ the Mahometans treat it no
worse.** But he who would see this at full length,
let him look at Sanders (viii. 5 7) and Bellarmine in
* Jer. contra Lucif.
t Jerome adv. Pel. ii. and iii. ; S. Aug. contra Jul. vi.
X S. Aug. contra Faustum xx.
§ Apud Theodoret. Dial. 3, called ImpatibUis.
II Epist. ad Burdigalenses (apocryphal Tr.).
IF Niceph. xvi. 27. ** Damas. 100.
8o The Catholic Controversy. [part i.
his Notes of the Church. Do you see the mould on
which your ministers lay and form their reformation ?
JSTow, ought not this agreement of opinions, or, to
speak more rightly, this close parentage and consan-
guinity 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 on 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 com-
batting the opinions which the ministers adore; they
CHAP, xiil] Mission. 8i
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 Manichteans,
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 !
ui.
PART 11.
Zhc IRule of Jfattb.
INTEODUCTION.
If the advice which St. John ^ gives to Christians,
not to believe every spirit, was ever necessary, it is so
now more than ever, when so many different and con-
trary spirits in Christendom demand belief, on the
strength of the Word of God ; in whose name we
have seen so many nations run astray in every direc-
tion, each one after its humour. As the common
sort admire comets and wandering fires, and believe
that they are true stars and bright planets, while
better-informed people know well that they are only
airy flames which float over some vapour as long as
there is anything to feed them, which always leave
some ill effect behind them, and which have nothing
in common with the incorruptible stars save the
coarse light which makes them visible ; so the miser-
able people of our age, seeing in certain foolish men
the glitter of human subtlety and a false gleam of
the Word of God, have believed that here were
heavenly truths, and have given heed to them ;
* I Ep. iv. I.
iNTROD.] The Rule of Faith. 83
although men of worth and judgment testified that
they were only earthly inventions, which would in
time disappear, nor leave other memorial of them
than the sense of the many miseries which follow.
0 how men ought to have abstained from giving
themselves up to these spirits, and before following
them to have tried whether they were of God or no !
Ah ! there is not wanting a touchstone to distinguish
the base metal of their counterfeits. For he who
caused us to be told that we must 'prove the spirits,
would not have done so unless he knew that we
had infallible rules to tell the holy from the false
spirit. We have such rules, and nobody denies it.
But these deceivers produce rules which they can
falsify and adapt to their pretensions, in order that,
having rules in their hands, they may gain the credit
of being masters in their craft by a visible sign
under pretext of which they can form a faith and a
religion such as they have imagined. It is then of
the most extreme importance to know what are the
true rules of our belief, for thereby we can easily
discern heresy from the true religion : and this is
what I intend to make clear in this Second Part. My
plan is as follows.
The Christian faith is grounded on the Word of
God. This is what places it in the sovereign degree
of certainty, as having the warrant of that eternal
and infallible Truth. Faith which rests on anything
else is not Christian. Therefore, the Word of God
is the true rule of right-believing, as ground and rule
are in this case one and the same thing.
Since this rule does not regulate our faith save
when it is applied, proposed and declared, and since
84 T^he Catholic Co7ttroversy, [part. ii.
this may be done well or ill, — therefore it is not
enough to know that the Word of God is the true
and infallible rule of right-believing, unless I know
what Word is God's, where it is, who has to propose,
apply, and declare it. It is useless for me to know
that the Word of God is infallible, and for all this
knowledge I shall not believe that Jesus is the Christ,
Son of the living God, unless I am certified that this
Word is revealed by the heavenly Eather : and even
when I come to know this I shall not be out of
doubt if I do not know how this is to be understood,
— whether of an adoptive filiation in the Arian sense,
or a natural filiation in the Catholic.
There is need, then, besides this first and funda-
mental rule the Word of God, of another, a second
rule, by which the first may be rightly and duly
proposed, applied, and declared. And in order that
we may not be subject to hesitation and uncertainty,
it is necessary not only that the first rule, namely,
the Word of God, but also the second, which pro-
poses and applies this rule, be absolutely infallible ;
otherwise we shall always remain in suspense and
in doubt as to whether we are not being badly
directed and supported in our faith and belief, not
now by any defect in the first rule, but by error
and defect in the proposition and application thereof.
Certainly the danger is equal, — either of getting out
of rule for want of a right rule, or getting out of rule
for want of a regular and right application of the rule
itself. But this infallibility which is required as well
in the rule as in its application, can have its source
only in God, the living and original fountain of all
truth. Let us proceed.
iNTROD.] The Rtde of Faith. 85
Now as God revealed his Word, and spoke, or
preached, by the mouth of the Fathers and Prophets,
and at last by his own Son, then by the Apostles
and Evangelists, whose tongues were but as the pens
of scribes writing rapidly, God thus employing men
to speak to men ; so to propose, apply, and declare
this his Word, he employs his visible Spouse as his
mouthpiece and the interpreter of his intentions. It
is God then who rules over Christian belief, but with
two instruments, in a double way : (i) by his Word
as by a formal rule ; (2) by his Church as by the hand
of the measurer and rule-user. Let us put it thus :
God is the painter, our faith the picture, the colours
are the Word of God, the brush is the Church. Here
then are two ordinary and infallible rules of our
belief : the Word of God, which is the fundamental
and formal rule; the Church of God, which is the
rule of application and explanation.
I consider in this second part both the one and the
other, but to make my exposition of them more clear
and more easy to handle, I have divided these two
rules into several, as follows.
The Word of God, the formal rule of our faith, is
either in Scripture or in Tradition. I treat first of
Scripture, then of Tradition.
The Church, the rule of application, expresses her-
self either in her universal body by a general belief
of all Christians, or in her principal and nobler parts
by a consent of her pastors and doctors ; and in this
latter way it is either in her pastors assembled in one
place and at one time, as in a general council, or in
her pastors divided as to place and time, but assembled
in union and correspondence of faith ; or, in fine, this
86 The Catholic Controversy, [paet h.
same Church expresses herself and speaks by her head-
minister.'"' And these are four explaining and apply-
ing rules of our faith ; — the Church as a whole, the
General Council, the consent of the Fathers, the Pope.
Other rules than these we are not to seek ; these
are enough to steady the most inconstant. But God,
who takes pleasure in the abundance of his favours,
wishing to come to the help of the weakness of men,
goes so far as to add sometimes to these ordinary
rules (I refer to the establishment and founding of the
Church) an extraordinary rule, most certain and of
great importance, — namely, miracles — an extraordinary
testimony of the true application of the Divine Word.
Lastly, natural reason may also be called a rule of
right-believing, but negatively and not affirmatively.
For if any one should speak thus : such a proposition
is an article of faith, therefore it is according to
natural reason : — this affirmative consequence would
be badly drawn, since almost all our faith is outside
of and above our reason. But if he were to say : this
is an article of faith, therefore it cannot be against
natural reason : — the consequence is good. For natural
reason and faith, being supported on the same prin-
ciples, and starting from one same author, cannot be
contrary to each other.
Here then are eight rules of faith : Scripture, Tradi-
tion, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope,
miracles, natural reason. The two first are only a
formal rule, the four following are only a rule of appli-
cation, the seventh is extraordinary, and the eighth
negative. Or, he who would reduce all these rules to
* CTief ministeriel. That is, ruler of the Church, but ruling as prime
minister of Christ. [Tr.]
ART. 1. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 87
a single one, would say that the sole and true rule of
right- believing is the Word of God preached by the
Church of God.
Now I undertake here to show, as clearly as the
light of day, that your reformers have violated and
forced all these rules (and it would be enough to show
that they have violated one of them, since they are
so closely connected that he who violates one violates
all the others) ; in order that, as you have seen in the
first part, that they have taken you out of the bosom
of the true Church by schism, so you may know in
this second part, that they have deprived you of the
light of the true faith by heresy, to drag you after
their illusions. And I keep ever in the same posi-
tion : for I prove firstly that the rules which I bring
forward are most certain and infallible, then I prove,
so closely that you can touch it with your hand, that
your doctors have violated them. Here now I appeal
to you in the name of the Almighty God, and summon
you on his part, to judge justly.
AETICLE I.
HOLY SCRIPTURE: FIRST RULE OF FAITH,
THAT THE PRETENDED REFORMERS HAVE VIOLATED
HOLY SCRIPTURE, THE FIRST RULE OF OUR FAITH.
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
SS The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 Chris-
tian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obliga-
tion 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 ; t they would
have done better to attend to them, as to a light
shining in a dark place, according to the advice of
S. Peter,J 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 hook of this law depart from thy month^ he shows
clearly tliat 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 disputa-
tion would be needful against free-thinkers {les Liher-
tins) ; we are agreed on this point, and those who are
so mad as to contradict it, can only rest their contra-
diction 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.
* John V. 39. t Mark xii. 24. X ^V' 2, i- i9- § Jos. i. 8.
ART. I. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 89
CHAPTEE 11.
HOW JEALOUS WE SHOULD BE OF THEIR INTEGRITY.
On this point, again, I will scarcely delay. Tiie 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, with-
drawn, 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 the 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
* Test. i. IT. Qai tc&t. facere posmnt.
90 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
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 * (/ s]peak after
the manner of man), yet a man's testament^ if it he con-
firmed, 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, hut 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 Sibolleth, not
forgetting a single letter, but because they did not
pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them
at the fords of Jordan.t The simple difference of
pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere
transposition of one single point on the letter sdn
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 the death of him who dares to mingle the
profane with the sacred.
The Arians, as S. Augustine tells us,J corrupted this
sentence of S. John i. i : In priiicipio erat verhum, et
verhum erat apiid JDeum, et Deus erat verhum. Hoc
erat in princijno apud Deum : by simply changing a
point. For they read it thus : M verhum erat apiui
* Gal. iii. 15, 1 6. t Judges xii. 6.
t De doc. Chris, iii. 2.
AETi. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 91
Deum et Deios erect 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 hand-
ling 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 sym-
metry 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 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, Fcclesiastes, the Canticle
of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias
with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos,
Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias,
Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachy, two of Machabees, first
and second : of the New Testament, four Gospels, — S.
92 The Catholic Controversy. [part il
Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, — the Acts of the
Apostles by S. Luke, fourteen Epistles of S. Paul, — to
the Eomans, 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 ago.
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 JSTehemias,
Job, one hundred and fifty Psalms, Proverbs, Eccle-
siastes. 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.* 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 i
and 2. And as to these there is a great probability
* Ad anu. 3638.
ART. 1. 0. III. J The Rule of Faith. 93
in the opinion of the same Doctor Genebrard * 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 rank
are the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of S. James,
the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S.
John, that of S. Jude, the i6th 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.
* lb. seqq. et ad aim. 3860. He quotes S. Epiph., de mens, et pond.,
and Josephus, contra App. ii. S. Epiph. speaks only of Baruch.
94 TJ^^ Catholic Controversy, [part h.
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 recog-
nised 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 there were re-
ceived at the Council of Laodicea * (which was after-
wards approved in the sixth general Council f), the book
of Esther, the Epistle of S. James, the Second of S.
Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, that of S.
Jude, and the Epistle to the Hebrews as the fourteenth
of S. Paul. Then some time afterwards at the third
Council of Carthage J (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 Macha-
bees. 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
* Can. Ix.
t i.e. in Canon ii. of the Council in Tridlo (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 processus.
Respons. pp. 80, 81. [Tr.]
t i.e. in Canon xxxvi. of the Council of Hippo, approved in third
Council of Carthage. [Tr.]
ART. I. cm.] The Rule of Faith. 95
way in which the two ranks were brought together
into one, and were 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."^ 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 there-
fore 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 theolo-
gian 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 n
word, all these books, whether of first or second rank,
with all the parts, are equally certain, sacred and
canonical,
* l)e doc. Chr. ii. 8.
96 The Catholic Controversy, [paut h.
CHAPTER IV.
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 this
sacred body of the Scriptures ?
Here are their principal reasons, as far as I have
been able to gather them from the old preface to the
books which they pretend to be apocryphal, printed
at Neufchastel, in the translation of Peter Piobert,
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
Church of Geneva, 1588.
(i.) 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 that they are
not considered proper for corroborating the authority
of Ecclesiastical doctrines. (5.) Canon Law condemns
ART. I. 0. IV. J The Rule of Faith. 97
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 falsij&ed, as Eusebius says ; * (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. ( i o.)
" There are in them many false things," says the new
preface. Let us now see what these fine researches
are worth.
(i.) And as to the first, — are you unwilling to re-
ceive these books because they are not in Hebrew or
Chaldaic ? Eeceive Tobias then, for S. Jerome attests
that he translates it from Chaldaic into Latin, in the
Epistle which you yourselves quote,t which makes me
think you 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 those languages, you will
have to find another pretext than that which you
have alleged for striking out these 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
* Hist. Eccl. iv. 22. t E]^. ad Chrom. et Heliod.
HI. G
98 The Catholic Controversy. [part il
ground Tobias, Judith, the first of Machabees, Ecclesi-
asticus, 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 than in
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 say-
ing 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 main-
tain. The Holy Spirit certainly declares himself as
well in Greek as in Chaldaic. There would be, you
say, great difi&culty 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 mean-
ing clear then, and say that they are therefore apocry-
phal because you cannot yourselves be the translators
of them from the original, and cannot trust the judg-
ment 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
ART. I. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 99
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 always follow them, and you could not, with
good conscience. Show me this again in the Holy
Scripture. Here, therefore, is your first 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 ex-
claims : * "It is the Catholic Church which holds the
Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews."
Thank God, we are not Jews, we are Catholics. Show
me from Scripture that the Christian Church has not
as much power to give authority to the sacred books
as 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 itself 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.t The Council in Trullo the
6th General, that of Florence, and a hundred ancient
authors are [witnesses] thereto. I name S. Jerome,
who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was re-
ceived in the first Council [of Mce]. 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
* De civ. Dei. xviii. 36.
t The necessary references and explanations are given in notes to
preceding chapter. [Tr.]
loo The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
it impossible for their successors to come to a con-
clusion ? Are we to say that if one cannot decide at
the very first glance one must always remain wavering,
uncertain, and irresolute ? Was there not 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 * and S. Gregory
Nazianzen : t 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 in-
constant, now recognising, now rejecting these books.
But there is a great difference between doubting
whether a thing is to be accepted and rejecting it.
Doubt does not 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. ^*:\n,^oT j . ;-
* In Synopsi. ^f ' V^ t In cariri. <^ t^ sac.
SCiifliSTICiTE
AET. I. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, loi
(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 against you ; because, while censuring
the apocryphal books, it does not name one of those
which we receive, but on the contrary witnesses that
Tobias and the Machabees 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 reckon the books in question as
apocryphal, this is because it considered that apocry-
phal meant the having no certain author, and there-
fore it includes as apocryphal the Book of Judges :
and its 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 Scrip-
ture 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.
I02 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
(8.) But you would 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 asser-
tion 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 [those of] Israel sent to their
Jewish brethren 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 commen-
tary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in
Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew.
( I o.) It remams 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
ART. I. 0. v.] The Rtiie of Fait k. 103
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.
CHAPTEE V.
SECOND VIOLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES: BY THE RULE
WHICH THESE REFORMERS BRING FORWARD TO DIS-
TINGUISH 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
104 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 pre-
tended 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 con-
sent of the Church, as by the testimony and interior
persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which gives us to dis-
cern them from the other ecclesiastical books." Quit-
ting then the field of the reasons preceding, and
making for cover, they throw themselves 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 choose
to rely in this point on the conmon 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 authori-
tative 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 canon-
ical 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
ART. I. b. v.] The Rule of Faith. 105
Church ? Their speech is not sincere : it seems as if
they did not altogether refuse credit to the common
accord of Christians, but only did not receive it as on
the same level with their interior persuasion: — in
reality, however, they hold it in no account at all :
they are thus cautious in their language in order not to
appear altogether arrogant 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 common accord of the Church as 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
Ecclesiastical 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 some-
thing that passes in the interior of the soul, which
no one sees, nobody knows save the soul itself and its
Creator !
io6 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
(i.) 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 witliin 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 indiffer-
ently to every one, 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 otliers 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 ?
ART. I.e. v.] The Rule of Faith. 107
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 per-
suades 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 con-
clusion 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 in-
spirations 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
io8 The Catholic Controversy, [part il
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 revela-
tion 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.
Eecognise, 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 in-
spiration, 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
ART. I. c. v.] The Rule of Faith. 109
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 refor-
mers, 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
he shed for you, because the Greek text * 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 sangy 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 can-
not be poured out except by reason of what it con-
tains. What is the knife with which one has made
so many amputations ? This tenet of private inspira-
tion. 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 persua-
sions of the Spirit, which makes them supreme each
* Not Tip in the Dative, agreeing with at/naTL, but to in the Nomi-
native, agi'eeing with irorrfpiov. 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 he poured out is more correct, but still ambiguous. [Tr.]
no The Catholic Controversy. [part ii.
in his own idea, in judging as to the validity or in-
validity 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." And elsewhere : t " We
receive the New and the Old Testament in that
number of books which the authority of the Catholic
Church determines." 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.
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 per-
suasion of Christians, making it quite assured where
previously it had not been so.
* Contra Ep, Fund. v. + Serm. de Temp. cxcL
ART. I. c. VI.] The Rule of Faith. 1 1 1
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, observ-
ing 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 —
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 Scripturesi into her charge, and say
that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar
and ground of the truth* And how would she guard
them if she could not know and separate them from
the mixture of other books ? And how important is
* I Tim. iii. 15.
112 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
it for the Church that she should be able to know
in proper time and season which Scripture 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 ever
the Holy Spirit assisted her so closely that she could
say : It tiath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,'*
— we must firmly believe that he inspires her on
occasions 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 Testa-
ment 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
* Acts XV. 28.
ART. I. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 3
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 faith-
fully 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
from 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 ; nor 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 Scrip-
tures ? For our part we follow exactly the list of the
Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the
Councils of Carthage 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
m. H
1 14 The Catholic Controversy. [part il
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 "ivinof 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 pro-
faned 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
* Passages in this chapter coincide with passages in the chapters
immediately preceding and following, but we have thought it better,
for reasons explained in the Preface, to print it as it stands. It seems
to be a fragment of a more extended treatment of this part. [Tr,]
AKT. L c. vii] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 5
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 inter-
cession of Saints and prayers for the departed : Eccle-
siasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free-will
and the honour of relics. Eather 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 con-
demn 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, vii. 16, &c.),
Cyprian {Ep. Ixv.), Ambrose {de fide iv.), Augustine
{Ep. ad Or OS. contra Prise), and the rest of the
Fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. S. Cyprian
(Serm. de op et Eleem.), S. Ambrose {lib. de Tobid, i.),
S. Basil {de avar.), honour Tobias as Holy Scripture.
S. Cyprian again {de exhort, mar.), S. Gregory Nazian-
zen {orat. de Mach.), S. Ambrose (de Jacob et vit beat.
1 1 6 The Catholic Controversy. [part h,
X. xi.), believed the same of the Machabees. S. Augus-
tine 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 lihris canonicis, 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 destroy the credit of those holy books, why
did you not destroy that of the Apocalypse, about
which there has been so much doubt, and that of the
ART. I. 0. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 1 1 7
Epistle to the Hebrews ? But I return to you, gentle-
men 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 : *
Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and
the Machabees ; Luther has removed the Epistle of S.
James, that of S. Jude, the 2nd of S. Peter, the 2nd
and 3rd of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews ; he ridi-
cules Ecclesiastes, he holds Job as a fable. Eeconcile,
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
* In prologis Bib. et horum lib.
1 1 8 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
your fine church, how she ever pushes on further.
Calvin had removed seven books, she has further
thrown out the 8th, that of Esther:* 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. 20), which shall he shed for you, because
the Greek text {to virep vjucop eK-^Qjvoixevov) 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 Testomient in my Hood, which (chalice)
shall he 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 Cal-
vin, which must indeed have I know not what excel-
lence, since they censure the Scriptures themselves !
* At this time the so-called reformers did not decidedly accept the
book of Esther as canonical. It is noAV accepted by their followers up
to chap. X. V. 4. [Tr.]
ART. I. c. VIII.] The Rule of Faith, 1 1 9
CHAPTEE VIII.
HOW THE MAJESTY OF THE SCRIPTURES HAS BEEN
VIOLATED IN THE INTERPRETATIONS AND VERSIONS
OF THE HERETICS.
Shall 1 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 adjust-
ing 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,
in our age, behold arise a thick mist created by the
spirit of giddiness,^ which has so led astray these re-
furbishers of old opinions formerly current, that every-
body 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
* Isa. xix. 14.
1 20 The Catholic Controversy. [part h
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 sin-
cerity of the Scripture ? What say you ? that the
ordinary version is corrupt ? We allow that tran-
scribers 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,* opposing the presumption of these new re-
* Genebrard in fTonf. Psalt. ; Titelman, Toletus, in apol. Bellar-
minus et alii.
ART. I. 0. VIII.] The Rule of Faith. 121
formers 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 transla-
tions, 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 concern-
ing the ancient translation, which, as the Council
says, the Church has so long, so constantly, and so
unanimously approved.
An example or two will suifice. In the Acts,*
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. 3^ p. 692) cites i Cor. x. 3, and
they all eat the same spiritual food as we {nohiscum) :
he inserts this nohiscum 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 corjpiLS
* ii. 27.
122 The Catholic Controversy. [part il
meum, cecy est mon corps ; they had put : c'est cy mon
corps.* Who does not perceive the deceit ?
You see something then of the violence and pro-
fanation 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,t 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
it receives in a certain sense whole, it still perverts,
devising various interpretations."
CHAPTEE 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
* Here is my body, instead of This is my body. [Tr. ]
+ de Proescr, xvii.
ART. 1. 0. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 123
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 main-
tain 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 Scrip-
ture, 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,* " that in the Basque provinces
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
* Montaigne. Essaies I. 56. See Preface.
124 ^^^ Catholic Controversy. [part h.
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 Hehrew, as S.
Jerome witnesses * of the Gospel of S. Matthew ; in
Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark ; t
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 lan-
guages. Who then shall despise the custom of our
Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the
Apostles ? I Now for this, besides the great weight
* Prol. in Matt.
t In Pontifical! Damasi. The Saint mentions the opinion, but he
himself held the now universal sentiment of Doctors that S. Mark
wrote in Greek. [Tr.]
+ 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 cometh 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 hosianna (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, Hacddama,
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.
ART. I. c. IX.] The Rtile of Faith. 125
it should have to put down all our curious question-
ings, 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 Memoir es
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 neces-
sary 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 * 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 t 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 ca-
pacity than that which he persuades himself of in his
* Reg. iv. Indicis, t Heb. iv. 12.
126 The Catholic Controversy. [partiu
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 : sicrsum corda, and for which the body itself
should be brought into a haviour which may betoken
a particular attention and reverence . . . and I more-
over 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* 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
* Sess. xxii.
