If the advice which St. John^