ART. I. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith, 127
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. Eead 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 spiri-
tualize them these will only profit them unto evil.
And that word of Osee : * Vade et fac tihi filios forni-
cationeSj 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 soit il et ferrd), 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
* i. 2.
128 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 com-
mon 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, Eobert 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 of the wickedness of women, rose up,
saying : What ! — is this the Word of God ? — of the
devil rather. He quotes from Theodoret t an excellent
* On this question. t Hist. ir.
ART. I. 0. X.] The Rtile of Faith, 1 29
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 UNDERSTAND-
ING 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 mariner; but
tell me the truth, do you think that the case really
runs so ? Do you find them so easy, do you under-
stand them so well ? If you think you do, I admire
your credulity, which goes not only beyond experi-
ence, 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 har-
monies, what is the good of so many schools of Theo-
logy ? There 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
III. I
130 The Catholic Controversy, [part h.
Scripture — is it some secret thing ? No — you say not
to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these
preachers ? If you are faithful, yon 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* that in the letters of S. Paul there are
certain points hard to he understood, which the unlearned
and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their
own perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general
of Ethiopia was certainly faithful, t 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
drag it about, some one way, some another, that each
* iii. 16. i Acts viii.
ART. I. c. X.] The Rule of Faith. 131
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 : * Give, me
understanding, that I may learn thy commandments.
If they have left you the Epistle of S. Jerome to
Panlinus 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 Confes-
sions. 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 per-
mitted 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 t — 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
* Ps. cxviii. 73. + Luke vi 29.
132 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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 inter-
pretation 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 : ''' Was it not enough for you to feed
ufon good 2MStures ; hiU you must also tread down with
your feet the residue of the 'pastitres ?
* xxxiv. 18.
ART. 1. 0. XL] The Rule of Faith, 133
CHAPTER XL
ON THE PROFANATION OF THE SCMPTURES 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 ?
1 34 The Catholic Controversy. [part il
This is a very different thing from ill-pronouncing
BdhhoUtli.'^ 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. 0 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 eoceejpt to he God ; hut as to all else thou
hast, &c. — how delighted you are to be able to chant
and sing these French rhymes Marot^es.^ It would
be much better to be silent in 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
* Judges xii, 6. t i.e. of Marut. [Ti.]
\ET. 1. c. XI.] The Rule of Faith, 135
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 Mon-
taigne, " 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
* Samo Essay.
136 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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 irrever-
ently 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 truthf^'' 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 : 0 Lord !
0 Lord ! when the heart and the spirit are not there
but in traffic and gain, as Isaias says : t You draw
near God with your mouth, and with your lips glorify
him, hut your heart is far from him, and you have
feared him according to the commandment 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 rever-
ence. \ In chapter 1 4 of the I st of Corinthians, the
Let women ktep silence in the churches seems to be
understood of hymns {cantiques) as much as of the
rest : our nuns are in oratorio non in ecclesid.
* John iv. 23. t xxix. 13.
X The following sentence is in the autograph placed between bars,
and seems meant to be amplified. [Tr.]
ART. I. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 137
CHAPTEK XII.
ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS ; AND CONCLUSION OF THIS
FIRST ARTICLE.
Now follows what you allege in your defence. S.
Paul seems * 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 hy 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 extra-
ordinary 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 lohole 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 speak
with a tongue, let it he hy tivo, or at the most hy three, and
in course, and let one interpret. But if there he no inter-
preter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to
hirnselfand to God. Who sees not that he is not speak-
* I Cor. xiv.
138 The Catholic Controversy, [paktil
ing 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 dis-
tracted 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."
This people glorify me loith their lips, hut their heart,
&c.t 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.^
In Deuteronomy, § 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 light-
some : thy word is a lamp to my feet ? \\ That is all
very true, but it means when preached and explained,
and properly understood. IToiv shall they believe with-
* Apol. xxxix. See the notes of Messire Mmar Ennequin, bishop
of Rennes, on Book vi. c. 2 of S. Augustine's Confessions.
+ Is. xxix. 13. X Phil. ii. II. § xxx. 11 xviii. cxviii.
ART. I. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 139
out a preacher ! * 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 pas-
ture 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 Scrip-
tures is to be sought from those who are doctors in
them ? " says S. Augustine.t But if no one can find
his salvation except the one who can read the Scrip-
tures, 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 m crooked ways (Prov. xxviii. 6) ; and else-
where : The simplicity of the just shall guide them (xi. 3);
and : He that walketh sincerely walketh confidently (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 our-
selves, without the guidance of those whom God has
* Koin. X. 14, t De Moribus Ecd.
1 40 The Catholic Controversy, [part 11
appointed unto this end, according to the same Wise
Man : Lean not upon thy prudence^ and he not ivise in
thy own conceit (iii. 5, 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."^
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 f " 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 / 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 / confess to thee, Father ? You heard / 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 : / confess to thee,
Father, which they understood by custom, because
it was said iust at the beginning of the Mass as
* Confess, viii 8. f De Verbis Domini. Serm. viii.
ART. I. a XII.] The Rtile of Faith. 141
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, hear-
ing, singing, praying to God, with a lively apprehen-
sion 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 cele-
brated yesterday * 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. Bono-
venture, tells of it.t "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,
* Written probably Oct. 5, 1595. t In Vitd Fr.
142 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
nor with any shortening of verse or word; if some-
times he were on a journey he then made a fixed
arrangement of time, not omitting this reverent and
holy custom on account of pouring rain : for he used
to say : If the body eat quietly its food which, with
itself, is to be food of worms, how great should be the
peace and tranquillity with which the soul should take
the food of life ? "
AETICLE 11.
TEAT THE CHURCH OF TEE PRETENDERS EAS
VIOLATED TEE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS, TEE
SECOND RULE OF OUR FAITE.
CHAPTER I.
WHAT IS UNDERSTOOD BY APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS.
Here are the words of the holy Council of Trent,*
speaking of Christian and Evangelical truth : " (The
holy Synod), considering that this truth and discipline
are contained in written books, and in unwritten
Traditions which, being received by the Apostles from
the mouth of Christ himself, or from the same Apostles
at the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and being delivered
as it were from hand to hand, have come down to us,
following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, re-
ceives and honours with an equal affectionate piety
and reverence, all the books as well of the Old as of
the New Testament, since the one God is the author
of both, and also these Traditions, as it were orally
* Sess. iv.
ART. II. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 143
dictated by Christ or the Holy Ghost, and preserved
in the Catholic Church by perpetual succession."
This is truly a decree worthy of an assembly which
could say : It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and
to us ; for there is scarcely a word of it which does
not strike home against our adversaries, and which
does not take their weapons from their grasp. For
what does it henceforth serve them to exclaim : In
vain do they serve me, teaching doctrines and com-
mandments of men (Matt. xv. 9) ; Yoio have made
void the commandment of God for your tradition.
(ibid. 6). Not attending to Jewish fables (Tit. i. 14);
Zealous for the traditions of my fathers (Gal. i. 14);
Beware lest any man impose upon you hy philosophy
and vain fallacy, according to the tradition of men (Col.
ii. 8) ; Redeemed from your vain conversation of the
tradition of your fathers (i Pet. i. 18)? All this is
not to the purpose, since the Council clearly protests
that the traditions it receives are neither traditions nor
commandments of men, but those " which, being re-
ceived by the Apostle from the mouth of Christ him-
self, or from the same Apostles, at the dictation of the
Holy Spirit, and being delivered as it were from hand
to hand, have come down to us. They are then the
word of God, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, not
of men ; and here you will see almost all your ministers
stick, making mighty harangues to show that human
tradition is not to be put in comparison with the
Scriptures. But of what use is all this save to beguile
the poor hearers ? — for we never said it was.
In a similar way they bring against us what S.
Paul said to his good Timothy: * All Scripture divinely
* 2 Tim. iii. i6, 17.
144 The Catholic Controversy s [parth.
inspired is profitahle to teach, to reprove, to correct, to
instruct in justice, that the man of God may he perfect,
furnished unto every good work. Whom are they angry
with ? This is to force a quarrel.* Who denies the
most excellent profitableness of the Scriptures, except
the Huguenots who take away as good for nothing
some of its finest pieces ? The Scriptures are indeed
most useful, and it is no little favour which God has
done us to preserve them for us through so many
persecutions ; but the utility of Scripture does not
make holy Traditions useless, any more than the use
of one eye, of one leg, of one ear, of one hand, makes
the other useless. The Council says : it " receives
and honours with an equal affectionate piety and
reverence all the books as well of the Old as of the
New Testament, and also these Traditions." It would
be a fine way of reasoning — faith profits, therefore
works are good for nothing ! Similarly, — Many other
things also did Jesus, which are not written in this
hook. But these are written that you may helieve that
Jesus is the Son of God, and that helieving you may
have life in his name (John xx. 30, 31): therefore
there is nothing to believe except this ! — excellent
consequence ! We well know that whatever is written
is written for our edification (Eom. xv. 4), but shall
this hinder the Apostles from preaching ? These things
are written that you may helieve that Jesus is the Son of
God : but that is not enough ; for how shall they helieve
without a preacher (ibid. x. 14)? The Scriptures are
given for our salvation, but not the Scriptures alone ;
Traditions also have their place. Birds have a right
wing to fly with ; is the left wing therefore of no use ?
• Querdle d'Allemand,
ART. II. 0. 1,] The Rule of Faith, 1 45
The one does not move without the other. I leave on
one side the exact answers : for S. John is speaking
only of the miracles which he had to record, of which
he considers he has given enough to prove the divinity
of the Son of God.
When they adduce these words : — You shall not add
to the word that I sijcah to you, neither shall you take
away from it (Deut. iv. 2) ; But though ive or an angel
from heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which ice
have preached to yoity let him he anathema (Gal. i. 8) :
they say nothing against the Council, which expressly
declares that this Gospel teaching consists not only in
the Scriptures, but also in Traditions; the Scripture
then is the Gospel, but it is not the whole Gospel, for
Traditions form the other part. He then who shall
teach against what the Apostles have taught, let him
be accursed ; but the Apostles have taught by writing
and by Tradition, and the whole is the Gospel.
And if you closely consider how the Council com-
pares Traditions with the Scriptures you will see that
it does not receive a Tradition contrary to Scripture :
for it receives Tradition and Scripture with equal
honour, because both the one and the other are most
sweet and pure streams, which spring from one same
mouth of our Lord, as from a living fountain of wis-
dom, and therefore cannot be contrary, but are of the
same taste and quality ; and uniting together happily
water this tree of Christianity which shall give its
fruit in due season.
We call then Apostolic Tradition the doctrine,
whether it regard faith or morals, which our Lord has
taught with his own mouth or by the mouth of the
Apostles, which without having been written in the
I". K
146 The Catholic Controversy, [parth
Canonical books has been preserved till our time,
passing from hand to hand by continual succession of
the Church. In a word, it is the Word of the living
God, witnessed not on paper but on the heart.'" And
there is not merely Tradition of ceremonies and of a
certain exterior order which is arbitrary and of mere
propriety, but as the holy Council says, of doctrine,
which belongs to faith itself and to morals; — though
as regards Traditions of morals there are some which
lay us under a most strict obligation, and others which
are only proposed to us by way of counsel and
becomingness ; and the non-observance of these latter
does not make us guilty, provided that they are
approved and esteemed as holy, and are not despised.
CHAPTEE II.
THAT THERE ARE APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS IN THE
CHURCH.
We confess that the Holy Scripture is a most excellent
and profitable doctrine. It is written in order that
we may believe ; everything that is contrary to it is
falsehood and impiety : but to establish these truths
it is not necessary to reject this which is also a truth,
that Traditions are most profitable, given in order that
we may believe ; everything that is contrary to them
is impiety and falsehood. For to establish one truth
* The learned Antony Possevin, contra Chytrceum, remarks that the
Christian doctrine is not called Eugraphium [good writings], but
Evangelium [good tidings].
AKT. IT. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 147
we are never to destroy another. The Scripture is
useful to teach ; learn then from the Scripture itself
that we must receive with honour and faith holy
Traditions. If we are to add nothing to what our
Lord has commanded, — where has he commanded that
we should condemn Apostolic Traditions ? Why do
you add this to his words ? Where has our Lord
ever taught it ? Indeed so far is he from having ever
commanded the contempt of Apostolic Traditions that
he never despised any Tradition of the least Prophet
in the world. Eun through all the Gospel, and you
will see nothing censured there except Traditions
which are human and contrary to the Scripture. But
if neither our Lord has written it nor his Apostles,
why would you evangelise unto us these things ? On
the contrary, it is forbidden to take anything away
from the Scripture ; why then would you take away the
Traditions which are so expressly authorised therein ?
Is it not the Holy Scripture of S. Paul which says :
Therefore, hrethren, hold fast the Traditions which you
have received, whether hy word or hy our epistle " ?
(2 Thess. ii. 14). "Hence it is evident that the
Apostles did not deliver everything by Epistle, but
many things also without letters. They are, how-
ever, wortliy of the same faith, these as much as
those," are the words of S. ' Chrysostom in his com-
mentary on this place.
This S. John likewise confirms : Having more things
to write to you, I would not by paper and ink : for I
hope that I shall be with you and speak face to face
(Epp. 2, 3). They were things worthy of being
written, yet he has not done it, but has said them,
and instead of Scripture has made Tradition.
148 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
Hold the, form of sound words, which thou hast
heard from me . . . KeeiJ the good deposited^ said S.
Pa[ul to his Timothy (2 Ep. i. 14). Was not this
recommending to him the unwritten Apostolic word ?
and that is Tradition. And lower down : And the
things which thou hast heard from me heforc many
witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall
he fit to teach others also (ii. 2). What is there more
clear for Tradition ? Behold the method ; the Apostle
speaks, the witnesses relate, S. Timothy is to teach it
to others, and these to others yet. Do we not see
here a holy substitution and spiritual trusteeship ?
Does not the same Apostle praise the Corinthians
for the observances of Tradition ? If this were written
in the 2nd of Corinthians, one might say that by his
ordinances he understands those of the ist, though
the sense of the passage would be forced (but to him
who does not want to move every shadow is an ex-
cuse); but this is written in the ist (xi. 2). He
speaks not of any gospel, for he would not call it my
ordinances. What was it then but an unwritten
Apostolic doctrine ? — this we call Tradition. And
when he says to them at the end : The rest I will set
in order when I come, he lets us see that he had taught
them many very important things, and yet we have
no writing about them elsewhere. Will what he
said, then, be lost to the Church ? certainly not ; but
it has come down by Tradition. Otherwise the
Apostle would not have deprived posterity of it, and
would have written it.
And our Lord says : Many things I have to say to
you, hut you cannot hear tJiem 71010 (John xvi. 12). I
ask you, when did he say these things which he had
ART. III. c. I.] The Rule of FaitJu \ 49
to say ? Certainly it was either after his Kesurrection,
during the forty days he was with them, or by the
coming of the Holy Spirit. But what do we know of
what he comprehended under the word: — / have
many things, &c. — if all is written ? It is said indeed
that he was forty days with them teaching them of
the Kingdom of God ; but we have neither all his
apparitions nor what he told them therein.
AETICLE III.
THE CHURGH: THIRD RULE OF FAITH. HOW THE
MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE AUTHORITY
OF THE CHURGH, THE THIRD RULE OF OUR
FAITH.
CHAPTEK 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 hy
the king to hear thee ... 0 that they woidd make me
jicdge over the land, that all that have business might
come to me, and I might do them justice. 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
* 2 Kings XV. The Saint has used the same illustration, almost in
the same words, in Part I. c. xii. [Tr.]
150 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
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 every-
where 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 correspundence and relation which should
ART. III. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 1 5 1
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 irre-
proachable 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 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 :
Thoic art Peter, and u]Jon this rock I will huild my
C%urch, 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 . . . hut you not so (Luke xxii.), or
this other (for they are all so weak that I know not
152 The CatJiolic Controversy. [PARni.
what may be your main authority) : No one can lay
another foundation^ &c. (i Cor. iii. 1 1), 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 pre-judgment 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 ?
Recognise, Christians, the spirit of division : your
people send you to the Scriptures ; — we are there be-
fore 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 mis-
taken : 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 under-
ART. III. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 153
standing of this Scripture — the consequences and con-
clusions drawn from it, which being different beyond
number 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 Scrip-
ture in its native colour ? 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 pro-
position, 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 recognise 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 round 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
* See Prelace.
154 1^^^^ Catholic Controversy. [pakth.
each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care
lest with regard to these words we be drawincr the
Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If
the salt hath lost its savour, with what shall it he salted
(Matt. V. 1 3) ? 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 com-
pass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction.
Let him have placed therein the most excellent com-
pass and the most correct chart in the world, what
use are these if no one knows how to oain 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, interpreta-
tions, conjectures, additions, and other such workings
of man's brain, which, being unal)le 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. Augus-
tine or S. Cyprian. S. Hilary says excellently : *
* Lib. 2. de Trin.
ART. III. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 155
" Heresy is in the uiicleistandiiiLr, not in the Scripture,
and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words."
and S. Augustine : * " Heresies arise simply from this,
that good Scriptures are ill-understood, and what is
ill-understood in them is also rashly and presumptu-
ously given forth." It is a true Michol's game; it
is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes
of David (i 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, t " consist not in the reading but in the under-
standing : " 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 J) 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
* In Joan. Tr. xviii, i. f Adv. Lucif. 28.
+ Contr. Zuing. et (Ecul,
156 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
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 tliat 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
ART, m. 0. n.] The Rule of Faith, 157
Word of God is infallible ; the Word of God declares
that Baptism is necessary for salvation; therefore
Baptism is necessary for salvation. The ist Proposi-
tion cannot be gainsayed, v^^e are at variance with
Calvin about the 2nd ; — vi^ho shall reconcile ns ?
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
1 58 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
run it rather by following his own fancy, than by
slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther ? Every-
body 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 inter-
pretations 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 infalli-
bility 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 predesti-
nate : 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 guess-
work ; so that others have preferred to say, that during
* See Preface.
ART. III. c. II.] The Rtde of Faith. . 159
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 incoher-
encies 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 ; * for ISTabuchodonosor
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 Kincf-
dom 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 for ever, 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
* Daniel ii
i6o The Catholic Controversy, [partil
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 : be-
cause 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"^^ 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 xoliom
lie 'predestinated them lie also called, said S. Paul to the
Eomans (viii. 30); — that is the first effect of his pre-
destination : — 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, hut few are chosen. The Athenians
called the assemblage of the citizens the church, an
assemblage of strangers was called by another name—
* In Ps. Ixxxi.
ART. III. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 1 6 1
AiaKkr\(jL^. Whence the word Church belongs pro-
perly to Christians, who are no more strangers and
foreigners, hut 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 : * 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.
^^^ ^^osf ^^
CHAPTER IIL
THE CATHOLIC CHUECH IS ONE. MARK THE FIRST. IT
IS UNDER ONE VISIBLE HEAD ; THAT OF THE PRO-
TESTANTS 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
* From Ephes. v. 27 ; John xi. 52 ; S. Cyprian de unit Eccl. ;
Ephes. iv. 4 ; Matt. xvi. ; Heb. vii. 11 ; Ephes. iv. 11, 12.
IIL L
1 62 The Catholic Conlroversy, [parth.
on no other. You are so far from consenting to
recognise 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 presi-
dent 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 un-
happy 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 tliou mayest know how thou oughtest to hehave
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,
0 Lord (Ps. Ixxxiii. 5). It is of her that the angel
said: He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever
(Luke i. 3 2). It is of her that Our Lord said : In
ART. III. c. III.] The Rule of Faith, 163
my Fathers house there are many ma7isions (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.
JSTow 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 re-
duced 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 Eoman Eepublic, but a
single Eome governed; a single Athens, Carthage,
164 The Catholic Controversy. [paeth.
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 neces-
sary 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 to-
gether ? 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
it was Catholic [it did not claim this right]. Where
is it ? and why this one rather than that ? Besides
no province has ever claimed this privilege. If it be
ART. III. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 165
a city, it must be one of the Patriarchal ones : now of
the Patriarchal cities there are but five, Kome, Antioch,
Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Which
of the five ? — all are pagan except Eome. If then it
must be a city, it is Eome ; if an assembly, it is that
at Eome. 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 wliom 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 : 0 Lord, for L am thy servant
(Ps. cxv. 16), and not only servant but doubly so:
/ am thy servant, because they who rule well are worthy
of douUe honour (i Tim. v. 17). And not only thy
servant, but also son of thy 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: 0 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 L 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.) :
Messed are those servants whom the Lord when he
1 66 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
Cometh shall find imtching : Amen I say to you, that
he ivill gird himself, and make them sit down to meat,
and passing will minister to them: — S. Peter alone
asked Our Lord : Dost thou speaJc 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 pro-
perly 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: / will give to thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven ? Everytliing 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
^fiT. III. c. iii.j The Rtite of Faith, 167
said Peirus, because in Greek there is Trerpo^, 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*
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,t and in a Rochelle.'^
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 : / 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 heing 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 : 0 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
* Note the pronoun Tianc. f Geneva. [Tr.]
X Little rock. [Tr.]
1 68 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 man-
ner 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. ii). 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. : Be-
hold 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.*
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 twehe names of
the twelve apostles of the Lamh : — and elsewhere : Built
* Probably S. Peter's Chair, Jan. or Feb. 1596. [Tr.]
ART. III. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 169
wpon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus
Christ himself being the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20) :
— and the Psalmist (Ixxvi.) : 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 Icing 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.
170 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 SO-
CALLED 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) ; there-
fore the true Church of God must be united, fastened
and joined together in one same doctrine and belief.
It is necessary, says S. Irenseus (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 commence-
ment of the unity of the priesthood, she is the bond of
unity," says S. Cyprian (Ep. 55). Again : " We are
not ignorant that there is but one God, one Christ and
ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 171
Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit, one
pastoral office (episcopatus) in the Catholic Church "
(xlvi. inter Ep.). The good Optatus also said to the
Donatists (ii. 2, 3) : " Thou canst not deny that
thou knowest that in the city of Eome 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 convic-
tion. We hold the Eoman 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 every-
where throughout the world, yet you will see the
same faith in Catholics. And if there be any differ-
ence of opinion, either it will not be in things belong-
ing to the faith, or else, as soon as ever a General
Council or the Eoman See shall have determined it, you
will see every one submit to their decision. Our under-
172 The Catholic Controversy, [part 11.
standings 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, per-
mitted amongst them such a diversity of language and
belief, that they began to contradict one another so
violently that all their undertaking became a miser-
able 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 Visible Monarchy, and G-abriel 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.
You have not one same canon of the Scriptures:
Luther will not have the Epistle of S. James, which
you receive. Calvin holds it to be contrary to the
Scripture that there is a head in the Church; the
English hold the reverse : the French Huguenots
hold that according to the Word of God priests are
not less than bishops ; the English have bishops who
govern priests, and amongst them two archbishops,
ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. i 'j'i)
one of whom is called '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 contro-
versialist. 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 arbi-
trator ? 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
1 74 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 Lune-
bourg, of Malbron, of Montbeliard, and that of Berne
recently. Witness Tilman Heshusius and Erastus,
to whom I add Brenz and BuUinger. 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 Eatisbonne, 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,
Wicliff, Luther, Bucer, CEcolampadius, Zuingle, Pomer-
anius 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 a^^ainst the Zuinsflians and Sacramen-
tarians, whom he calls Absaloms and Judases, and
fanatic spirits (in the year 1527).
His deceased Highness of most happy memory,
ART. III. c. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 175
Emmanuel [of Savoy], related to the learned Anthony
Possevin, that at the Colloquy of Worms 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^ 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 to the
Holy Ghost and to us A This unity 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 IsaiasJ: The
* Prov xiii. la t Acts xv. 28. + Isa. xix.
176 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 St. 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 in-
forms 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
ABT. III. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 177
with varieties (lb.) The interior sanctity cannot be
seen; the exterior cannot serve as a mark, because all
tlie 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 unicornf'^
CHAPTER VI.
SECOND MAEK {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 dight with a fair robe,
beautifully bordered with varieties, which are her ex-
terior 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
* Referring probably to Psalm xxviii. 6. [Tr.]
in, M
lyS The Catholic Conlroversy. [part n.
presence of the immortal God with her, as S. Augus-
tine 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 helieve : in my name they shall cast out devils,
they shall speak with new tongites : they shall take up
serpents, poison shall not hurt them, and by the imposi-
tion of hands they shall heal the sick/'''
Consider, I pray you, these words closely, (i) 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 congre-
gation t 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 mira-
cles, 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 an-
* Mark uU.
+ Six words in the MS. here cannot be distinctly ascertained, but
their sense is obvious. [Tr.]
ART. III. c. VI.] The Rule of Faith. 179
nounced.* 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 oblisred 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 re-
maining 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 present ? 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 concerninsr
Theodosius and Constantine, for which we have authors
of irreproachable authority — Eusebius, Eufinus, 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
* I Cor. ii. 4.
i8o The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 other-
wise 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 ?
CHAPTEE VII.
SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH {continued). THE CATHOLIC
CHUECH IS ACCOMPANIED WITH MIRACLES, THE
PRETENDED IS NOT.
Here now I desire that you show yourselves reason-
able, 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,"^ and so many persons had part in ?
* See Raynald, ad an. 15 13. [Tr.]
ART. III. c. VII.] The Ride of Faith. 1 8 1
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 Chris-
tians 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 Introduc-
tion on the Creed, narrates many recent and unquestion-
able 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 disposi-
tion being required than Confession and Communion
on that day.
1 82 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 help-
less 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, "^^^ and the greatest S. Johu
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
* 1 Thess. ii, 9.
AiiT. III. u. VII.] The Rtile of Faith. 1 8
o
their enemies miraculously, but will have power to
shut the heaveus 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 : ( i ) that the miracles of Anti-
christ are not such as those we bringj 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 accom-
pany 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
184 The Catholic Controversy, [partil
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. Augus-
tine. 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 ; * 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.
* vii. 17.
ART. III. c. VII. J The Rule of Faith. 185
John (Matt. xi. 5) : 8ay, the hlind 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. 22) : 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
Bolsec. " Those raised up the living from the dead,"
says Tertullian,^ " 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.
* De Prflesc. xxx.
1 86 The Catholic Controversy, [paetil
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 appren-
ticeship with the Apostles, Disciples, Martyrs and Con-
fessors, 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
ART. m. 0. VII.] The Rtile of Faith. 187
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 ingredi-
ents 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 these 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 unmis-
takably 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 inscrip-
tion and the image, we will never receive it. No,
uo : 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
1 88 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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 Ahraham. 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.
CHAPTEK VIII.
SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH {continued). THE SPIRIT OF
PROPHECY OUGHT TO BE IN THE TRUE CHURCH.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SPIRIT OF PRO-
PHECY; 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 should prophesy ; as Our Lord had said :
These signs shall follow them that believe. Prophecy
* John viii. 39.
ART. III. c. VIII,] The Rule of Faith. 189
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 there-
fore say that this is not one of her qualities and pro-
perties, and a good portion of her dowry.
Jesus Christ, ascending on high^ led captivity captivey
he gave gifts to men . . . And some indeed he gave to
he 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, aud 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 Caspar Berz^e 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.
igo The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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, consist-
ing of a few persons, maintaining by divine grace faith
in a true God and the observance of the natural com-
mandents. 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 favour-
able to the Catholic Church that when we get its
fulfilment we will be content to consider him as some-
thing of a prophet.
CHAPTER IX.
SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (continued). THE TEUE
CHUECH MUST PEACTISE THE PEEFECTION OF THE
CHRISTIAN LIFE.
Heee are the sublimer instructions of Our Lord and
the Apostles. A rich young man was protesting that
ART. III. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 191
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 vt^as such as he had
said he was, and still he gave him this counsel (Matt.
xix. Mark, x.) : If thou woiddst he perfect, go sell all
that thou hast, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,
and come, follow me. S. Peter invites us by his ex-
ample 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 upo7i twelve seats, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that shall have
left house, or hrethren, 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. 5 8) :
he was entirely poor to make us rich; he lived on
alms, says S. Luke — certain women ministered to him
of their suhstance (viii. 3). In two Psalms * which
properly regard his person, as S. Peter and S. Paul
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.
* Namely, Psalms cviii. and xxxix. ; the one referred to by S. Peter
in Acts i., the other by S. Paul in Heb. x. [Tr.]
192 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
Here are others similar on another subject (Matt,
xix.) : There are eunuchs who roere horn 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 (Ivi.) : Let not the eunuch say : hehold 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 y
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, / say to the unmarried and to the
loidows : it is good for them if they so continue^ even as I.
. . . Concerning virgins I have no commandment ^ hit I give
counsel, as having received mercy of the Lord to be faith-
ful. And here is the reason : He that is without a
wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord,
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 wo7nan
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
ART. III. 0. IX.] The Rtile of Faith, 193
frojit : not to cast a snare upon you, hut 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 doth 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 ; a,nd L think that L also have the Spirit of God.
Behold the instructions of Our Lord and his Apostles,
having the authority of the example of Oar 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 Evange-
lists, not only to his Father, to which he was obliged,
but to S. Joseph, to his Mother, to Csesar (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. . . . L
am amongst you as he that serveth — are not these per-
petual repetitions and expositions of that most sweet
lesson (Matt, xi.) : Learn of me, because L am meek and
hiLmble of heart, and that other (Luke ix.) : Lf any man
will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his
cross daily and follow me ? He who keeps the com-
mandments denies himself sufficiently for salvation ; to
humble oneself in order to be exalted is quite enough :
but still there remains another obedience, humility and
III. N
1 94 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
self-abnegnation, to which the examples and instruc-
tions 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 deci-
sively 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 invita-
tion to a voluntary submission and obedience towards
those to whom otherwise we have no obligation, not
resting, however lightly, on our own will and judg-
ment, 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 Eechabites 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
Eechabites, 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.
ART. III. 0. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 195
Well now, let us return to our road. vSuch 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
ivho 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. Iwiv shall
they call on him in whom they have not believed. . . .
How shall they believe . . . without a preacher ! And
how can they yreach unless they be sent (Eoni. x.) ?
Now, there is no mission outside the Church, there-
fore 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 : 1
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 itpon 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
196 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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, afUr they have grown
luanton 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 Csesarea records that the Apostles insti-
tuted 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,*
wherein he treats of S. Mark and his disciples, as
Eusebius, Nicephorus, S. Jerome, bear witness ; and
amongst the rest, Epiphanius,t 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
* De vitd Contemplativa sive supplicium virtutibus.
t Hser. xxix. cc. 4, 5.
ART. III. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 197
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 ilhistrious
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.
* Moj'cixoc from ix6vos, one or single. [Tr.]
198 The Catholic Controversy. [part h
George, Patriarch of Alexandria, relates that St. Chry-
sostom gave up all and became a monk. Politian, an
African gentleman, returning from the Emperor's court,
related to S. Augustin, that in Egypt there were a
great number of monasteries and religious, who mani-
fested 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 cour-
tiers 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, Eomuald, Bernard,
Dominic, Francis, Louis, Anthony, Vincent, Thomas,
Bona venture, 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
ART. III. c. X.] The Rule of Faith. 199
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
200 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 martyr-
dom, 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 them-
selves 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
ART. HI. 0. X.] The Rule of Faith. 201
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 sweet-
ness 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 ou^jht not to tarnish the rioht-
eousness of so many devout monasteries, which the
Catholic Church has preserved amidst all the dissolu-
tion 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.
202 The Catholic Controversy, [pabtil
On tbe contrary, gentlemen, your pretended church
despises and contradicts all this as much as she can.
Calvin in the 4th Book of his InstiUUions aims only
at the abolition of the observance of the Evangelical
counsels, and 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 (lb. 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 senteuce (Luke ix) : He rvho 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 Scrip-
ture idle ; yours will be false, who hears not the voice
of the Beloved, yea, despises it. For it is not reason-
able 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.
ART, III. c. XI.] The Riile of Faith. 20
J
CHAPTER XI.
OF THE UNIVERSALITY OR CATHOLICITY OF THE
CHURCH: THIRD MARK.
That great Father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most use-
ful 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 Eonian, 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 Eoman in communion was
the same thino- 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 Eeformed, but just as much right to that
name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Ana-
baptists, 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 ;
* There is an lixatxiB in the MS, here. In the earlier part of the
broken sentence the saint has apparently been saying that Catholics
are called Romans by the lower orders. [Tr,]
204 The Catholic Controversy. [pakth.
the name of Eeformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord,
who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church
iu 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 re-
quire new colours.
Your church, then, calling itself Eeformed, 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
" fanatics " and Sacramentarians ; Beza calls the
Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he
puts them in the number of Eeformed 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.
AET. III. 0. XII,] The Rule of Faith, 205
CHAPTEK XIL
CATHOLICITY OF THE CHUKCH (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 : * " 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 pri-
vation must follow the form. S. John says of heretics
( I Ep. ii. 1 9) : They went out from u^ ; 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 although 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,t and they are worthy of close attention.
* De Praesc. xxix. + Campion, Decern Rationed, 7.
2o6 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
"You own to us, and would not dare to do other-
wise, that for a time the Eoman 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 the whole world. . . . I mahe
a commemoration of you always. . . . I know that ivhen
I come to you I shall come in the abundance of the Messing
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 con-
fesses 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 wliole 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 ? "
ART. III. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 207
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 Eome 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,^ "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 grandfatliers to say when your pretended Church
began. In the year 1 5 1 7 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 saying that it existed but was in-
visible ; — for if it were not seen who can say that it
* Adv. Lucif. 28,
2o8 The Catholic Controversy. [partil
existed ? Besides, Luther contradicts you, who con-
fesses that iu 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,* " to pre-
scribe against heretics, for brevity's sake, on the argu-
ment 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 PERPE-
TUAL, 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 uni-
versal, 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 perpetually.t
* Adv. Hermog., c. i.
f Here occurs a passage on the perpetuity of the Church, which has
already appeared, in somewhat fuller form, in Part I. chaps, ix., x.
The reader is referred to these chapters and to the Preface. fTr.]
ART. III. c. XIII.] The Rule of Faith, 209
I will say to you, as I have said above : show me
a decade of years since Our Lord ascended into heaven
in which decade our 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 Csesar
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 pas-
sion, 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 his-
tory. 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.
m.
2 1 o The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
CHAPTEE XIV.
CATHOLICITY OF THE CHUECH (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 tos 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 he
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at
Jerusalem (Luke ult.).
Now the Church in the time of the Apostles every-
where spread forth its branches, covered with the fruits
of the Gospel, as S. Paul testifies (Eom. i.) S. Irenseus
says the same of his time,t speaking of the Eoman 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
* This passage on the universality of the Church is tlie same aa
Part I. c. xi. ; see previous note. [Tr.]
+ iii. 3.
ART. III. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 2 1 1
he says : * " In the pastoral honour, Eome, 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
Eome as its head. In the time 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 Pioman 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 Ger-
many ; in France, in Italy, in Sclavonia, in Candia, in
Spain, Portugal, Sicily, j\Ialta, 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, insigniticant man : so that these alone would
seem enough for the Church to fulfil that part of the
* De Jngratis. 40.
212 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
prophecy of Malachy (i.) : In every 'place there is sacri-
fice . . . 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 : * "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.t 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 Hood, from every tribe and tongue, and people and
nation^ and hast made us a kingdom to our God.
* Contra Don. + Contra Lucif.
ART. III. 0. XV.] The Rule of Faith. 213
CHAPTEE 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 excel-
lent 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
bless a man, makes his wife fruitful, like a fruitful
vine on the sides of his house (Ps. cxxvii.), and makes the
harren woman to dwell in a house, the joyful mother of
2 1 4 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
many cliildrcii (Ps, cxii.), ought he not himself to have
a bride who should be 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 tvalk in thy light, says the Prophet (lb. Ix.),
and Icings in the glory of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes
round about and see ; all these are gathered together, they
arc come to thee : thy sons shall come from afar, and thy
daughters shall rise tip 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 preacliing, then, of the Church ought
to be as a flame : Thy word is fiery, 0 Lord (Ps.
cxviii. 140). And what is more active, lively, pene-
trating, 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 over-
turned idolatry by holy preaching ; and all were Eoman
Catholics.
On the contrary, your ministers have not yet con-
verted any province from paganism, nor any country.
To divide Christendom, to create factions there, to tear
* There are four or five words here in the MS. which we fail to make
out. There is some indication of the names of (S.) Louis Bertrand,
and Anchieta, the others appear to be Henrye and Lorier. [Tr.]
ART. III. c. XV.] The Rtile of Faith. 215
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 Gore (Core was
a schismatic) ; these are spots in their hanquets, feasting
together luithodt fear, feeding themselves, clouds ivithout
water which are carried cd)out hy the loind : — they have
the exterior of the Scriptures, but they have not the
interior moisture of the Spirit : — nnfrnitfiil 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
hy the 7'oo^s, unable any more to bear fruit; — raging
waves of the sea, foaming out their oion confusion — of
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 mean-
ing; no wonder you cannot uproot idolatry. So S.
Paul,* speaking of those who separate from the Church,
protests that they shall advance no further. If then
your Church can m no way style itself Catholic up to
this present, still less can you hope it may do so after-
wards, since its preaching is so feeble, and its preachers
have never undertaken, as Tertullian says,t the busi-
ness or commission " of converting heathens, but only
* 2 Tim. iii. 9. f De Prcesc. xlii.
2 1 6 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
of perverting our own." Oh what a Church, then,
which is neither one, nor holy, nor Catholic, and, which
is worse, can have no reasonable hope whatever that
it will ever become so.
CHAPTER XVI.
THAT THE CHURCH IS APOSTOLIC: FOURTH MARK.
[This title is at the top of a blank sheet, but the
Saint has implicitly treated the subject in what has
gone before. He has proved, on the one hand, that
the Catholic Church takes her mission and her doctrine
from the Apostles, on the other hand that the founders
of the pretended church disclaim Apostolic mission
and succession, reject the Sacrament of Orders, despise
that priestly Sacrifice for which Orders are chiefly
necessary, and not only contradict specific Apostolic
utterances but reject the principle of Apostolic
authority. Tr.]
ART. IV. c. 1.] The Rtde of Faith, 217
ARTICLE IV.
THAT THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE
AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS, THE FOURTH RULE
OF OUR FAITH,
CHAPTER I.
OF THE QUALITIES OF A TRUE COUNCIL.
We will begin with the words of S. Leo : * (" Although
the definition of the Apostolic See in matters of faith
is certain and irrefragable), still what Our Lord had
first decided by our ministry he irrefragably confirmed
by the assent of the whole brotherhood ; so that he
might show that that truly proceeded from him which,
having been defined by the first of all the Sees, had
been received by the judgment of the whole Christian
world, the members in this also agreeing with their
head. . . . And truth itself appears more clearly
and is held more firmly when examination afterwards
confirms what faith had first taught, (so that he would
indeed be an impious and sacrilegious man who should
leave anything to be decided by his own opinion after
the sentence of so many priests.")
One could not better trace out a true and holy
Council than on the pattern of that which the Apostles
held in Jerusalem.
Now let us see ( i .) who convoked it ; and we shall
find that it was assembled by authority itself, by the
pastors : The Apostles and ancients came together to
consider of this matter.\ And in truth it is the pastors
* Ep. 63. We do uot find the parts placed in brackets. [Tr.]
t Acts. XV.
2i8 The Catholic Controversy. [partil
who are charged to instruct the people and to provide
for their salvation by resolving the doubts which arise
touching Christian doctrine. Emperors and princes
ought to be zealous about it, but according to their
office, which is after the manner of justice, of police,
and of the, sword which they hear not in vain* Those
therefore who will have that the Emperor possessed
this authority find no foundation either in Scripture
or in reason. For what are the principal causes why
General Councils are assembled, save to put down and
cast out the heretic, the schismatic, the scandalizer,
as wolves from the sheep-fold ? — as that first Assembly
was held in Jerusalem to resist those who belonged
to the heresy of the Pharisees. And who has the
charge of driving away the wolf ? And who is shep-
herd save he to whom Our Lord said : Feed my sheep ?
Find that a similar charge was given to Tiberius.
He who has the authority for feeding the sheep
has the authority for calling the shepherds together
to learn what pasturage and what waters are whole-
some for the flock. This is properly to assemble the
pastors in the name of Jesus Christ,t that is, by
the authority of Our Lord. Eor what else is it to
assemble the estates in the name of the prince but
to convoke them by the authority of the prince ?
And who has received this autliority except him who
as lieutenant has received the Keys of the Kingdom
of Heaven ? This made the good Father, Bishop
Lucentius, legate of the holy Apostolic See, say that
Dioscorus had done greatly wrong in having assembled
a council without Apostolic authority. " Having
dared," said he, " to convoke a synod without the
* Rom. xiii. 4. f Matt, xviii. 20.
ART. IV. c. I.] The Rtile of Faith. 2 1 9
authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had
never been nor could be lawfully done : " and he said
these words in the full assembly of the great Council
of Chalcedon.
Still it is necessary that if the town where the
meeting is held be subject to the Emperor or to some
prince, and a public collection has to be made for the
expenses of a Council, the prince in whose terri-
tory they meet should have permitted and authorised
the meeting, and the collections must be authorised
by the princes in whose States they are made. And
when the Emperor wishes to assemble a Council [he
may do so], provided that the Holy See, consenting
thereto, makes the convocation legitimate. Such have
been the convocations of some most authentic Councils,
and such was that which Herod ordered at Jerusalem
to know when the Christ should be born, the priests
and scribes consenting. But to go on thence to
attribute to princes the right to command the con-
vocation of a Council would be as unreasonable as to
draw an argument from his cruelty to S. John the
Baptist, or his massacre of the infants.
We next (2.) come to examine in this first Chris-
tian Council which was held by the Apostles, who
they were that were called : The Apostles and ancients,
says the text, came together to consider of this matter.
The Apostles and the priests — in a word. Churchmen.
So reason required, for the old proverb ever holds
good : — the cobbler not beyond his last ; as does the
word recorded by S. Athanasius,* which the good
Father Hosius wrote to the Emperor Constantius :
" To thee God has committed the Empire, to us what
* E'p. ad Solit.
2 20 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
belongs to the Church." It is then for Ecclesiastics
to be called, although princes, the Emperor, kings
and others find a place as protectors of the Church.
(3.) Who is to be judge ? Now we do not see
that any one gave judgment except four of the
Apostles, — S. Peter, S. Paul, S. Barnabas and S. James,
in whose sentence every one acquiesced. Whilst they
were deliberating, the elders or priests spoke, as
appears probable from these words : " And when there
was much disputing" which shows that the question
was most earnestly discussed. But when it came to
resolving and passing sentence, we do not find that
any one speaks who is not an Apostle ; as we find
in the ancient and canonical Councils that none but
Bishops have subscribed and defined. Take heed, says
S. Paul,* to yourselves and to all the flock ; but who is
thus to take heed to themselves and to the general
body ? — in which the Holy Ghost has placed you Bishops
to rule the Church of God ? It belongs to the pastors
to provide wholesome doctrine for the sheep, and tliis
was the reason why the Fathers of the Council of
Chalcedon, when they saw monks and laymen enter,
cried out repeatedly : " Cast out those who are not
members ; it is a Council of Bishops."
(4.) If we consider who presided, we shall find
that it was S. Peter, who first gives sentence and is
then followed by the rest, as S. Jerome says, t And
indeed he had the chief pastoral charge : Feed my
sheep, — and he was the grand steward over the rest :
To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom ; further,
he was the confirmer of the brethren, an office which
properly belongs to the president or superintendent
* Acts XX. 28, t ad Aug.
ART. IV. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 221
From that time, therefore, the successor of S. Peter,
the Bishop of Rome, has always presided at Councils
by his legates. At the Council of Nice the first who
subscribed are Hosius, Bishop, Vitus, and Modestus,
priests, envoys of the Holy See.* And, in truth,
how could these two priests have come to subscribe
before the Patriarchs except because they were holding
the place of the Supreme Patriarch ? As for S.
Athanasius, so far from his having presided, he did
not even sit, nor subscribe, being at that time only a
deacon. And the great Constantine not only did not
preside, but sat below the Bishops, and would not be
there as pastor but as a sheep.t
In the Council of Constantinople though he was
not there nor any legate for him, — because he was
treating the same matter with the Western Bishops
at Rome which was being treated at Constantinople
by the Easterns, who were thus able to join them
only in spirit and deliberation, — still by letters which
were mutually exchanged between the Fathers, Dama-
sus, Bishop of Rome, was acknowledged as lawful head
and president.;];
In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril presided as
legate and lieutenant of Pope Celestine. Here are
the words of S. Prosper of Aquitaine \\ "By this
man " (he is speaking of Pope Celestine) " the Eastern
Churches also were purged of a double pestilence
when he helped Cyril, the Bishop of Alexandria, a
most glorious defender of the Catholic faith, to cut off
with the Apostolic sword the Nestorian impiety."
Which the same Prosper says again in the Chronicle :
* Prmf, Cone. Sard. f Theod. i. 7. Miifin. x. 2,
t Theod. V. 8, 10. § Contra CoU.
2 22 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
" The Nestorian impiety is opposed by the signal
energy of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and the autho-
rity of Pope Celestine."
Throughout the Council of Chalcedon everything
proclaims that the legates of the Holy See, Paschasinus
and Lucentius, presided. One has but to read the
acts.
Here then you have Scripture, reason, and the
practice of the four most legitimate Councils that ever
were, presided over by S. Peter and his successors
when they were present. I could show the same of
all the others which have been received in the uni-
versal Church as legitimate. But this will quite
suffice.
(5.) There remain the approval, acceptance, and
execution of the decrees of the Council, which were
made, as they ought still now to be made, by all
those who assisted. Whence it was said : Tli&n it
'pleased the Apostles and ancients with the whole Church
to choose men, &c. But as to the authority in virtue
of which the decree of that Council was promulgated
it was only that of ecclesiastics : The Apostles and
ancients . . . to those . . . that are at Antioch and in
Syria and Cilicia. The authority of the sheep is not
there appealed to, but only that of the shepherds.
There may indeed be lay persons present at the
Council if it be expedient, but not sitting as judges
therein.
ART. IV. 0. II.] The R^ile of Faith, 223
CHAPTER II.
HOW HOLY AND SACRED IS THE AUTHORITY OF UNIVERSAL
COUNCILS.
We are speaking then here of a Council such as that,
in which there is the authority of S. Peter, both in
the beginning and in the conclusion, and of the other
Apostles and pastors who may choose to assist, or if
not of all at lettst of a notable part ; in which dis-
cussion is free, that is, in which any one who chooses
may declare his mind with regard to the question
under discussion ; in which the pastors have the
judicial voice. Such, in fact, as those four first were
of which S. Gregory made so great account that he
made this protestation concerning them : " I declare
that like the four books of the Holy Gospel do I
receive and venerate the four Councils.* Let us then
consider a little how strong their authority should be
over the understanding of Christians. And see how
the Apostles speak of them : It has seemed good to the
Holy Ghost and to us. Therefore the authority of
councils ought to be revered as resting on the action
of the Holy Ghost. For if against that Pharisaic
heresy the Holy Ghost, doctor and guide of his Church,
assisted the assembly, we must also believe that on all
like occasions he will still assist the meetings of pastors,
to regulate by their mouth both our actions and
our beliefs. It is the same Church, as dear to the
heavenly Spouse as she was then, in greater need than
she was then, — what reason therefore can there be
why he should not give her the same assistance as he
* Ej;ust. 24.
2 24 The Catholic Controversy, [part a
gave her then on like occasion ? Consider, I beg you,
the importance of the Gospel words : And if he will
not hear the Church, let him he to thee as the heathen
and the jpnUican* And when can we hear the Church
more distinctly than by the voice of a general Council,
where the heads of the Church come together to state
and resolve difficulties ? The body speaks not by its
legs, nor by its hands, but only by its head, and so,
how can the Church better pronounce sentence than
by its heads ? But Our Lord explains himself :
Again I say to you^ that if tioo of you shall agree on
earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it
shall be done for them hy my Father who is in heaven. . . .
For where there are two or three gathered together in my
name, there am I in the midst of them. If two or
three being gathered together in the name of Our
Lord, when need is, have so particular an assistance
from him that he is in the midst of them as a general
in the midst of his army, as a doctor and regent
among his disciples, if the Father infallibly gives them
a gracious hearing concerning what they ask, how
would he refuse his Holy Spirit to the general
assembly of the pastors of the Church ?
Again, if the legitimate assembly of the pastors
and heads of the Church could once be surprised by
error, how would the word of the Master be verified :
The gates of hell shall not prevail against it if How
could error and hellish strength more triumphantly
seize upon the Church than by having subdued doctors,
pastors, and captains, with the general ? And this
word : I am with you all days even to the consummation
of the world :i — what would become of it ? And how
* Matt, xviii. f lb. xvi. i8. t lb. xxviii. ult.
ART. IV. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 225
would the Church be tlu 'pillar and ground of truth ^'
if its bases and foundations support error and false-
hood ? Doctors and pastors are the visible founda-
tions of the Church, on whose ministry the rest is
supported.
Finally, what stricter command have we than to
take our food from the hand of our pastors ? Does
not S. Paul say that the Holy Ghost has placed them
over the flock to rule us,t and that Our Lord has given
them to us that we may not he tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine ! | What
respect then must we not pay to the ordinances and
canons which emanate from their general assembly ?
It is true that taken separately their teachings are
subject to correction, but when they are together and
when all the ecclesiastical authority is collected into
one, who shall dispute the sentence which comes
forth ? If the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it
be preserved ? If the chiefs are blind, who shall lead
the others ? If the pillars are falling, who shall hold
them up ? In a word, what has the Church more grand,
more certain, more solid, for the overthrow of heresy,
than the judgment of General Councils ? The Scrip-
ture,— Beza will say. But I have already shown that
" heresy is of the understanding not of the Scripture,
the fault lies in the meaning, not in the words." §
Who knows not how many passages the Arian brought
forward ? What was there to be said against him
except that he understood them wrongly ? But he is
quite right to believe that it is you who interpret
wrongly, not he, you that are mistaken, not he ; that
* I Tim. iii. 15. f Acts xx. 28. X Eph. iv. 14.
§ Hilar, de Trin. ii
III. P
2 26 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
his appeal to the analogy of the faith is more sound
than yours, so long as they are but private individuals
who oppose his novelties. Yes, if one deprive the
Councils of supreme authority in decision and declara-
tions necessary for the understanding of the Holy
Word, this Holy Word will be as much profaned as
texts of Aristotle, and our articles of religion will be
subject to never-ending revision, and from being safe
and steady Christians we shall become wretched
academics.
Athanasius says * that " the word of the Lord by
the Ecumenical Council of Mce remains for ever." S.
Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the ApoUinarists who
boasted of having been recognised by a Catholic coun-
cil : — " If either now," says he,t " or formerly, they
have been received, let them prove it and we will
agree, for it will be clear that they assent to the right
doctrine, and it cannot be otherwise." S. Augustine
says \ that the celebrated question about Baptism
pressed by the Donatists made some Bishops doubt,
" until the whole world in plenary council formulated
beyond all doubt what was most wholesomely believed."
" The decision of the priestly Council (of Nice)," says
Eufinus (i.), " is conveyed to Constantine. He venerates
it as settled by God, in such sense that if any one
were to oppose it he would be working his own de-
struction, as opposing himself to God." But if any one
supposes that because he can produce analogies, texts
of Scripture, Greek and Hebrew words, he is therefore
allowed to make doubtful again what has already been
determined by General Councils, he must bring patents
from heaven duly signed and sealed, or else he must
* ad Ejpisc. Afric. f ad Chelid. + de Bap. Contra Don. i.
ART. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 227
admit that anybody else may do as he does, that
everything is at the mercy of our rash speculations,
that everything is uncertain and subject to the variety
of the judgments and considerations of men. The
Wise Man gives us other counsel : '"'' The words of the
wise are as goads, and as nails deeply fastened in, which
by the counsel of masters are given from one shepherd.
More than these, my son, require not.
CHAPTEK III.
HOW THE MINISTERS HAVE DESPISED AND VIOLATED
THE AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS.
Now, will you remain asleep during this shock which
your masters have given to the Church ? Consider
with yourselves, I pray you. Luther in the book
which he has composed on the Councils is not content
with tearing down the stones that are visible, but goes
so far as to sap the very foundations of the Church.
Who would credit this of Luther, that great and
glorious reformer, as Beza calls him ? How does he
treat the great Council of Nice ? Because the Council
forbids those who have mutilated themselves to be
received into the clerical ministry, and presently again
forbids ecclesiastics to keep in their houses other
women besides their mothers or their sisters : —
" Pressed on this point/' says Luther, " I do not allow
[the presence of] the Holy Spirit in this Council. And
* Eccles. xii. ii, I2.
2 28 The Catholic Controversy. [partil
why ? An debebit episcopus aut concionator ilium
intolerabilem ardorem et sestum amoris illiciti sustinere,
et neque conjugio neque castratione se ab his periculis
liberare ? Is there no other work for the Holy Spirit
to do in Councils than to bind and burden his ministers
by making impossible, dangerous, unnecessary laws ? "
He makes exception for no Council, but seriously
holds that the GuH alone can do as much as a Council.
Such is the opinion of this great reformer.
But what need have I to go far ? Beza says in the
Epistle to the King of France, that your reform will
refuse the authority of no Council; so far he speaks
well, but what follows spoils all : " provided/' says he,
" that the Word of God test it."
But, for God's sake, when will they cease darkening
the question ! The Councils, after the fullest consul-
tation, when the test has been made by the holy
touchstone of the Word of God, decide and define
some article. If after all this another test has to be
tried before their determination is received, will not
another also be wanted ? Who will not want to
apply his test, and whenever will the matter be settled ?
After the test has been applied by the Council, Beza
and his disciples want to try again ? And who shall
stop another from asking as much, in order to see if
the Council's test has been properly tried ? And why
not a third to know if the second is faithful ? — and
then a fourth, to test the third ? Everything must be
done over again, and posterity will never trust anti-
quity but will go ever turning upside down the
holiest articles of the faith in the wheel of their
understandings.
We are not hesitating as to whether we should
ABT. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 229
receive a doctrine at haphazard, or should test it by
the application of God's A¥ord. But what we say is
that when a Council has applied this test, our brains
have not now to revise but to believe. Once let the
canons of Councils be submitted to the test of private
individuals, — as many persons, so many tastes, so
many opinions.
The article of the real presence of Our Lord in the
most Holy Sacrament had been received under the test
of many Councils. Luther wished to make another
trial, Zwingle another trial on that of Luther, Brentius
another on these, Calvin another, — as many tests so
many opinions. But, I beseech you, if the test aS'
applied by a General Council be not enough to settle
the minds of men, how shall the authority of some
nobody be able to do it ? That is too great an
ambition.
Some of the most learned ministers of Lausanne,
these late years. Scripture and analogy of faith in hand,
oppose the doctrine of Calvin concerning justification.
To bear the attack of their arguments no new reasons
appear, though some wretched little tracts, insipid and
void of doctrine, are set a-going. How are these men
treated ? They are persecuted, driven away, threatened.
Why is this ? " Because they teach a doctrine con-
trary to the profession of faith of our Church."
Gracious heavens ! the doctrine of the Council of Mce,
after an approbation of thirteen hundred years, is to be
submitted to the tests of Luther, Calvin, and Beza, and
there shall be no trial made of the Calvinistic doctrine,
quite new, entirely doubtful, patched up and incon-
sistent ! Why, at least, may not each one try it for
himself ? If that of Nice has not been able to quiet
230 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
your brains, why would you, by your statements
impose quiet on the brains of your companions, who
are as good as you, as wise and as consistent ? Behold
the iniquitousness of these judges ; to give liberty to
their own opinions they lower the ancient Councils,
while with their own opinions they would bridle those
of others. They seek their own glory, be sure of that ;
and just as much as they take away from the Ancients
do they attribute to themselves.
Beza in the Epistle to the King of France and in the
fore-mentioned Treatise, says that the Council of Nice
was a true Council if ever there was one. He says
the truth, never did good Christian doubt about it, nor
about the other first three ; but if it be such, why
does Calvin call that sentence in the Symbol of the
Council — Deum de Deo lumen de lumine — hard ? And
how is it that that word o/noovacov (consuhstantialem)
was so offensive to Luther — " My soul hates this word
homoousion ; " a word, however, which so entirely
approved itself to that great Council ? How is it you
do not maintain the reality of the body of Our Lord in
the holy Sacrament, that you call superstition the
most holy sacrifice of the same precious body of Our
Saviour which is offered by the priests, and that you
will make no difference between the bishop and the
priest, — since all this is so expressly not defined but
presupposed, there, as perfectly well known in the
Church ? Never would Luther, or Peter Martyr, or
Ochin have been ministers of yours, if they had
remembered the acts of the great Council of Chalcedon ;
for it is most expressly forbidden there for religious
men and women to marry.
Oh how good it would have been to see the round
AET. IV. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 231
of this your lake if this Council of Chalcedon had
been held in reverence ! Oh how often would your
ministers have kept silence, and most rightfully, — for
there is there an express command to laymen by no
means to lay hands upon the goods of Ecclesiastics,
to everybody to join in no revolt against the bishop,
and neither to act nor to speak contumeliously against
the ministers of the Church. The Council of Con-
stantinople attributes the primacy to the Pope of
Eome, and presupposes this as a thing of universal
knowledge ; so does that of Chalcedon. But is there
any article in which we differ from you, which has
not been several times condemned either in holy
General Councils, or in particular ones received gene-
rally ? And yet your ministers have resuscitated
them, without shame, without scruple, not otherwise
than though they were certain holy deposits and
treasures hidden to Antiquity, or by Antiquity most
curiously locked up in order that we might have the
benefit of them in this age.
I am well aware that in the Councils there are
articles concerning Ecclesiastical order and discipline,
which can be changed and are but temporary. But
it is not for private persons to interfere with them ; the
same authority which drew them up is required for
abrogating them ; if anybody else tries to do so it is in
vain, and the authority is not the same unless it is a
Council, or the general Head, or the custom of the
whole Church. As to decrees on doctrines of faith
they are invariable; what is once true is so unto
eternity ; and the Councils call canons (that is, rules)
what they determine in this, because they are inviol-
able rules for our faith.
232 The Catholic Co7itr over sy. [pabth.
But all this is to be understood of true Councils,
either general or provincial, approved by General Coun-
cils or the Apostolic See. Such as was not that of
the four hundred prophets assembled by Achab : * for
it was neither general, since those of Juda were not
called to it, nor duly assembled, for it had no priestly
authority. And those prophets were not legitimate
or acknowledged as such by Josaphat, King of Juda,
when he said : Is there not here some prophet of the
Lord that we may inquire hy him ? — as if he would
say that the others were not prophets of the Lord.
Such, again, was not the assembly of the priests
against Our Lord ; which was so far from having
warrant in Scripture for the assistance of the Holy
Spirit, that on the contrary it had been declared a
private one by the Prophets ; and truly right reason
required that when the King was present his lieu-
tenants should lose authority, and that the High
Priest being present the dignity of the vicar should
be reduced to the condition of the rest. Besides, it
had not the form of a Council ; it was a tumultuous
meeting, wanting in the requisite order, without autho-
rity from the supreme head of the Church, who was
Our Lord, there present with a visible presence, whom
they were bound to acknowledge. In truth, when
the great sacrificer is visibly present, the vicar cannot
be called chief; when the governor of a fortress is
present, it is for him, not for his lieutenant, to give
the word. Besides all this, the synagogue was to be
changed and transferred at that time, and this its
crime had been predicted. But the Catholic Church
is never to be transferred, so long as the world shall
* 3 Kings xxii. 6.
ART. IV. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith. 233
be world ; we are not waiting for any third legislator,
nor any other priesthood ; but she is to be eternal.
And yet Our Lord did this honour to the sacrificial
dignity of Aaron that in spite of all the bad intention
of those who held it the High Priest prophesied and
uttered a most certain judgment {that it is expedient
one man should die for the people, and the whole nation
perish not)*, which he spoke not of himself and by
chance, but he projyhesied, says the Evangelist, heing
the High Priest of that year.
Thus Our Lord would conduct the Synagogue and
the priestly authority with singular honour to its
tomb, when he made it give place to the Catholic
Church and the Evangelic priesthood : and then when
the Synagogue came to an end (which was in the
resolution to put Our Lord to death), the Church was
founded in that very death : / have finished the work
which thou gavest me to do,f said Our Lord after the
Supper. And in the Supper Our Lord had instituted
the New Testament ; so that the Old, with its cere-
monies and its priesthood, lost its force and its privi-
leges, though the confirmation of the New was only
made by the death of the testator, as S. Paul says. J
We must then no longer take account of the privileges
of the Synagogue, as they were founded on a Testa-
ment which became old, and was abrogated when they
said these cruel words : Crucify him, or those others,
blaspheming : What further need have we of witnesses ?
For this was that very dashing against the stumbling-
stone, according to the ancient predictions.
My intention has been to destroy the force of the
two objections which are raised against the infallible
* John xi. 50, 51. + John xvii. 4. + Heb. ix.
2 34 ^-^^ Catholic Controversy. [pabth.
authority of Councils and of the Church, the others
will be answered in our treatment of particular points
of Catholic doctrine. There is nothing so certain but
that it can meet with opposition, but truth remains
firm and is glorified by the assaults of what is con-
trary to it.
ARTICLE V.
TEAT THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE
AUTHORITY OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS OF
THE CHURGH, FIFTH RULE OF OUR FAITH.
CHAPTEE I.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE ANCIENT FATHERS IS VENERABT,E.
Theodosius the Elder found no better way of putting
down the disputes of his time concerning religious
matters than to follow the counsel of Sisinnius, — to
bring together the chiefs of the sects, and ask them if
they held the ancient Fathers, who had had charge of
the Church before all these disputes began, to be
honest, holy, good. Catholic and Apostolic men. To
which the sectaries answering, yes ; he replied : Let
us then examine your doctrine by theirs ; if yours is
conformable to it let us retain it, otherwise let us give
it up.* There is no better plan in the world. Since
Calvin and Beza own that the Church continued pure
for the first six hundred years, let us see whether your
Church is in the same faith and the same doctrine.
* Sozom. vii. 12. The Saint, in a marginal note, says that this
passage is to be put at the beginning of the following chapter ; but
as, unfortunately, no following chapter is extant, we retain the passage
here. [Tr.]
ART. V. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 235
And who can better witness to us the faith which the
Church followed in those ancient times, than they
who then lived with her, at her table ? Who can
better describe to us the manners of this heavenly
Spouse, in the flower of her age, than those who have
had the honour of holding the principal offices about
her ? And in this aspect the Fathers deserve that we
yield them our faith, not on account of the exquisite
doctrine with which they were furnished, but for the
uprightness of their consciences, and the fidelity with
which they acted in their charges.
One does not so much require knowledge in wit-
nesses as honesty and good faith. We do not want
them here as authors of our faith, but as witnesses of
the belief in which the Church of their time lived.
No one can give more conclusive evidence than those
who ruled it : they are beyond reproach in every
respect. He who would know what path the Church
followed at that time, let him ask those who have
most faithfully accompanied her. The wise man %oil\
seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and ivill he occu-
pied in the prophets. He will keep the sayings of
renowned men (Ecclus. xxxix. i, 2). Hear what Jere-
mias says (vi. 1 6) : Thus saith the Lord : stand ye on
the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, which is
the good way, and walk ye in it ; and you shall find
refreshment for your soids. And the Wise Man (Ec-
clus. viii. 11): Let not the discoiorse of the ancients
escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And
we must not only honour their testimonies as most
assured and irreproachable ; but also give great credit
to their doctrine, beyond all our inventions and curious
searchings. We are not in any doubt as to whether
236 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
the ancient Fathers should be held as authors of our
faith; we know, better than all your ministers do,
that they are not. Nor are we disputing whether we
must receive as certain, that which one or two of the
Fathers may have held as opinions. Our difference is
in this : You say you have reformed your church on
the pattern of the ancient Church ; we deny it, and
take to witness those who have seen it, who have
guarded it, who have governed it: — is not this a
straightforward proof, and one clear of all quibbling ?
Here we are only maintaining the integrity and good
faith of the witnesses. Besides this you say that your
Church has been cut,* and reformed according to the
true understanding of the Scriptures ; we deny it, and
say that the ancient Fathers had more competence and
learning than you, and yet judged that the meaning
of the Scriptures was not such as you make out. Is
not this a most certain proof ? You say that accord-
ing to the Scriptures the Mass ought to be abolished ;
all the ancient Fathers deny it. Whom shall we
believe — this troop of ancient Bishops and Martyrs, or
this band of new-comers ? That is where we stand.
Now who does not see at first sight, that it is an un-
bearable impudence to refuse belief to these myriad
Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, who have preceded us ?
And if the faith of that ancient Church ouo^ht to serve
as a rule of right-believing, we cannot better find this
rule than in the writings and depositions of these our
most holy and distinguished ancestors.
* Here follows a passage marked as if to be left out : " by the rule
and compass of the Scripture ; we deny it, and say that you have
shortened, narrowed, and bent this rule, as formerly did those of
Lesbos, to accommodate it to your notions. And . . ." [Tr.]
ART. VI. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 237
AETICLE VI.
THE A UTHORITY OF THE POPE, THE SIXTH
RULE OF OUR FAITH.
CHAPTEE 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
he called Abraham ; hecaiise I have made thee the father
of many nations* 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 hast been poiverftd
against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against
men.'f 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
* Gen. xvii. 5. t lb. xxxii. 28.
238 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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 resem,blance that S. Bernard ^''" calls
the dignity of Peter " patriarchate of Abraham."
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 (^petrarri) whence you are hewn ; . . . . look unto
Abraham your father ;\ 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 ? | 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 there-
fore 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 tlie faith : Confirm thy
* de Consi/I. n. f H. i, 2,
X Eph. ii. 20 ; Ps. cxvii. 2i ; i Cor. x. 4.
ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith, 239
hrethren* I am well aware that he imposed a name
upon the two brothers John and James, Boanerges, the
sons of thunder ; f but this name is not one of supe-
riority 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 recognise 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 : J " Peter denied thrice and was
placed in the foundation. Peter had previously not
denied, and had been pronounced blessed. He had
said : Thoio 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 crives
his own prerogative to others, yet he gives them not
losing them himself, he holds them none the less. He
* Luke xxii. 32. + Mark iii. 17. J Horn, dc Pcenit. 4.
240 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
is a rock, and he made a rock ; what is his, he com-
municates 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 : Thoit art
Peter ; and upon this rock I will build my church ; and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it :'\' 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 he 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 femi-
nine. But we do not equivocate here ; for it is but
one same word, and taken in the same sense, when
* Here there is an hiatus in the MS. [Tr.] + Matt. xvi.
ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 241
Our Lord said to Simon : Thou art Peter, and when he
said : and on this rock I ivill hnild 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 : Thoio art Cephas, and on this
Cephas I will huild : as if one said in Latin : TJiou art
saxum, and on this saxum ; or in French : Thou art
rocher, and on this roclier I will huild 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
Fctrus, 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
arofuments enoueh 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 corre-
sponding termination ; as the Greek does, which had
put : Thoti art Trer/jo?, a7id on this ry irerpa. 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 irerpo'S and irerpa is the
very same thing. Similarly in French rocher and roche
* Or in English : Thou a/rt Rock, and on this Rock. [Tr.]
m. Q
242 The Catholic Controversy. [partil
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 roclier 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 Gala-
tians), or that Cephas means a stone or a rock, as S.
Jerome says.*
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 Chalcedou.t
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 founda-
tion 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
* In Gal, ii. 13. t Act iii.
ART. VI. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 243
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 like-
ness 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 per-
petuity ; 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 in the Church, and form no part thereof.
244 ^^^ Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 hut that which is laid : which is
Christ Jesus ; ^^ and according to the same we are domes-
tics of God ; huilt upon the foundation of the Apostles
and Prophets, Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone. \
And, in the Apocalypse,| 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 parti-
cular ? 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 luild 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 whicli 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
* I Cor. iii. ii. + Eph. ii. 19, 20. + xxi. 14.
ART. VI. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 245
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 doc-
trine 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 Christ is the foundation 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 hut that which is laid. (2.) And
then, have you well considered the words of S. Paul ?
He will not have us recognise any foundation besides
Our Lord, but neither is S. Peter nor are the other
Apostles foundations besides Our Lord, they are sub-
ordinate 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
246 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
a participation in this, so that he is not the founda-
tion of this hierarchy hesides 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 recognise any other secular authority than
that of His Highness [of Savoy], but we recognise
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 huilt wpon the foundations of the Pro-
fhets and Ajpostles ? But that you may know these
foundations to be no other than that which he
preached, he adds : Christ himself heing the chief corner-
stone. 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 with-
out other foundation, foundation of the natural. Mosaic
and Evangelic Church, foundation perpetual and im-
mortal, foundation of the militant and triumphant,
foundation by his own nature, foundation of our faith,
hope and charity, and of the efficacy of the Sacra-
ments.
S. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole
Church ; foundation but founded on another founda-
tion, which is Our Lord ; foundation of the Evangelic
Church alone, foundation subject to succession, founda-
tion 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
AET. VI. c. II.] The Rule of Faith. 247
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 ■^''
under himself, between whom and his Majesty there
is so great a difference that he declares himself to be
the only shepherd.!
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. 1
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
* Eph. iv. II. t John x. ii ; Ezech. xxidv. 23.
248 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
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 : / have, laboured more
abundantly than all they*
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 Chris-
tian religion, which was as it were to lay the founda-
tions 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 founda-
tion 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
* 1 Cor. XV. 10.
ART. VI. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 249
Church as S. Peter, except that S. Peter was the head
of them all and their pastor as of all Christendom.
Thus they were foucdations 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,* " 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,t 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
* ad Joviu. i. 27. + de Consid. ii. 8.
250 The Catholic Controversy. [pakt n.
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 heys 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 inten-
tion than by saying : And I say to thee. . . . I ivill
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 them 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 sur-
mising over clear words, there will be nothing in the
ART. VI. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith, 251
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 mouth-
piece, 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 * 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.t
Neither do I deny that the rest of the prelates of the
Church have a share in the use of the keys ; and as
* Ult. in Joan. The French text has jperwajimce, probably a mis-
reading for primacie. [Tr.]
t Ps. xviii. 5.
252 The Catholic Controversy, [part n.
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 hind upon earth, it shall he hound
also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, &c. —
which is just what he said to the Apostles in general :
Whatsoever you shall hind, &c.* If then he promises
to all in general what he promises to Peter in par-
ticular, 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 what-
soever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more
to S. Peter than he did to the others afterwards :
* Matt, xviii. 18.
ART. VI. 0. III.1 The Rule of Faith. 253
Whatsoever you shall hind, &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 : / 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 :
27iese 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
254 The Catholic Controversy, [paetil
Holy Spirit making us know the kingship of our Lord,
now by the seat or throne, now by the keys. But it
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 in to hi7n that dwelleth in the taber-
nacle, to Sohna who is over the temple ; and thou shalt
say to him — what dost thou here ? And further on :
/ ivill dej)ose thee. See there the deposition of one,
and now see the institution of the other. And it
shall come to pass in that dag that I will call my
servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him
with thy rote, 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 of
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 : /
will call my servant Eliaxim 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 : / will clothe him with thy robe,
and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give
thy potver 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 foundation-
stone of a family than to be there as father, to have
ART. VI. c. III.] The Rule of Faith. 255
the superintendence, to be governor there ? And if
one has had this assurance : / will lay the 'key of the
house of David wpon 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 Eliacim 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
Eliacim son of Helcias was head of the Mosaic
Temple, Simon son of Jonas was the same of the
Gospel Church ? Eliacim represented Our Lord as
figure, S. Peter represents him as lieutenant ; Eliacim
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 : JVhatever 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
256 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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, how-
ever, will not have the sceptre 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 recognise that his power is extra-
ordinary, 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 differ-
ence is taken from the very terms of the Scripture :
for to loose and to hind 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,"
ART. VI. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith. 257
as S. Cyprian says,^ " 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 : / Aat'e "prayed
for 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 (yos) — you all ; hut I have prayed for
thee, Peter^ — is not this to place him alone as respon-
sible 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
* Ad Jubaianum.
III. B
258 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11.
him, and which was not common to the others, accord-
ing 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 follow-
ing 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 heing once converted he might confirm his hrethren.
He prays for S. Peter as for the con firmer 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,
ART. VI. 0. v.] The Rtde of Faith, 259
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 con-
fession of it. Fear made him disavow that which he
believed. He believed right but spoke wrong.
CHAPTEE V.
FIFTH PEOOF. THE FULFILMENT OF THESE PROMISES:
FEED MY SHEEP.
We know that Our Lord gave a most ample procura-
tion and commission to his Apostles to treat with the
world concerning its salvation, when he said to them
(Jolm XX.) : As the Father hath sent me I also send yoit
. . . receive ye the Holy Ghost : tohose sins you shall
forgive, &c. It was the execution of that promise of
his which had been made them in general : Wliatsoever
you shall hind, &c. But it was never said to any one
of the other Apostles in particular : Thou art Peter, and
ti'pon this rock I will huild ray 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 the pastoral dignity
S. Peter alone was instituted : Feed my sheep. There
26o The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
are other pastors in the Church ; each must feed the
flock which is tender him, as S. Peter says (i Ep. v. 2),
or that over which the Holy Ghost hath placed him
bishop, according to S. Paul (Acts xx. 28). But, "to
which of the others," says S. Bernard,* " were ever the
sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed
T/iy 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 eJona (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 — 7nore
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,
* De Consid. ii. 8.
ART. VI. 0. v.] The Rule of Faith. 261
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
rideth 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 heart (Ps. Ixxvii. 71, 72), it is just
the same as if he said to ride, to govern, to preside over.
And it is after the same figure of speech that the
peoples are called sheep of the 2^<^('Sture 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
intru&ted 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 wlio takes Peter's place, as his shepherd.
'' If thou lovest me " — I quote S. Bernard * — ''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
* De Consid. ii 8.
262 The Catholic Controversy, [part h.
mean some, but handed over all. There is no excep-
tion 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 heaittiful 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 slieep, 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
lliere 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 lamhs ; secondly , my
lamhs ; 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.
ART. VI. c. v.] The Rule of Faith. 263
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 felloicshi;p (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 convertinsj 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 ; hut 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 he saved (ii.),
and the prophecy which he had explained : And in
thy seed shall all the families of the earth he hlessed (iii-).
He was only uncertain as to the time when the bring-
ing back of the Gentiles was to begin, according to the
holy Word of the Master : You shall he witnesses unto
264 The Catholic Controversy, [part iu
me in Jerusalem, and in all Jvdcea and Samaria, and
even to the uttermost part of the earth (i.), and that of
S. Paul : To you it behoved us to speak first the ivord
of God^ hut seeing you reject it, loe turn to the Gentiles
(xiii.), just as Our Lord had akeady 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 author-
ised 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 our bishops, in union with the Holy See of Rome,
ordain both deacons and priests without any special
authorisation.
Nor that the Apostles sent Peter and John into
Samaria (lb. viii.), for the people also sent Phinees,
who was the High Priest, and their superior, to the chil-
dren of Ruben and Gad (Jos. xxii.) ; and the centurion
sent the chiefs and heads of the Jews, whom he con-
sidered to be greater than himself (Luke vii.) ; and S.
Peter being in the council, liimself consented to and
authorised his own mission.
Nor finally, that which is made so much of — that
S. Paul ivithstood 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
ART. VI. 0. VI.] The Rule of Faith, 265
subject the great S. Gregory * 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 YI.
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 tlius 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, Simo7i who is called Peter,
and Andreio his brother ; James the son of Zehedee and
John his brother ; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas
and Mathew the publican, James of Alpheus and Thad-
deus, Simon Chanancus, and Judas Tscariot. He names
S. Andrew the 2d ; S. Mark names him the 4th ;
and to better show that it makes no difference, S. Luke,
who in one place has put him 2d, in another puts
him 4th. S. Matthew puts S. John 4th ; S. Mark
* In Ezech. ii. 6.
266 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
puts him 3d ; S. Luke in one place 4th, in another
2d. S. Matthew puts S. James 3d; S. Mark puts
him 2d. 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 tlie 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 tlie Evangelists
talk of the Apostolic company they name only Peter,
and mention the others as accessory and following:
And Simon and they who were with him followed after
him (Mark i.) : BiU 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 Ajjostles
(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?
ART. VI. 0. vl] The Rule of Faith, 267
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 hav-
ing 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 felloiuship (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
268 The Catholic Controversy. [part. n.
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 [primus), 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 main-
tain you do maintain ; whether it has a base in
Scripture or not makes no difference. And as to the
ARTvi. 0. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 269
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.
CHAPTEE VII.
SEVENTH PEOOF. 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, Eobert 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 the first in it ; the true
disciples of Our Lord fish only with him (lb. and
John xxi.).
270 The Catholic Controversy. [part w.
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 ? — S. 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
Iambs ? — 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 every-
where. What does this signify except that the advan-
tage 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.).
S. Peter rises up amongst them and speaks the first,
and teaches the interpretation of weighty prophecy (lb.).
He has the first care of the restoration and increase
of the Apostolic college (lb.). It is he who first pro-
posed 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 hia
ART. VI. c. VII.] The Rule of Faith. 271
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 Ananias and
Saphira (lb. v.) : from this springs the hatred which
lying heretics bear against his See and succession ;
because, as S. Gregory says,^ " Peter by his word strikes
liars dead."
He is the first who recognises and refutes heresy in
Simon Magus (lb. viii.) : hence conies the irreconcile-
able hatred of all heretics against his See.
He is the first who raises the dead, when he prays
for the devout Tabitha (lb. 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 (lb. x.).
* In Ezech. ii. i8.
272 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
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 ex-
pressly 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 grayer was made luitlwut cease-
ing ly 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 acknow-
ledge 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 ?
^RT. VI. c. VIII.] The Rtile of Faith. 273
CHAPTEE 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 mio^ht think that we were wrestine? 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 Alex-
andria, of Eome, and of Antioch ? One may invent a
thousand fancies, but there is no other reason than
that which S. Leo produces : ^ — 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 con-
sidered 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 import-
ance at all at that time, having only been built by the
* Ad Anat.
III. S
2 74 ^'^^ Catholic Controversy. [part h.
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 formatce,
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 concerninsf 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. 1 1 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. 5 6) after S. Matthew. " Mouth
and crown of the Apostles," as Origen (in Luc. xvii.),
and S. Chrysostom (in Matt. 55). " Mouth and
ART. VI. c. VIII.] The Rule of Faith. 275
prince of the Apostles/' as the same S. Chrysostom
(in J. 87). " Guardian of the brethren, and of the
whole world " (lb. 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. eaten, 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. 1 4). " Set over the other disciples " (Bas. de
Judic. Dei 9). " President of the world " (Chrys. in
Matt. II). " The Lord of the house of God, and
prince of all his possession" (P)ern. 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.
276 The CatJiolic Controversy, [part n.
CHAPTER IX.
THAT SAINT PETER HAS HAD SUCCESSORS IN THE VICAR-
GENERALSHIP 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 confirm er 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
exserior bond in the authority of a head, how much
ART. VI. c. IX.] The Rule of Faith. 277
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," *
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 estab-
lished it.t
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
* Adv. Jov. i. 26. t See Preface.
278 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11.
by his ministers and servants, his authority, how-
ever, being too excellent to be altogether communi-
cated. 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 dii^nities.
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 always 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
tlie 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^ which
the Apostles laboured in until death. Whilst there-
fore S. Peter lived this mortal life, he had no suc-
* Mark nil.
ART. VI. c. IX,] The Rule of Faith. 279
cesser, — 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, suc-
ceeded 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
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.
2 8o The Catholic Controversy. [parth
CHAPTEK X.
THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME IS TKUE SUCCESSOR OF
S. PETER, AND HEAD OF THE MILITANT CHURCH.
I HAVE presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of
Eome and died such. This the opposite party
deny ; many of them even deny that he ever was
at Eome ; 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 Eome,
I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of
Eome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my
proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that
the Bishop of Eome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my
contention, and from which again will follow a clear
certainty that S. Peter was at Eome and died there.
And now here is my first witness, — S. Clement,
disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote
to James, the brother of the Lord ; which is so
authentic that Eufinus 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 Eome,
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,
ART. vi. 0. X.] The Rule of Faith. 281
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 Eufinus, 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. Irenseus (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 suc-
ceeded 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.
282 The Catholic Controversy, (pakth.
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 Eoman Church.
Eusebius (Cliron. ann. 44): "Peter, by nation a
Galilsean, the first pontiff of Christians, having first
founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Eome,
where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five
years bishop of the same city."
Epiphanius (ii. 27) : "The succession of bishops at
Eome is in this order ; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus,
Clement, &c."
Dorotheus (in Syn.) : " Linus was Bishop of Eome
after the first ruler, Peter."
Optatus of Mile vis (de Sch Don.) : " You cannot
deny that you know that in the city of Eome 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 suc-
ceeded 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, tliey speak in this fashion :
" Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and
older Eome, 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
ART. VI. ex.] The Rule of Faith. 283
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 Eome alone deprives him, by his legates
and by the Council; that they unite the Bishop of
Eome with S. Peter. For such things show that the
Bishop of Eome 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 Eome, 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 Mce 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 that most
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.
284 T^^^ Catholic Controversy. lpartil
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 Kome ? 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 bishop usurps the primacy for him-
self : 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 Eome ; 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 Eome is the
successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died
Bishop at Eome.
ABT. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 285
CHAPTER XL
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
pertinacioiisly as this. For they try by force of con-
jectures, presumptions, dilemmas, explanations, and by
every means, to prove that S. Peter was never at
Eome : — 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
Eome. But that he was bishop, especially for a long
time, I cannot admit." But in truth, though he were
Bishop of Eome 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 acknow-
ledge sincerely that S. Peter died at Eome, and that
he was bishop there when he died. And as to tha
others we have sufficiently proved above that S. Peter
died Bishop of Eome.
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 Eobert Bellarmine,
286 The Catholic Controversy. [part n.
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,* and as SS. Paul and Barnabas seem to imply t),
for S. Peter was in Lydda and in Joppa before the
twelve years had expired : — it was enough that some
Apostles should remain in Judsea 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, | with whom he
stayed fifteen days. S. 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 com-
mitted 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 § 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 Eome, where he established his chair,
which he held about twenty-five years, during which
he did not omit to visit various provinces, according
* Ixv. t Acts xiii. 46. X Gal. i. 18. § Acts xii, 6,
ART. VT. c. XI.] The Rule of Faith. 287
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 Eome, 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 Eome, taking up again his first
work of teaching and of visiting from time to time
various provinces, where at last Nero, having im-
prisoned 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 vaclis ? — Lord, whither
goest thou ? He answered : I go to Eome to be
crucified anew : * 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 Eome, 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 dis-
ciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his suc-
cessor, 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 Eoman 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,
* Amb. contra Aiix. ; Origen iu Gen. iii ; Athan. pro fugd ; Jeroma
de Vir. ill. ; Eusebius in Chron ; Ado j Tertull. de ^rcescr.
288 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
an author worthy of credit, whose words are these : *
" 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 episco-
pate, 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 Tertnllian, Damasus, Eufinus, 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 Eomans 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
* Hser. 27.
ART. VI. c. XL] The Rule of Faith. 289
doubter does not know all, as indeed he has first con-
fessed 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 Eome, but, having
his chair there, did not omit to visit many provinces,
to return to Jerusalem and to fulfil the apostolic ofiice,
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 Eome and from
Eome, 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 oertain that the First Epistle of S.
Peter was written from Eome, as S. Jerome witnesses : *
"Peter," says he, "in his first Epistle, figuratively
signifying Eome 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 Eome ? 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
lU.
* De Vir. III.
T
290 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 seven 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 Eome, where he re-
mained seven years, that is, till the ninth of Claudius,
when the Jews were driven out of Eome, which caused
S. Peter to withdraw into Judsea. About five years
afterwards, Claudius being dead in the fourteenth
year of his reign, S. Peter returned to Eome, 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 Eome.
CHAPTEE XIL
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 Eome. This is the way they speak, whether of the
See of Eome and its Church, whether of the Pope:
for all comes to the same.
ART. VI. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith.
291
Chair of Peter ....
Principal Church ....
Commencement of sacerdotal unity
Bond of unity : sublime summit of
the priesthood
Church in which is the superior
authority ....
Root and matrix of the Church
Seat on -which our Lord established
the whole Church
Hinge and head of all Churches
Eefuge of bishops .
Supreme Apostolic seat .
Head of the pastoral honour .
Supremacy of the Apostolic chair
Principal dignity of the Apostolic
priesthood ....
Head of all Churches
Head of the world, of the universe
by religion ....
Set over the rest of the Churches
The presiding Church .
The first see to be judged by no one
First seat of all . . .
Most safe harbour of Catholic com
munion ....
Apostolic fountain .
Thus do they name the
how they style the Pope.
Bishop of the most holy Catholic
Church
Most holy and most blessed Patri-
arch
{ Cyp. Lib. i., Ep. 3 [Editio
/ Erasmi].
lb. 55 [ad Corn.]
lb. iii. 13.
lb. iv. 2.
Iren. iii. 3.
Cyp. iv. 8.
Anac. Ep. i, ad omnes Episc,
&c.*
lb. 3.
Marcellus, Ep. i, ad Episc.
Antic ch.
Syn. Alex. Ep. ad Pel. ubi Ath.
Prosper de Ingratis [lin. 40].
Aug. Ep, 162 [Migne 43].
Prosper de Voc. Gen. ii. 16. In
prsef. Cone. Chal. ; Valent,
Imperator,
Victor Ut. de persec. Van. ii. ;
Justinianus de summa Trin.
Leo M. in Nat. SS. P. et P. ;
Prosper de Ingratis.
Syn. Rom. sub Gelasio.
Ign. ad Rom. in inscriptione.
Syn. Sinuessana 300 Episc.
Leo Ep. 61 [ad Theod.]
I Hieron. Ep. 16.
I Innoc. ad Patres Milev. inter
< Epist. S. Auf. 93 [Migne
( 182].
Eoman Church ; now see
I Cyp. iii. II.
Cone. Chalc. , Act iii.
This passage is from S. Siricius, Ep. i, ad Himer. [Tr.]
292
The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
Head of the Council of Chalcedon .
Head of the Universal Church
Most blessed Lord ; elevated to
the Apostolic Dignity ; father of
fathers ; supreme pontiff of all
prelates
High Priest
Prince of Priests . , . . <
Ruler of the house of the Lord
Guardian of the Lord's vineyard .
Vicar of Christ ....
Confirmer of the brethren
Great priest ; supreme pontiff ;'^
prince of bishops ; heir of the
Apostles ; Abel in primacy ; Noe
in government; Abraham in pat-
riarchate ; Melchisedech in order ;
Aaron in dignity ; Moses in au
thority ; Samuel in judgment ;
Peter in authority ; Christ in
unction ; shepherd of the Lord's
fold ; key-bearer of the Lord's
house ; shepherd of all shepherds ;
called in plenitude of power. /
In relatione.
Ibid. xvi.
Steph. Episc. Carthag. in Ep.
ad Damas. nomine Cono.
Carthag.
Hieron. Prsef. Evang. ad Dam.
Id testatur tota antiq. apud
Valent. ep. ad Theodos.
initio. Cone. Chalc.
Amb. in i Tim. iii.
Cone. Chalc. ep. ad Leon.
Cy. i. 3.
Bern. Ep. 190.
. ) lb. de Consid. 11. 8.
I should never end if I tried to heap together all
the titles which the Ancients have given to the
Holy See of Eome 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 Eome 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.
ART. VI. c. XII.] The Rule of Faith. 293
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 super-
intendents 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 this was
a provincial Council affecting the bishops of that Pro-
vince, in which the Bishop of Eome 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 Eome. This name was common to bishops ;
* In the \&t title of the Fdbrian Code, the Saint gives as a further
reason why he dwells on the testimony of S. Bernard the fact that
Calvin and others have put him forward as au adversary of papal
supremacy. [Tr.]
294 '^^^ Catholic Controversy, [partil
witness S. Jerome, who thus styles S. Augustine in
an Epistle : * " 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. Papos aviasque trementes anteferunt
patrihus seri novd curd nepotes.i
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 Eome with
Pope Linus." J 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."
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 2d 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
* 97.
t " Late born grandsons, reversing the ordinary rule, cherish their
trembling grandsires and grandames more than their parents." —
Ausonius ad nep.
t Ad Mariani Zarbensem. § Ad Dam, ep. 15.
ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 295
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 XIII.
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 lis, 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 whcr 'speak$^-
and determines ? ^a^xS ^ " "-
296 The Catholic Controversy. [paeth.
The Jews asked all the Apostles : Wliai 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 1 send
receiveth me (John xiii.). Therefore what he said and
determined could not be false. And truly if the con-
firmer 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 con-
firm 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
ART. VI. c. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 297
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 falls. 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
* Here the French editor had substituted permanent for infallible.
[Tr.]
298 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11.
authority." Now how great the authority of Moses
was every one knows. For he sat and judged con-
cerning 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 decline to the right hand
nor to the left hand. But he that shall he proud, and
refuse to ohey 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 he proud, and refuse to ohey the commandment
ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith, 299
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
Eational 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 Eational, 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
300 The Catholic Controvei^sy, [paetii.
simply the stones of the Eational, by which Almighty
God revealed his will to the priest, as that learned
man Francis Eibera holds; — the reasons why the
High Priest had doctrine and truth in the Eational 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 per-
fected by the Divine revelation : thus the good Lyra
understood it, and Eibera 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 Eational which was joined to it, as this Doctor
Eibera 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
ART. VI. c. xiii.] The Rule of Faith. 301
had recourse to the Eational of the See of Eome 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 Eational 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 t
that the scandals which occur, particularly in the faith,
must be brought before the Eoman 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 : / have prayed for
thee that thy faith fail not ? " And S. Cyprian : |
" They dare to sail off to the Apostolic See and to the
chief (principalem) Church, forgetting tliat those are
Eomans, to whom wrong faith cannot have access."
Do you not see that he speaks of the Eomans 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 in-
voke the authority of the Eoman 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
* See references previously. In margin here the Saint adds : " S.
Bernard, in his letter to the Canons of Lyons, submits all his writings
to the Roman Church." [Tr.]
t Ep. 190. t Ep. 55.
302 The Catholic Controversy, [partil
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 : " Care-
fully 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 peti-
tioners ever emanate from the Apostolic See ? Espe-
cially 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
ART. VI. 0. XIII.] The Rule of Faith. 303
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 Busseus.
S. Cyprian refers all heresies and schisms to the con-
tempt of this chief minister ; * so does S. Jerome ; t
S. Ambrose holds for one same thing " to communicate
and agree with the Catholic bishops and to agree with
the Eoman Church : " | he protests that he follows in
all things and everywhere the form of the Eoman
Church. S. Irenseus 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
Eome, being called and cited to appear there : his
adversaries would not appear, "knowing," says Theo-
doret, " that their lies were manifested in open court."
The Eusebians acknowledge the authority of the see
of Eome when they call S. Athanasius thither, and
S. Athanasius when he presents himself. But parti-
cularly do those Arian heretics the Eusebians confess
the authority of the see of Eome when they dare not
appear there for fear of being condemned.
* Ad. Cornel, contra Feliciss. t Adv. Lucif.
X De excessu Fratris, 46.
304 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
But who does not know that all the ancient heretics
tried to get themselves acknowledged by the Pope ?
Witness the Montanists or Cataphrygians, who so
deceived Pope Zephyrinus, if we may believe Ter-
tuUian (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 Eome. 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 altera-
tion in this your father. Look at him in Cochlseus :
"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
1 5 1 8. But I cannot omit what this great arch-
minister wrote in 1 5 1 9, in certain other resolutions of
other propositions ; for in the thirteenth he not only
acknowledges the authority of the Holy Eoman See,
but proves it by six reasons which he holds to be
demonstrations. I will summarise them : ist 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. 2d. We
must give in to an adversary rather than break the
union of charity ; therefore it is better to obey the
ART. VI. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith, 305
Pope than to separate from the Church. 3d. 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.
5 th. 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
Christiane 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 Eome 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 ponti-
fical 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
III. u
3o6 The Catholic Controversy. [partii.
as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly
a heretic, he falls i'pso 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 hishopric* When he errs in his
private opinion he must be instructed, advised, con-
vinced ; as happened with John XXIL, 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 JExtravag antes 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 every-
where his judgment is infallible, but then only when
he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions
* Acts i.
ART. VI. c. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 307
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 dis-
cretion. 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 token that
Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth,
or, will lead you into all truth.'f 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
* Wednesday in Whit-week. f John xvi. 13.
3o8 The Catholic Controversy. [part h.
into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposi-
tion of this he who seeks the truth under other lead-
ing 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 time 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 acknow-
ledged 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 pre-
decessors, considers the ITrim 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
ART. VI. 0. XIV.] The Rule of Faith. 309
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 want-
ing in necessary things even to the animals, because
lie has established them, will not be more wanting to
Christianity in what is necessary for its life and per-
fection. 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 con-
sider 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 them-
selves in controlling the decision of their superior ?
It remains therefore that according to Divine Pro-
vidence 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 teach-
ing 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 Be GonMeratione,
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
310 The Catholic Controversy, [partu.
Cardinals Contarini the Theatine, Sadolet, and Pole,
with those other great men who counselled the refor-
mation 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 pre-
face 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
hullce hujus minas, istud : qui prce minis moritur ad
ejus sepulturam compulsari debet crepitihus 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
ART. VI. c XIV.] The Rtile of Faith, 311
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 Kome, and you will find
that nothing will remain. You listen to your ministers ;
impose silence upon them as regards railings, detrac-
tion, 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 sub-
jects 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 he
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 Eoman Chair done to
thee," says S. Augustine,* " 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
* Contra lit. Petil. ii. 51.
312 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
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 catJiedram, &c, (Matt, xxiii. 2). If you con-
sidered 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."
ARTICLE VIL
MIRACLES: THE SEVENTH RULE OF FAITH.*
CHAPTER L
HOW IMPORTANT MIRACLES ARE FOR CONFIRMING OUR
FAITH.
In order that Moses might be believed God gave him
power to work miracles (Ex. iv.) ; Our Lord, says S.
Mark (ult.), confirmed in the same manner the Apostolic
preaching ; if Our Lord had not done such miracles
men would not have sinned in not believing in him,
* The Saint has the following detached note : " I keep a place for
proving the faith by miracles, after the 'Rules of faith.' This will
be a sort of 6th (7th) Rule, not ordinary but extraordinary, which
our adversaries have not, though they would need to have it, as they
despise the others which they lack. I will there bring in the saying
of the Sr. des Montaignes." [Tr.]
ART. vn. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith. 3 1 3
says the same Lord (John xv. 24) ; S. Paul testifies
that God confirmed the faith by miracles (Heb. ii. 4).
Therefore a miracle is a sound proof of the faith, and
an important argument for persuading men to believe ;
for if it were not our God would not have made use
of it.
And it is needless to answer that miracles are no
longer necessary after the sowing of the faith, for I
have not only shown the contrary above, but I am
now not maintaining that they are necessary, but
simply that when it may please God to work them
for the confirmation of some article we are obliged to
believe it. For either the miracle is rightly per-
suasive and confirmatory of belief or not : if not, then
Our Lord did not rightly confirm his doctrine ; if it
be, then when miracles do take place they oblige us
to accept them as a most convincing reason, — which
of course they are.
Thoib art the God who doest wonders, says David
(Ps. Ixxvi. 15) to Almighty God, therefore that which
is confirmed by miracles is confirmed on the part of God ;
now God cannot be author or confirmer of a lie, that
therefore which is confirmed by miracles cannot be
a lie, but must be absolute truth.
And, in order to obviate idle objections, I allow
that there are false miracles and true miracles, and
that among true miracles there are some which evi-
dently argue the presence of God's power, and others
which do so only by their circumstances. The
miracles which Antichrist will do will all be false,
both because his intention will be to deceive, and
because one part will only be illusions and vain
magical appearances, the other part not miracles in
314 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
nature but only miracles to men, — that is, on account
of being extraordinary they will seem miracles to
simple folk. Such will be his making fire come down
from heaven in the sight of men (Apoc. xiii.), his
making the image of the beast speak, and healing a
mortal wound. Of these, the descent of the fire upon
the earth and the speaking of the image will, as it
seems, be mere illusions, whence he adds in the sight
of men; they will be acts of magic. The healing of
the mortal wound will be a popular not a philosopher's
miracle ; — for when the people see what they think
impossible they take it to be a miracle, as they
consider many things impossible in nature which are
not so. Now many cures are of this kind, and man;y
wounds are mortal and incurable to some doctors
which are not so to those who are more competent
and have some choicer remedy. Thus that wound
will be mortal according to the ordinary course of
medicine ; but the devil, who is more advanced in
the knowledge of the virtues of herbs, perfumes,
minerals, and other drugs than men are, will effect
this cure by the secret application of medicaments
unknown to men ; and this will appear a miracle to
any one who is unable to distinguish between human
and diabolic knowledge,* between diabolic and divine ;
whereas while the diabolic exceeds the human by a
great degree, the divine surpasses the diabolic by an
infinity. Human science extends to but a little part
of the virtue which is in nature, diabolic goes much
further, but divine has no other limits, in dealing
with nature, but its own infinity.
* The following note is placed in the margin of the autograph :
Ilfaut abieger tout ceci d peu de paroles et scholastiques. [Tr.]
ART. VII. 0. 1.] The Rule of Faith, 315
I said that amoDg true miracles there are some
which furnish a certain knowledge and proof that the
power of God is at work therein, others not so except
by consideration and aid of the circumstances. This
appears from what I have said ; and, for example, the
wonders which the Egyptian magicians did (Ex. iv.—
viii.) were exactly like those of Moses as regards the
external appearance, but he who considers the circum-
stances will very easily see that the one kind were
true miracles, the others false ; as the magicians
themselves confessed, when they said : The finger of
God is here. So might I say if Our Lord had never
done other miracles than to tell the Samaritan woman
that he whom she then had was not her husband
(John iv. 1 8), or than to change the water into wine
(lb. ii.), it might have been possible to think that
there was illusion and magic ; but since these wonders
proceeded from the same might which made the
blind see, the dumb speak, the deaf hear, the dead
live, there remained no room for doubt. Eor, to
make things pass from privation and non-existence
to actuality,* and to give to man the vital operations,
are things impossible to all human powers ; these are
strokes of the sovereign Master ; and when afterwards
he pleases to effect cures or alterations in things by his
almighty power, he still makes them to be recognised
as miraculous even though secret nature may be able
to do as much, — because, having done what surpasses
nature, he has given us assurance of what he is and
of the character of the [thing donej.t As when a
man has made a masterpiece, though he may after-
* La privation en son habitude.
t The line here ends with de la. [Tr. ]
3i6 The Catholic Controversy, [PARxn.
wards do some common works we still consider him a
master.
In a word, the miracle, the true miracle, is a very-
certain proof, and a certain confirmation of belief,
and this at whatever time it may be worked, other-
wise we must overthrow all the Apostolic preaching.
It was reasonable that faith being of things which
surpass nature, it should be certified by works which
surpass nature, and which show that the preaching or
announced word proceeds from the mouth and autho-
rity of the Master of nature, whose power is un-
limited, and who, by a miracle, makes himself witness
of the truth, subscribes and stamps the word delivered
by the preacher.
Now it seems that miracles are general attestations
for the simple and commoner sort ; for not every one
can go so deep as to the admirable harmony there is
between the Prophets and the Gospel, to the great
wisdom of the Scriptures, or to similar striking marks,
which distinguish the Christian religion. This is an
examination for the learned to make ; but there is no
one who does not comprehend the argument furnished
by a true miracle ; everybody understands that lan-
guage. Amongst Christians it seems as if miracles
are not necessary, but in reality they are ; and it is
not without reason that the sweetness of Divine Provi-
dence supplies them to his Church at all seasons, for
in all there are heresies. These indeed are sufficiently
condemned, even according to the capacity of the less
gifted, by the antiquity, majesty, unity, Catholicity,
sanctity of the Church, but everybody cannot value
his inheritance (as Optatus says) according to its true
value. Everybody does not understand this language
ART. VII. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 317
in its full force, but when God speaks by works every-
body understands — this is a language common to all
nations. So the writing on letters of protection may
not be recognised by everybody, but when the white
cross, the arms of the Prince, are seen, all the world
knows that sovereign approval and authority run there.
CHAPTEK II.
HOW GREATLY THE MINISTERS HAVE VIOLATED THE
FAITH DUE TO THE TESTIMONY OF MIRACLES.
There is scarcely any article of our religion which has
not been approved of God by miracles. The miracles
which take place in the Church, showing where the
true Church is, sufficiently prove all the belief of the
Church : for God would never bear witness to a
Church which had not the true faith and was erring,
idolatrous, and deceiving.
But this supreme goodness does' not stop there ; it
has confirmed almost all the points of the Catholic faith
by illustrious miracles, and we find that, by a special
providence of God, he has born witness, in a most
remarkable manner and by incontestable miracles, to
the truth of what we teach on practically all the
points of difference between us and the ministers.
" When Agapitus, the Bishop of the holy Eoman
Church," says S. Gregory the Great,* " was going
* Dialog., 1. iii. c. iii.
3i8 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
through Greece to visit the Emperor Justinian, the
relatives of a certain dumb and lame man presented
him to Agapitus to be healed, affirming that they had
a firm confidence that he would be cured, in the power
of God, by the authority of Peter." Behold the
belief of these good folk ; they held that the Pope
had succeeded in the authority of Peter and that
therefore he also possessed authority in an eminent
degree. One of your ministers would have called
them superstitious ; the Catholic Church would have
maintained, as it does now, that their belief was
justified. Let us see what testimony Our Lord bore
to it. " Upon this," continues St. Gregory, " the vener-
able man betook himself to prayer, and celebrating
holy Mass offered Sacrifice in the sight of the most
High. When he had ended and was leaving the altar,
he took the hand of the lame man, and before the eyes
of the attendant people he raised him from the ground,
and gave him to stand by his own feet, and placing the
Lord's body in his mouth, that long silent tongue
was loosed and spoke. All the people, struck with
admiration, began to shed tears of joy, and a great
fear and reverence came upon them when they saw
what Agapitus was enabled to do, in the power of the
Lord, by Peter's assistance." Such are the words of
S. Gregory.
What do you say to this ? If you asked me who
worked this miracle, I reply by the very words of
Our Lord.* The, Mind see, the lame walk, the lepers
are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, to the
poor the Gospel is preached. In what faith was it
granted ? In the faith that the Pope is the successor
* Matt. xi. 5.
ART. VII. 0. II. J The Rule of Faith. 319
of Peter and has his sublime authority. By what
acts was it gained ? By the most holy sacrifice of
the Mass and the real application of the Lord's body
to the mouth of the infirm man. In what did the
miracle consist ? In the communication of a faculty
of which the recipient had hitherto been short, in
the bestowal of a vital operation, that is, of the
hearing, for although it is not said that he was deaf,
he was so in reality, because he who is born dumb
is always deaf. What other conclusion, then, can we
draw except that the, finger of God is here* that God
has signed and sealed this our belief as to the suc-
cession of the Pope in the authority of Peter, and as to
the article of most holy Mass ? At what period did
this miracle take place ? In the period of the most pure
and holy Church ; for both Calvin and the Lutherans
admit that the Church remained pure till after S.
Gregory. Who relates the event ? A saintly and
learned author, as our adversaries themselves confess,
for they make him the last good Pope. Where did
the miracle occur ? Before the eyes of a whole
people, who were Greeks and not zealous upholders of
the Holy See.
Again, we preach the reality of the Body and Blood
of Our Lord in the Sacrament of the altar. He him-
self has authorised this belief by the miraculous sight
of it which he gave to a Jew and a Jewess who were
assisting at the Mass of S. Basil; as testifies S.
Amphilochius,t who flourished about the year 380,
to take another instance, a woman who had made
the bread which was to be consecrated, when she saw
* Exod. viii. 19.
t VitaS.Basilii. This life is no longer regarded as authentic. [Tr.]
o
20 T'Ae Catholic Controversy. [partii.
S. Gregory the Great coming towards her, holding
that which was no longer bread but the most holy
Sacrament, and saying : Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu
Christi custodial animam, &c., began to smile. S.
Gregory asking her why she smiled, she replied that
she herself had made the bread which he was calling
the Lord's body. S. Gregory obtained by prayer that
the Holy Eucharist should appear outwardly what
it really was inwardly, whereby this poor woman was
brought back to faith and the faith of all was con-
firmed. The history is given by Paulus Diaconus.*
We teach that Our Lord, really present in the
Holy Sacrament, is to be adored there. Gorgonia,
sister of S. Gregory Nozianzen, made such adoration
and instantaneously grew well of a malady in itself
incurable. Thus bears witness her brother himself.t
S. Chrysostom relates J two admirable apparitions
of bands of angels seen round the altar during the
Holy Sacrifice, " their heads bowed as one sees the
heads of soldiers bent before their king. And," adds
that mouth of gold, " I readily believe it."
We teach Transubstantiation ; and the narratives
cited from S. Amphilochius and from Paulus Diaconus
attest that mystery.
We preach that the Holy Eucharist is not only a
Sacrament but also a Sacrifice ; and S. Augustine,
speaking of .a place belonging to Hesperius, in the
district of Fussale, which had been made uninhabitable
by the violence of evil spirits, says : § " One of the
priests went to the spot, offered the Sacrifice of the
Body of Christ, beseeching that if possible this vexa-
* Vita S. Oregorii, sec. xxiii. t In Gorgon. , sec. xviii.
X Be Sacerdot.y 1. vi. sec. 4. § De Civit. Dei, 1. xxii. c. viii.
ART. VII. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 321
tion might cease. By God's mercy it did so at once."
What I have related of Agapitus comes in here.
We preach the holy Communion of Saints in the
prayer which they make for us and in the honour which
we pay them ; but when should I stop if I wanted to
give you a list of all the miracles which have occurred
in support of this belief ? Theodoret, in his work
Be cur and. Grcec. affect, j discourses at length upon
them. S. Gregory Nazianzen narrates an incontes-
table miracle in the conversion of S. Cyprian by
Our Lady.*
We honour their relics ; take note how S. Augus-
tine gives a lengthy history of certain miracles effected
by the relics of S. Stephen,t and in the same place
he describes one which was worked by the relics of
S. Gervase at Milan, viz., the cure of a blind man.
He gives it again in his '* Confessions/' J and we have
it also in S. Ambrose. §
We use the sign of the cross against the devil;
and S. Gregory Nazianzen informs us || that Julian
the apostate, on an occasion of an idolatrous sacrifice,
when the devil appeared to him, made this sign. The
devil took to flight. The sorcerer or magician told
the apostate that he fled not out of fear but out of
disgust ; " He had us in abomination, not in dread,
said the sorcerer ; what is worst triumphs." Eusebius
testifies to the wonders worked by this holy sign in
the time of Constantino the Great.H
In our churches we have sacred vessels ; and S.
Chrysostom recounts that Julian, the uncle of the
* In laudem Cypr., sec. xi. t Be Civit. Dei, 1. xxii. c. viii.
X Lib. ix. c. vii, § Serrno vel Epist. de invent. SS. Gerv. et Prot.
II Orat I. contra Jul., sectiS. Iv. Ivi. H Vita Const., 1. ii. cc. vi.-xv.
III. X
322 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
Emperor Julian, together with a certain treasurer,
stole and profaned them.* Julian, however, died
shortly after, eaten up by worms ; the treasurer burst
in two on the spot.
We venerate the sacred chrism with which the
baptized are anointed in holy Confirmation ; and S.
Optatus of Milevis tells that when the phial or
ampulla of the holy chrism was cast by the Donatists
upon the rocks, " an angelic hand was there to direct
it with an invisible upholding ; it was thrown down,
but it did not suffer from the fall." t
We humbly confess our sins to our ecclesiastical
superiors ; and S. John Climacus relates that while
a certain great sinner was confessing his crimes, there
was seen one of grand and terrible aspect, who ruled
out the sins from a register as fast as they were con-
fessed ; for, says the same Climacus, confession surely
delivers from the eternal confusion. J
We have images in our churches ; but who knows
not the history of the crucifying of an image of Our
Lord by the Jews of Berytus in Syria ? Not only
did blood flow forth, but this blood healed of all
maladies those whom it touched. The great S.
Athanasius gives the history. §
We have the custom of using holy water and blessing
bread ; but S. Jerome relates that many employed
for healing the sick bread blessed by S. Hilarion ; ||
and S. Gregory the Great says that S. Fortunatus
healed a man who had broken his leg by a fall
* I)e S. Bahyla, sec. xvii.
t Contra Donat., 1. ii. sec. xix. :|: Scala, grad. iv.
§ De passione imag. Dom. Nostri. This ancient work is no longer
attributed to S Athanasius. [Tr.] || Vita S. Hil., sec. xxx.
ART. VII. 0. II.] The Rule of Faith. 323
from his horse with a simple sprinkling of holy
water.* Enough.
And now, what a contempt it is of these numerous
miracles to mock and jeer at all these doctrines and
at the Church which teaches them ! If you do not
value the testimony of antiquity, the testimony of God
is greater.^ What will you answer ? For my part,
I have only written here the first miracles which
occurred to me, though I have taken them in the
authors who belong to *' the pure Church." If I had
cited you the miracles worked in the age of S.
Bernard, S. Malachy, S. Bede, S. Francis, your
ministers would at once have cried out that they
were wonders of antichrist ; but since every one admits
that antichrist only appeared some time after S.
Gregory, and my facts all occurred before or during
the time of S. Gregory, no difficulty can be made.
The Arians denied the miracle worked on the blind
man who was cured by touching the edge of the
cloth which covered the relics of SS. Gervase and
Protase, saying that he had not been cured ; S.
Ambrose replies : | " They deny that the blind man's
eyes were opened, but he does not deny his cure.
But I ask," he continues a little further on, '' why
do they not believe ? Do they maintain that no one
can be aided by the Martyrs ? This is to disbelieve
Christ, who said : § Greater things than these shall ye
do.'' Further on S. Ambrose says : " They would
not envy the works of the Martyrs unless they felt
that these had in them the faith which they them-
selves have not, that faith, confirmed by the traditions
* Dialog., 1. i. c. x. t I. Joan, v. 9,
X Sermo vel Epist. supra cit. § Joan, xiv. 12.
324 The Catholic Controversy, [parth.
of our elders, which the devils themselves cannot
deny, though the Arians deny it. I do not accept the
devil's testimony but his admissions." What circum-
stance is wanting to lift these miracles above suspicion ?
A part of them consists in the restitution of the essential
vital operations, which cannot spring from other than
divine power ; the time in which they occurred is quite
close to that of Our Lord. The Church was all pure
and holy ; there was no Antichrist in the world, as the
ministers admit; the persons at whose intercession they
were effected were very holy ; the faith confirmed by
them was the common and most Catholic faith ; the
authors who relate them are very safe.
I borrow a passage for this place.* "When we
read in Bouchett the miracles worked by the relics
of S. Hilary — well, his credit is not so great as to
deprive us of the liberty of contradicting him ; but
to condemn out and out all such histories seems to
me singularly impertinent. The great S. Augustine
testifies that he saw a blind man recover his sight
by the relics of SS. Gervase and Protase at Milan;
that a woman at Carthage was cured of a cancer
by the sign of the cross made over her by a woman
freshly baptized; that Hesperius, one of his friends,
had driven away the evil spirits that infested his
house with a little earth from the sepulchre of Our
Lord, which earth thence transported into the Church
had instantaneously cured a paralytic who was there ;
that in a certain procession a woman who had touched
the reliquary of S. Stephen with a bunch of flowers
recovered her sight by rubbing her eyes with these
* Montaigne, Essais, 1. i. c. xxvi.
t Miracula S. Hilarii (Vide in Actis SS., die xiii. Januarii).
ART. VII. 0. 11.] The Rule of Faith. 325
flowers. S. Augustine adds other miracles and affirms
that he himself was present at them. Of what shall
we accuse him and the two holy bishops Aurelius and
Maximin, to whom he appeals as his guarantees ? Of
ignorance, simplicity, credulity ? of malice and impos-
ture ? Is there a man in our age impudent enough
to think himself comparable with them, whether in
virtue or in learning, judgment, and competence ? "
I say the same of the two Saints Gregory whom
I have cited, of S. Jerome, S. Chrysostom, Atha-
nasius, Climacus, Optatus, Ambrose, Eusebius. Tell
me, for God's sake, is not what they relate quite
possible to God ? and if it be possible how shall we
dare to deny that it has happened, since so many
great personages so aver ? I have been asked more
than once : Is the belief in these histories an article
of faith ? No, it is not an article of faith, but it is
an article of good sense and discretion. It is too
evidently a folly and piece of silly arrogance to
contradict these ancient and grave witnesses, on the
simple ground that what they say does not square
with our conceits. Is it for our little brain to place
the limits of truth and falsehood, to give the law to
being or not being ?
326 The Catholic Controversy. [parth]
ARTICLE VIII.
HARMONY OF FAITH AND REASON: EIGHTH
RULE OF FAITH.
CHAPTER I.
IN AVHAT SENSE REASON AND EXPERIENCE ARE A
RULE OF RIGHT BELIEVING.
GrOD is author in us of natural reason and hates
nothing that he has made,* so that having signed
our understanding with this his lightjt we must not
imagine that that other and supernatural light which
he imparts to the faithful, opposes and contradicts the
natural. They are daughters of the same Father, the
one by process of nature, the other by more noble
and lofty birth ; they can, therefore, and should,
live in harmony together as loving sisters. Whether
in the natural or in the supernatural order, reason
is always reason, and truth truth. The eye which
sees two steps in advance amid the obscurity of
a dark night, is the same as that which, in the full
brightness of noon, takes in the whole circle of its
horizon, only the light wliich serves it is different ;
so it is certain that truth, whether of nature or
above nature, is always the same, and there is only
a difiference in the light which displays it to our
understanding: faith shows it to us in the super-
natural and our intelligence in the natural, but truth
is never at contradiction with itself.
* Sap. xL 23. t Psal. iv. 7.
ART. VIII. c. I.] The Rule of Faith. 327
Again, God who has given our senses their proper
action and means of apprehending, completes this
gift by never permitting them to be deceived when
rightly applied to their proper object ; and experience
taken by itself, simple and anterior to reasoning,
cannot mistake. These are propositions of philosophy,
founded on these certain premisses that God himself
is the author of our senses, and as a holy and
infallible agent directs them to their true end
and object ; these are simply first principles, and
they who would take them from us, would take
from us all process of inference, all reason. Some
examples will make us clearly understand these
propositions. My eye may make a mistake, judging
a thing to be larger than it is ; but size is not
the proper object of the eye, for it is common
also to the touch and the hand. It can fall into
error, again, by considering that movement is taking
place where it is not ; as those who sail along the
strand seem to see the trees and buildings move.
But movement is not the proper object of my
eye, touch has its part also therein. The eye can
err, again, when it is not properly applied ; for if
there be green or red glass between it and its
objects, it will think these to be green or red when
they are not so.
If, moreover, you add reasoning and inferences to
the judgments of the senses and of experience, do not
now attribute your false conclusions to the actions
of the senses or to experience, for they are no
longer pure and simple, which was one of the con-
ditions which I laid down ; it is the reasoning and
deductions which you have added that have put
328 The Catholic Controversy. [part 11.
you wrong. Thus the eyes and the experience
of those who saw, and saw experimentally in
Our Lord the human form and haviour, were not
deceived, for the fact was really so ; those went
wrong who drew thence the consequence that he
was not God. The senses which judge that there
are on the altar the roundness, the whiteness, the
taste and colour of bread are right, but the
reasoning which concludes that the substance of
bread is still there, is unsound and false. That
has nothing to do with the senses, which take cog-
nisance, not of the substance of things but of the
accidents. In like manner, the experience which
shows us that we do not know how these accidents
stand without their natural substance is quite just,
but if our judgment draw the conclusion that they
do not so stand, it deceives itself and us. This
is not the fault of experience, which has nothing
to do with that conclusion.
Experience, therefore, and the judgment of the
senses are quite correct, but the reasoning which we
make on them deceives us. Barring this, he who
denies the correctness of the knowledge supplied by
the senses and by experience, attacks and overthrows
reason; for the foundation of all logical process
depends on the data furnished by the senses and by
experience. Now how entirely your ministers have
gone against experience, sensible cognition, and natu-
ral reason, I will make clear to you at once, provided
that you do not reject the testimony of your own
judgment.
ABT. VIII. c. 11.3 The Rule of Faith. 329
CHAPTER II.
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 on the rules of faith, these absurdities
being a consequence of their 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.
When Luther, in his preface to his " Defence of the
articles condemned by Leo," says that the Scriptures
are very easy, intelligible and clear to each one, and
that any one can see the truth there and discern
amongst varying opinion which is the true which
the false, is he not, I pray, going against the
personal experience of everybody ? And when you
have taken in this nonsense do you not know
that the contrary is evident ? I know no man so
learned as to dare swear that he knows the true
sense, I do not say of the whole Scripture but of
some part of it ; indeed I have never found one
among you who understood the sense of one whole
chapter.
* In a detached note the Saint says: " A chapter must be composed
on simplicity of faith and humility in believing." See Preface. [Tr.]
330 The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
When Calvin,* or Bucer,t denies that we have any
liberty in our will, not only for supernatural actions
but even for natural ones and in merely human
matters, does he not attack natural reason and all
philosophy (as Calvin indeed confesses) and, at the
same time, the experience both of yourselves, if you
speak frankly, and of all the rest of men ?
And when Luther says J that believing, hoping,
loving are not operations and actions of our will,
but simple passions outside the activity of the
will, does he not ruin at one stroke all be-
lieving, hoping, and loving, changing them into
being believed, being hoped in, and being loved,
besides contradicting the heart of man which knows
well that by the grace of God itself believes, loves,
and hopes ?
Also when Luther says§ that infants in Baptism
nave the use of their understanding and reason, and
when the synod of Wittenberg 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
* histit, 1. i. c. xvi., 1. ii. cc. ii., iv,
t De Concord., art. de lib. arbitr.
X Operat in Psalm.
§ Apud Cochl., ann. 1523.
Ii Ann. 1536. L. 3 : Misceli. tract.
ART. VIII. c. II.] The Rule of Faith, 331
Zwingle, Calvin, and Beza.* " But," says Beaa, " you
will say that they could 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 {ener-
giam), 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 ? 0 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 : t 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
* Zw. de prud. 5, 6 : Calv. Jnstit. I. 17, 18 ; de Praed. ; Instruct,
contra Lib. ; Beza contra Castal.
+ Calv. mU. Sess. 6, cone. Tr. : Luther de lib. Chrut.
332 The Catholic Controversy, [part a
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 main-
tain 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 under-
standing 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.
ART. VIII. 0. iiL] The Rule of Faith. 333
CHAPTEE III.
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, pro-
vided 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 propor-
tion 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
334 l'^^ Catholic Controversy. [pabt n.
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
easy to God, and I shall confirm it by this reason of
faith : / 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, ad-
justing everything to your own interpretations and
ideas. I apply the whole question [of the Eeal
Presence] * to the analogy of the faith : this explana-
tion 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 sliall 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, consub-
stantial with the Father,, proves to me his illimitable
power. His being conceived of a Virgin, against the
* See Preface.
ART. vTii. c. III.] The Rule of Faith, 335
course of nature ; his not disdaining to lodge within
her for our sakes ; his being horn 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 dmth supports me ; —
for he who died for us, what will he not do for us ?
His se'pulchre 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.
T\idX 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 perfec-
tions. 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 Transub-
stantiation. 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
S3^ The Catholic Controversy. [parth,
the world, in depth as far as to Purgatory, in height
to heaven, including all nations, all past ages,
canonised 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 : ^ He hath made a
memory [of his wonderful works']. 0 holy and perfect
memorial of the Gospel ! 0 admirable summing up
of our faith ! He who believes, 0 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 Eeligion : 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 hody. That
the flesh profiteth nothing ? t — 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-
* ex. 4. t John VI.
ART. VIII. 0. III.] The Rule of Faith, 337
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 ie mocked and
scourged, &c.t (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 there-
fore you see the Son of man ascending vjhere 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 none
the less 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 :
/ am the living bread (lb.) 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 J 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
* lb. i Luke xviii. 32.
III. y
^;^S The Catholic Controversy. [parth.
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 luords 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 com-
memoration of me ; you bring up : Tou shall show forth
the death of the Lord until he comes;* But me you
shall not have always. But consider a little what
reference these words have to one another. You
adjust all this to the anomologyt 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 ?
* I Cor. xi ; John xii.
t kvofioKoyM, i.e., disproportion. A play on the word Analogy.
[Tr.]
ART. VIII. 0. III.] The Rule of Faiths 339
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 bene-
volence,— the remission of sins as only a non-imputa-
tion ; — 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.^ One
infallible rule of our faith is this : God is All-mighty.
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 under-
stood 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 t and S. Augustine;]; call it rule, so S,
* Ps, xi. •
t We do not find this passage in any authentic work of S. Clement
[Tr.]
X Serm. 213, alias 119.
340 ^-^^^ Catholic Controversy, [partil
Ambrose * calls it key. But if another key be re-
quired 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 share 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. Ausfustinet and
the great Vincent of LerinsJ also call the sense of
the Church {sentiment Ecclesiastique) rule of our faith.
The Creed alone says nothing openly of the Consub-
stantiality, of the Sacraments, or of other articles of
faith, but comprehends the whole faith in its root and
foundation, particularly when 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.^
* Appendix, Serm. 33. More probably belongs to S. Maximus of
Turin. [Tr.]
t Contra Ep. Fund 4, $. % Comm. c. ii. § i Cor. xiv
ART. VIII. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 341
CHAPTEK IV.
CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE OF THIS SECOND PART BY
A SHORT ENUMERATION OF MANY EXCELLENCES
WHICH ARE IN THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE AS COM-
PARED WITH THE OPINION OF THE HERETICS OF
OUR AGE.*
Sailing thus then without needle, compass or rudder
on 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 recognise
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 oiun, not the
things that are Jesus Christ's (Phil. ii. 21). Is it not
more honourable to concede to the might of Jesus
"■Q'
* This cliapter seems to fulfil the design referred to in the following
detached note of the Saint's : " A chapter is also to be composed on the
greater glory of the Gospel in the faith of Catholics than in the faith
of the heretics. Where reference is to be made to what was said at
the end of the chapter de visibili [Pt. L c. 6.], viz., that in the visible
Church the eye of mind and of body is fed, in the invisible neither."
[Tr.]
342 The Catholic Controversy, [paktil
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 embellish-
ing 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 inter-
cession, in having glorified them as soon as they died,
than in making them wait and keeping them in sus-
pense, according to Calvin's words, until the judgment,
in making them deaf to our prayers and remaining him-
self inexorable to theirs. This will be seen more clearly
ART. VIII. 0. IV.] The Rule of Faith, 343
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 on this condi-
tion, 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 these 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.
[The following detached notes of the Saint bear
upon the matter of the foregoing chapter. Tr.]
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.
344 The Catholic Controversy, [pabtil
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.
PART III.
Cburcb Doctrines anb Jnetitutiona.
INTEODUCTION.
These two fundamental faults into which your ministers
have led you, namely, the having abandoned the
Church and the having violated all the true rules of
the Christian religion, make you altogether inexcusable,
gentlemen. For they are so gross that you cannot
but know them, and so important that either of the
two suffices to make you lose true Christianity : since
neither faith without the Church nor the Church
without faith can save you, any more than the eye
without the head or the head without the eye could
see the light. Whoever would separate you from
union with the Church should be suspected by you,
and whoever should so greatly infringe the holy rules
of the faith ought to be avoided and disregarded,
whatever his appearance might be, whatever he might
allege. You should not have so lightly believed.
Had you been prudent in your way of acting you
would have seen that it was not the Word of God they
brought forward but their own ideas veiled under
34^ The Catholic Controversy. ^ [pabthi.
words of Scripture, and you would have known well
that so rich a dress was never made for covering so
worthless a body as this heresy is.
For, by supposition, let us say that there was never
Church, nor Council, nor pastor, nor doctor, since the
Apostles, and that the Holy Scripture contains only
those books which it pleases Calvin, Beza, and Martyr
to acknowledge; that there is no infallible rule for
understanding it rightly, but that it is at the mercy of
the notions of everybody who likes to maintain that
he is interpreting Scripture by Scripture, and by the
analogy of the faith, — as one might say he would get
to understand Aristotle by Aristotle and by the
analogy of philosophy. Only let us acknowledge that
this Scripture is divine. And I maintain before all
equitable judges that if not all, at least those amongst
you who had some knowledge and ability, are inexcus-
able, and cannot defend their choice of religion from
lightness and rashness.
And here is what I come to. The ministers will
only fight on Scripture ; I am willing. They will
only have such parts of Scripture as they chose ; I
ageee. And still I say that the belief of the Catholic
Church beats them completely, since she has more
passages in her favour than the contrary opinion has,
and her passages are more clear, more simple, more
pure, interpreted more reasonably, more conclusive, and
more apt. This I believe to be so certain that every
one may come to know and recognise it. But if we
would show this in minute detail we should never
finish ; it will be quite enough, I think, to show it in
some of the chief articles.
It is this then that I profess to do in this Third
iNTROD.] Church Doctrines, <2fc. 347
Part, in which I shall attack your ministers on the
Sacraments in general, and in particular on those of
the Eucharist, Confession, and Marriage ; on the honour
and invocation of the saints; on the propriety of
ceremonies in general ; then in particular on the
merit of good works, on justification, and on indul-
gences. In this I will employ nought but the pure
and simple Word of God; with which alone I will
make you see, by examples, your fault so clearly that
you will be bound to repent of it. And meantime
I beg of you, that if you see me engage, and at length
overcome the enemy with Scripture alone, you will
then represent to yourselves that great and honourable
succession of martyrs, pastors, and doctors, who have
testified by their teaching and at the price of their
blood that this doctrine for which we now fight was
the holy, the original, the Apostolic ; which will be as
it were a superfluity of victory ; so that if we found
ourselvas on an equality with our enemies by Scrip-
ture alone, the antiquity, the agreement, the holiness
of our authors would still make us triumph. And in
doing this I will ever adjust the sense and bearing of
the Scriptures which I shall produce to the rules which
I have established in the Second Part, although my
chief design is only to give you a proof of the hollow-
ness of your ministers, who do nothing but cry out
Holy Scripture, Holy Scripture, yet all they effect is
to contradict its clearest statements. In the assembly
of the Princes which took place at Spires, in the year
1526, the Protestant ministers wore these letters on
the right sleeve of their dress : V. D. M. I. M., by
which they meant to declare Verhum Domini manet
in ceternum [the Word of the Lord remaineth for ever].
34^ The Catholic Controversy. [partiu
Would you not say that they had a monopoly of Holy
Scripture ? They quote indeed morsels of it, and on
every occasion, " in public and in private," says the
great Lirinensis,* " in their discourses, in their books,
in the streets, and at banquets. . . . Eead the works
of Paul of Samosata, of Priscillian, of Eunomius, of
Jovinian, and of those other pests : you will see a great
heap of examples, and scarcely a page which is not
painted and adorned with sentences out of the Old
and the New Testament. . . . They act like those do
who, wishing to get little children to take some bitter
potion, rub and cover with honey the rim of the cup,
in order that infant simplicity tasting the sweet first
may not be frightened of the bitter." But he who
sounds the depths of their doctrine will see clearly as
the day that it is but a painted sham, like what the devil
brought forward when he tempted Our Lord. For he
quoted Scripture to his purpose. " What," says the
same Lirinensis,t " will he not do with wretched man,
when he dares to attack with words of Scripture the very
Lord of majesty ? Let us look closely at the doctrine of
this passage. . . . For as then the head of one party
spoke to the head of the other, so now members speak
to members ; namely, the members of the devil to the
members of Jesus Christ, unbelievers to the faithful,
the sacrilegious to the religious — in a word, heretics to
Catholics." But as the head answered the head, so
can we members answer the non-members. Our head
repulsed their chief with passages of the Scripture,
let us repulse them in like fashion, and by solid and
plain consequences, deduced from Holy Scripture, let
us show their falseness and deceitfulness in covering
* Comm. xx^v. + lb. xxxviL
ART. 1. 0. L] Church Doctrines, &c, 349
their fancies with the words of Scripture. This is
what I intend to do here, but briefly, and I protest
that I will produce most faithfully what seems to me
to be most in their favour, and convict them from
the Scripture itself. Thus will you come to see that
though they and we use and fight with the Scripture,
yet we have the reality and right usage of them, and
they only have the vain and illusive appearance. So
both Aaron and the magicians changed their rods into
living serpents, but the rod of Aaron devoured the
rods of the others.
AETICLE I. ^i ^ "^^^ f^ :%
OF THE SACRAMENTS. \ ^- ^'^^*S}^^,
CHAPTEE I.
OF THE NAME OF SACRAMENT.
This word Sacrament is explicitly used in Scripture
in the meaning which it has in the Catholic Church,
since S. Paul, speaking of marriage, calls it clearly
and precisely Sacrament.* But we shall see this by
and by. It is enough now, against the insolence of
Zwinglet and others who would reject this name,
that the whole ancient Church has used it. For it is
not by any greater authority that the words Trinity,
consubstantial, person, and a hundred others, have
been received in the Church as holy and legitimate.
But it is a most unprofitable and foolish rashness to
* Eph. V. t De verd etfals. relig.
350 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi.
attempt to change the Ecclesiastical words which
antiquity has left us : to say nothing of the danger
that there might be, after changing the words, of
going on to the change of the meaning and belief, — as
we see to be ordinarily the aim of these innovators
on words. Now since the pretended reformers for the
most part, though not without grumbling, leave this
word in use in their books, let us enter into the
difficulties we have with them over the causes and
effects of the Sacraments, and let us see how they in
this point despise the Scripture and the other rules
of faith.
CHAPTEE II.
OF THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENTS.
Let us begin with this : The Catholic Church holds
as form of the Sacraments consecratory words ; the
pretended ministers, wishing to reform this form,
say * that the consecrating words are charms, and
that the true form of the Sacraments is preaching.
What do the ministers produce from Holy Scripture
for the support of this reformation ? Two passages
only as far as any one knows ; the one from S. Paul,
the other from S. Matthew. S. Paul, speaking of the
Church, says t that Our Lord sanctified it, cleansing it
hy the laver of water in the word of life ; and Our Lord
himself, in S. Matthew,^ gives this commandment to
his disciples : Teach all nations, baptizing them in the
* Calv. Instit. iv. 14 ; in Eph, v. Beza in sum. doctr. de re sacram.
t Eph. V. 26. + Ult. 19.
ART. 1. 0. II.] Church Doctrines, &c, 351
na^ne of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Two very clear passages certainly to prove
that preaching is the true form of the Sacraments !
But whoever told them that there was no other
" word of life " than preaching ? I maintain, on the
contrary, that this holy invocation : / baptize thee in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, is also a word of life ; as S. Chrysostom and
Theodoret say.* Just as the other prayers and the
other invocations of God's name are ; which, however,
are not sermons. And if S. Jerome, t following the
mystical sense, would have preaching to be a sort of
cleansing water, he does not therefore set himself
against the other Fathers who have understood the
laver of water to be Baptism precisely, and the word
of life to be the invocation of the most holy Trinity,
in order to interpret the passage of S. Paul by the
other of S. Matthew : Teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. And as to this latter, nobody ever
denied that instruction should precede Baptism in the
case of those who are capable of it, according to the
words of Jesus Christ, who places the instruction first
and the Baptism afterwards. But keeping within the
same words, we place the previous instruction by
itself, as a disposition requisite to him who has the
use of reason, and Baptism also apart : so that the
one cannot be the form of the other. Indeed Bap-
tism would rather be the form of preaching than
preaching of Baptism, if one must be the form of the
other ; since the form cannot precede but must follow
the matter, and preaching precedes Baptism, while
* In Eph. V. t In idem.
352 The Catholic Controversy. [part m
Baptism follows upon the preaching. Wherefore
S. Augustine would not have spoken correctly when
he said : " the word comes to the element and the
Sacrament is made ; " * for he would rather have had
to say : the element comes to the word.
These two passages then are wholly inapplicable to
your reformed teaching ; yet they are all you have.
At the same time your pretensions would be some-
what more tolerable if we had not in the Scripture
contrary reasons more express beyond all comparison
than yours are. They are these. He who helieves
and is baptized : do you see this belief which springs
in us by preaching separated from Baptism ? — they
are then two distinct things, preaching and Baptism.
Who doubts but that S. Paul catechised and instructed
in the faith many Corinthians who were baptized ?
But if instruction and preaching were the form of
Baptism, S. Paul was not right in saying : t / give
God thanks that I baptized none of you but Crispus and
Caius, &c. For to give the form to a thing, is it not
to do it ? The case is made stronger still in that S.
Paul separates baptizing from preaching : Christ sent
me not to baptize but to preach the Gospel. And to
show that the Baptism is Christ's, not his who
administers it, he does not say : are you baptized in
the preaching of Paul ? but rather : are you baptized
in the name of Paid ? — showing that though preaching
goes before still it is not of the essence of Baptism,
as if the Baptism were to be attributed to the preacher
and catechist in the same way that it is attributed
to him whose name is invoked in it.
Certainly any one who nearly examines the first
* In Joan, Ixxx. t i Cor. i. 14.
ART. 1. 0. II.] Church Doctrines^ &c. 353
Baptism administered after Pentecost * will see as
clearly as the day that preaching is one thing and
Baptism another. Wlun they had heard these things
— see on the one hand the preaching — they had com-
punction in their hearts, and said to Peter and the rest
of the Apostles : JVhat shall we do, men brethren ?
But Peter to them : do penance (said he), and he
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the remission of your sins : — see on the other hand
the Baptism, put by itself. One may see as much
in the Baptism of that pious eunuch of Ethiopia
(Acts viii.), in that of S. Paul (lb. ix), in which there
was no preaching, and in that of the good and
religious Cornelius (lb. x.)
And as to the most holy Eucharist, which is the
other Sacrament which the ministers make pretence
of receiving, — where do they ever find that Our Lord
made use of preaching ? S. Paul teaches the Corin-
thians how the Supper should be celebrated, but we
do not find that there is any command to preach;
and in order that nobody should doubt but that the
rite he was expounding was legitimate, he says that
he had so learnt it from Our Lord : For I have received
of the Lord that which also I delivered to you.lf Our
Lord indeed made an admirable discourse, related by
S. John ; but this was not for the mystery of the
Supper, which was already completed.
We do not say that it is not becoming to instruct
the people about the Sacraments conferred upon them,
but only that this instruction is not the form of the
Sacraments. So that if in the institution of these
divine mysteries, and in the very practice of the
* Acts ii. 37, ^8. f i Cor. xi. 23.
III. Z
354 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi.
Apostles, we find a distinction between preaching and
the Sacraments, by what authority shall we confound
them together ?
In this point, then, according to the Scriptures,
we are absolutely victorious, and the ministers are
convicted of violating the Scriptures, since they would
change the essence of the Sacraments contrarily to
their institution.
Again, they violate Tradition, the authority of the
Church, of Councils, of the Popes, and of the Fathers,
who have all believed and do believe that the Baptism
of little children is true and legitimate. But how
would we have preaching employed therein ? Infants
do not understand what one says to them ; they are
not capable of using reason; what is the use of in-
structing them ? We might indeed preach before
them, but it would be of no use ; for their under-
standing is not yet open to receive instruction, as
instruction ; it touches them not, nor can it be applied
to them, — what effect then can it have on them ?
The Baptism therefore would be vain, since it would be
without form, and therefore the form of Baptism is not
preaching. Luther answers * that infants do feel the
actual movements of faith, by preaching. This is to
violate and belie experience and also common sense.
Further, the greater part of the Baptisms which
are administered in the Catholic Church are adminis-
tered without any preaching : they are therefore not
true Baptisms, since the form is lacking to them.
Why then do you not rebaptize those who go from
our Church to yours ? It would be an anabaptism.
So then behold how, according to the rules of the
* Contra Coch. an. 1523.
ART. I. c. II.] Church Doctrines, &c. 355
faith, and principally according to Holy Scripture,
your ministers err, when they teach you that preach-
ing is the form of the Sacraments. But let us see
if what we believe be more conformable to the Holy
Word. We say that the form of the Sacraments
is a consecratory word, a word of benediction or
invocation. Is there anything so clear in Scripture ?
Tecicli all nations, hajptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Is not
this form — in the name of the Father — invocative ?
Certainly the same S. Peter who says to the Jews : *
Do jpenance and he baptized every one of yotc in the name
of Jesus Christ for the ^'emission of your sins, says
shortly afterwards to the lame man at the Beautiful
Gate of the Temple : In the name of Jesus Christ of
Nazarethj rise iip and walk. Who does not see that
this last prayer is invocative, and why not the first,
which is in substance the same ? So S. Paul does
not say : The chalice of preaching of which we preach
is it not the communication of the blood of Christ?
— but, on the contrary : The chalice of benediction
which we bless.f They consecrated it then and blessed
it. So at the Council of Laodicea (c. 25): "The
deacon may not bless the chalice.'* S. Denis calls
them consecratory ,J and in his description of the
Liturgy or Mass, he does not mention preaching, so
far was he from considering it to be the form of the
Eucharist. In the Council of Laodicea, where the
order of the Mass is spoken of, nothing is said of
preaching, which was, therefore, a thing of propriety,
but not of the essence of this mystery. Justin Martyr
{Apol. I. 65), describing the ancient office which the
* Acts ii. t I Cor. x. i6. + De Eccl. Hier. ult.
35^ The Catholic Controversy, [parthi.
Christians performed on Sundays, amongst other things
says that after the general prayers they offered bread,
wine, and water ; then the prelate made earnest prayers
and thanksgivings \e,ucliaTistias\ to God ; the people
gave thanks, saying, Amen : " these things being
consecrated, with the Eucharist, every one participates,
and the same things are given to the Deacons, to be
carried to the absent." * Several things are noticeable
here : water was mingled with the wine, they offered,
they consecrated, they carried it to the sick. But if our
reformers had been there, it would have been necessary
to carry the preaching to the sick, or nothing would
have been done. For as John Calvin says : t " The
simple explanation of the mystery to the people,
makes a dead element begin to be a sacrament." S.
Gregory of Nyssa says : J " I consider that now the
bread is sanctified by the Word of God ; " and — he is
speaking of the Sacrament of the Altar, — " we be-
lieve that it is changed into the body of the Word."
And afterwards he says that this change is made " in
virtue of the benediction." " How," says the great
S. Ambrose,^ " can that which is bread become the
body of Christ ? — by consecration : " and further on :
"It was not the body of Christ before consecration,
but, after the consecration, I tell thee it now is the
body of Christ ; " — and you may see him at great
length. But I reserve myself on this subject for
when we shall be treating of the holy Mass.
* We translate the Saint's quotation as it stands. In the text of
S. Justin the word eucharista is certainly used in a technical sense.
He speaks particularly of " the bread, wine, and water in which thanks-
giving (or eucharist) is made." [Tr.]
t In Ep. ad Eph. v. X Omt Catech. mag. cap. 37.
§ De Sac. iv. 14, 16.
&RT. Lc. III.] Church Doctrines y &c. 357
I would finish with this signal sentence of S.
Augustine : "^^ " Paul could preach the Lord Jesus
Christ by signs of three kinds ; in one way by his
tongue, in another by an Epistle, in a third by the
Sacrament of his body and blood: but neither his
tongue nor his ink, nor significant sounds uttered
by his tongue, nor the signs of letters traced on
parchments do we say to be the body and blood of
Christ, but that only which, taken from the fruits
of the earth and consecrated by mystic prayer, we
duly receive." And if S. Augustine says : t " Whence
such a power in water that touching the body it
should wash the heart, unless by the effect of the
word, not inasmuch as it is said but inasmuch as
it is believed : " — we say nothing different. For in
truth the words of benediction and sanctification with
which we form and perfect the Sacraments, have no
virtue save when uttered under the general intention
and belief of the Church. For if any one said them
without this intention, they would indeed be spoken, but
for nothing, because it is " not what is said but what
is believed," &c.
CHAPTER III.
OF THE INTENTION REQUIRED IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE SACRAMENTS.
I HAVE never been able to find any proof taken from
Scripture of the opinion which your preachers have
on this point. They say that though the minister
* De. Tiin. iii. + In Joan. Ixxx.
35^ The Catholic Controversy. [parthi.
may have no intention of effecting the Supper or
baptizing, but simply acts in mockery or in joke, yet
still, provided he does the exterior action of the
Sacrament, the Sacrament is completed.*
All this is said without reason given, without bring-
ing forward anything but certain consequences un-
supported by no word of God, mere quibbles. On
the contrary, the Council of Florence t and that of
Trent J declare that if any one says that at least the
intention of doing what the Church does is not
required in the ministers when they confer the
Sacraments, he is anathema. These are the words
of the Council of Trent. The Council does not say
that it is necessary to have the particular intention
of the Church (for otherwise Calvinists, who have no
intention in Baptism of taking away original sin,
would not baptize rightly since the Church has that
intention) but only the intention of doing in general
what the Church does when she baptizes, without
particularising or determining the what or the how.
Again, the Council does not say that it is neces-
sary to mean to do what the Church of Kome does,
but only in general what the Church does, without
particularising which is the true Church. Yea if a
man, thinking that the pretended Church of Geneva
was the true Church, should limit his intention to
the intention of the Church of Geneva, he would
indeed be in error if ever man was in error, in his
knowledge of the true Church ; but his intention
would be sufficient in this point, since, although it
would point to the idea of a counterfeit Church, still
* Luther in Ccvp. Bah. de Bapt ; Calv. in Ant. 7.
t lu lubtr. Arm. + Sess. vii. 11.
ART. I. am.] Church Doctrines, &c. 359
it would only have its real significance in the idea of
the true Church, and the error would only be material,
not, as our Doctors say, formal.
Further, it is not required that we have this inten-
tion actually, when we confer the Sacrament, but it
is enough that we can say with truth that we are
performing such and such ceremony, and saying such
and such word, — as pouring water, saying : I baptize
thee in the name of the Father, &c. — with the inten-
tion of doing what true Christians do, and what Our
Lord has commanded, although at the moment we
may not be attentive to this or thinking of it. As
it is enough to enable me to say, I am preaching for
the service of God and the salvation of souls, if
when I begin to get ready I have that intention,
although when I am in the pulpit I may think of
what I have to say and be keeping this in memory,
thinking no more of that first intention : or as it is
with one who has resolved to bestow a hundred
crowns for the love of God, then goes out of his
house to do it, and thinking of other things distributes
that sum ; for although he keep not his thoughts
actually addressed to God, yet it cannot be said that
his intention is not on God, by virtue of his first
determination, nor that he is not doing this work of
charity deliberately and intentionally. Such intention
at least is required, and also suffices, for the conferring
of the Sacraments.
Now that the proposition of the Council is made
clear, let us go on to see whether it is, like that of
our adversaries, without foundation in Scripture.
One cannot reasonably doubt but that to perform
the Lord's Supper, or Baptism, it is necessary to do
360 The Catholic Controversy, [part m.
what Our Lord has commanded to this end, and not
only to do it but to do it in virtue of this command-
ment and institution ; — for these actions might be
done in virtue of another commandment than Our
Lord's ; as, for instance, if a man were asleep and
baptized in a dream, or if he were drunk. The words
indeed would be there and the matter, but they would
have no power, as not proceeding from the command
of him who could render them vigorous and effective.
Just as not all that a judge says and writes are
judicial sentences, but only what he says as a judge.
Now how could one make a difference between
sacramental actions done in virtue of the command-
ment which makes them fertile, and these same actions
done for another end ? Questionless the difference
can only be in the intention with which one does
them. It is necessary then that not only should the
words be pronounced, but also that they should be
pronounced with the intention of obeying the com-
mand of Our Lord : — in the Supper, — Do this ; in
Baptism, — Baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. But, to speak
plainly, is not this command, do this, addressed
properly to the minister of the Sacrament ? Without
doubt. Now it is not said simply do this, but, do this
for a commemoration of me. How can one do this
sacred action in commemoration of Our Lord, without
having the intention of thereby doing what Our
Lord has commanded, or at least of doing what
Christians the disciples of Our Lord do ; in order
that if not immediately, at least by means of Christ-
tians or of the. Church, this action may be done in
commemoration of Our Lord ? I think it is impossible
ART. I. c. III.] Church Doctrines, &c. 361
to imagine that a man can perform the Supper in
commemoration of Our Lord if he have not the
intention of doing what Our Lord has commanded,
or at least of doing what those do who do it in
commemoration of Our Lord. It is then not enough
to do what Our Lord has commanded when he says
do this; but we must do it for the intention that
Our Lord has commanded ; that is, in commemoration
of him; if not with this intention in particular yet
with it in general, if not immediately yet at least
mediately, meaning to do what the Church does, and
she having the intention of doing what Our Lord has
done and commanded. So that one refers one's inten-
tion to that of the Spouse, which is accommodated to
that of the Beloved. In a similar way, Our Lord
does not say that we are to say these words, / baptize
theCy simply, but commanded that the whole action
of Baptism should be done in the name of the Father.
So that it is not enough to say in the name of the
Father^ but the washing or aspersion itself must be
done in the name of the Father, and this authority
must give life and power not only to the word but
also to the whole action of the Sacrament, which of
itself would have no supernatural virtue. Now how
can an action be done in the name of God which is
done in mockery of God ? In truth the action of
Baptism does not so much depend on the words that
it cannot be done with a power and an authority
quite contrary to the words, if the heart which is the
mover of words and action address it to a contrary
intention. Yea more, for these words in the name
of the Father, &c., can be said in the name of the
enemy of the Father ; as these words, in truth, can be,
362 The Catholic Controversy, [partih.
and often are, said in lying. If then Our Lord does
not simply command that we do the action of Baptism,
nor simply say the words, but that we do the action
and say the words in the name of the Father, &c. ; we
must have at least the general intention of performing
the Baptism in virtue of the command of Our Lord,
in his name, and for him. And as for absolution,
that the intention is required there is still more
expressly stated. WTiose sins you shall forgive they are
forgiven them."^ I leave this to their consideration.
And it is in this connection that S. Augustine
says : t " Whence is there such power in water that
touching the body it should wash the heart except by
the action of the word, not inasmuch as it is said but
inasmuch as it is believed ? " — that is, the words of
themselves being pronounced without any intention
or belief have no virtue, but being said with power
and faith, and according to the general intention of
the Church, they have this salutary effect. And if
it is found in history that some Baptisms given in
sport have been approved, we must not think it
strange, because one can do many things in play, and
yet have the intention of truly doing what one has
seen done. But we say that is done in sport which
is done out of season and indiscreetly, when not done
by malice or involuntarily.
[The following detached notes of the Saint bear
upon the matter of this Third Part. Tr.]
On the Episcopal blessing with the sign of the
cross we find in the life of S. Hilarion (fol. 29):
Besalutatis omnibus, manuque eis henedicens.
* John XX. 23. + See end of last chapter. [Tr.]
ART. II. iNTROD.] Cktcrck Doctrifies, &c, 363
On the intercession of Saints we must not forget
the saying of Luther, which he wrote to George Duke
of Saxony (an. 1526 apud Coch.) : Initio rogabo
'prceterea et certissime impetraho remissionem apud
Domimcm meum J. C, super omnibus quoecumque II.
Clem, vestra co7itra verbum ejus facit ac fecit. I ask
you, if this monk &c. [how much more men of
holiness might beseech God] ?
On the veneration of the Saints, or of the Pope,
that must not be forgotten which he said to the King
of England in a letter of the year 1525, found in
Cochlaeus in the acts of the year 26. Quare his
litteris prosterno me pedibus majestatis tuce quantum
possum humillime.
AETICLE II.
PURGATORY.
INTEODUCTION.
r^ '^•''■^^' h>,:.
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
364 The Catholic Controversy. [part hl
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 re-
ceived 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 appel-
lants, and to complain of the partiality of the judges,
leaving on one side for the present their incom-
petence ? We appeal then from the judges not in-
structed 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 condemna-
tion or salvation of the judges.
ART. II. c. I.] Church Doctrines, &c. 365
CHAPTEK 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 Eedeemer 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. Tribu-
lations 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 afflic-
tion Just men* 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 he cleansed. It is well known also that Bap-
tism 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 Purga-
tory for a place in which after this life the souls which
leave this world before they have been perfectly
cleansed from the stains which tliey have contracted —
since nothing can enter Paradise which is not pure
* Ecclus. xxvii.
366 The Catholic Controversy, [pabthl
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 othei
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 Bap-
tism, 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 speak-
ing, 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.
CHAPTEE 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 thia
AKT. IT. c. 11.] Church Doctrines, &c, 367
belief to all and against all, and it seems that the first
who impugned it was Aerius, an Arian heretic, as
S. Epiphanius testifies (Hser. 75), and S. Augustine
(Hser. 53), and Socrates (ii. 35) — about twelve hun-
dred years ago. Afterwards came certain persons
who called themselves Apostolus, in the time of S.
Bernard. Then the Petrobusians, about five hun-
dred 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 disjnttatione Lipsicd, says that he
firmly believed, yea certainly knew, that there was a
Purgatory, still he afterwards retracted this in the book,
J)e Abrogandd Missd Frivatd. 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
cime, 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
368 The Catholic Controversy, [partih.
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, (i.) 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 look-
ing at things through the medium of passion, to think
attentively over the soundness of our proofs, and to
ART. II. c. III.] Church Doctrines, &c, 369
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 heartj^^ And then I doubt not
that such men will return into the bosom of their
grandmother the Church Catholic.
CHAPTEK 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 can-
not allow any puigation, 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.
(i.) In Psalm Ixv. 12: We have passed through
fire and water, and thou hast brought us out into a
refreshment. This place is brought in proof of Pur-
gatory by Origen (Hom. 25 m 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
* Ps. cxviii. 34.
III. 2 A
37o The CatJiolic Controversy. [paktth.
fha hlood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof by the
sjnrit of judgment and the spirit of hurning. This
purgation made in the spirit of judgment and of burn-
ing 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 pre-
ceding, 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, hecause I am fallen : 1
shall arise, when I sit in darkness, the Lord is my light.
I will hear the wrath of the Lord, hecause I have sinned
against him, until he judge my cause and execute judg-
ment for me : he will hring me forth into the light, I
shall hehold 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 — luhen I shall sit in darkness . . .
I will hear 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 hy the hlood
of 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
ART. II. o. m.] Church Doctrines, &c, 37 ^
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. 25), 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. Eor 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. Irenseus in this connection, in
chapter 29 of Book V., says that because the militant
Church is then to mount up to the heavenly palace
372 The Catholic Controversy, [parthl
of the Spou>se, and will no longer have time for pur-*
gatioD, her faults and stains will there and then be
purged away by this fire which will precede the judg-
ment.
(6.) I leave on one side the passage of Psalm xxxvii
— 0 Lord, rebuke me not in thine indignation nor
chastise me in thy wrath: — which S. Augustine inter-
prets 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.
CHAPTEK IV.
OF ANOTHER PASSAGE OUT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT,
TO THIS EFFECT.
In the ist Corinthians (iii. 13, 14, 15): The day of
the Lord shall declare {every mans work), because it shall
he revealed by fire^ and the fire shall try every mans
work, of what sort it is. If any man's ivork abide
which he hath built thereupon^ he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he
himself shall be saved, yet 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
* Corri'pi ; i.e., to be corrected by chastisement. [Tr.]
ART. II. c. iv.j Church Doctrmes, &c. 373
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 he saved ^ yet so as hyjire. The founda-
tion 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 hut
that which is laid ; which is Christ Jestcs. The archi-
tects 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 he revealed hy fire, he suffi-
ciently shows that it is the last day of judgment; [as]
in the Second to the Thessalonians i. : ivhen the Lord
Jesics shall he revealed from heaven ivith the angels of
his power, in aflame of fire ; and in Psalm xcvi. : fire
shall go hefore his face. The fire by which the archi-
tect is saved — he himself shall he saved yet so as hy
fire — can only be understood of the fire of Purgatory*
374 ^-^^ Catholic Co7it7^oversy. [partih.
For when the Apostle says lu shall he saved, he ex-
cludes the fire of hell in which no one can be saved ;
and when he says he shall he saved hy 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 con-
sent 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, Ecumeuius on this passage (where
he brings forward S. Basil), and Theodoret quoted by
S. Thomas in the ist Opusculum contra errores Grcec.
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 rurgatory,
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
ART. II. c. IV.] Church Doctrines, &c. 375
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 sm 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 hy fire, but as hy fire, and that therefore
we cannot conclude there is a Purgatorial fire, I
answer that there is a true similitude in this passage.
Por 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 con-
clude 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 much then as to the passages of Scripture by
which we can learn that after this life there are a
time and a place of purgation.
Zl^ The Catholic Controversy. [part m
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 Jeru-
salem 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 luholcsovie thought
to pray for the dead, that they may he 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 (c. 47), 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 1 8th 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 Doctrind
ART. II. c. v.] Church Doctrines, &c, 2>77
Christiand, 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 deny-
ing 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 may
he 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 / 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 luoidd 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
^yS The Catholic Controversy, [parthi.
the belief in the immortality of the soul and the belief
in the resurrection of bodies were so connected to-
gether that he who denied one denied the other ; — to
show that Judas Machabseus 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 followinsr
occurs in the i st of Corinthians, chapter xv. : What
doth it 'profit me if the dead rise not again ? Let its eat
and drink, for to-morrow ive 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 immor-
tality 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 recep-
tion of the passage which we have just adduced. In
Tobias, chap. iv. : Zay out thy hread and thy wine on the
hurial 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
ART. III. c. v.] Church Doctrines^ &c. 379
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 3 2d 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 ist Kings, and in the ist chapter of
2d 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 2d 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 ist
Book of Kings.* 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.
* In Sam. L. iv. c. lo.
380 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi.
And of this custom S. Paul speaks quite clearly
in the 1st of Corinthians, chap xv., appealing to it
as praiseworthy and right. ^Vllat shall they do loho
are ha-ptized 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 : / have a
baptism wherewith I ain to be baptized, and how am 1
straitened until it be accomplished ! — and in S. Mark,
chap X., he says : Can yoih drink of the chalice that 1
drink of ; or be bap)tized with the baptism wherewithal
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 sitperjiuous 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 m^ ans 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
ART. III. 0. v.] Church Doctrines, &c, 381
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 : RemeTriber me %vhen 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.
382 The Catholic Co7itroversy. [parthl
CHAPTER VI.
OF CERTAIN OTHER PLACES OF 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 liell nor in heaven, there-
fore 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 ivhich cannot he forgiven
either in this world or in the next : therefore tliere 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 conclu-
sion : 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 ivorld
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
ART. III. c. VI.] Chtirch Doctrines, &c, 383
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
[improperly], since in the other world they might be
washed 1 — and indeed he does say : thoio shalt not
loash 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 inter-
pretations 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 {Dialog, lib. iv., 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.
384 The Catholic Controversy. [parthi.
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 he cast into prison. Amen, I say to thee, thou shalt
not go out from thence till thoic 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 judg-
ment 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 theiice 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
(i.) we find from most ancient Fathers that it is in
Purgatory : Tertullian (Lib. de Animd c. x.), Cyprian
(Epist., lib. iv. 2), Origen (Hom. 35 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 ohitu Humberti). (2.) When it is
ABT. III. c. VI.] Chtcrch Doctrines, &c. 385
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 shalt
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 Eedeemer, the penalty to
"vvhich 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 5 th of S. Matthew, where he says : He who is
angry with his brother shall he guilty of the jiidgment ;
and he who shall say to his brother, Raca, shall he guilty
of the council ; hut he who shall say, thou fool, shall he
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
III. 2 B
386 The Catholic Controversy, [parthl
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 1 6th 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
ART. III. c. VII.] Church Doctnnes, &c. 2>^y
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 CON-
SEQUENCES IS DEDUCED THE TRUTH OF PURGATORY.
S. Paul to the Philippians (ii.) says these words : That
in the name of Jesus every knee may how, 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 Eedeemer.
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 : JVho shall con-
fess 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. 1 6) : But to the sinner God hath
said : Why dost thou declare my justices and take my
covenant in thy mouth t For if God will receive no
praise from the obstinate sinner, how should he permit
388 The Catholic Controversy, [part m.
the wretched damned to undertake this holy office.
S. Augustine makes great account of this place for this
purpose in the 1 2th 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 offend 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
ART. III. c. VIII.] Church Doctrines, &c. 389
the Council of Braga (cc. 34, 39); in France, at the
Council of Chalons (de cons. d. 2, Can. visum est), and
at the 2d 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. 6g).
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 commemo-
ration 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
I st 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 he
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 where--
with shall it he 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
390 The Catholic Controversy. [part in.
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.
CHAPTEE 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 JSTyssen, Ter-
tullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Origen,
Boethius, Hilary, — that is, all antiquity as far back as
1 200 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 y
of Genebrard in his Chronology, of Bellarmine in his
Controversy on Purgatory, of Stapleton in his Promp-
tuary. But particularly let those who would see at
ART. III. c. IX.] Church Doctrines y &c, 391
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, S 10),
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 be-
lieved 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 pi ayers
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 Purga-
tory. 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
392 The Catholic Controversy. [part m.
but the quality of it ; as will never be denied by those
who will look how he speaks of it in chapters i6 and
24 of the same Book of the de Civitate^ and in the work
De Curd Pro Mortins Agendd, and a thousand other
places. See then how we are in the track of the
holy and ancient Fathers, as to this article of Purga-
tory.
CHAPTEE 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.) : Wliosoevcr is angry
with his hrother shall he guilty of the judgment ; and
whosoever shall say to his hrother, Baca, shall he guilty
of the council ; and whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall
he 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
ABT. III. 0. X.] Church Doctrines, &c. 393
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
%holl 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 tem-
poral puuisliment, and when his soul is purged there-
by 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 2d of Kings, chap, xii., the sin is
forgiven to David, the Prophet saying to him: The
Lord hath also taken away thy sin : 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.
III. 2 C
3 5282 00078 8771
DATE DUE
Wim ? ^ ^Q(
c
MAR 1
' 1^99
-
—
__
~
■~"
-
1
DEMCO 13829810
STACKS BT1100.F7 1909x
Francis,
The Catholic controversy
3 5282 00078 8771
uivSuo^tSh.*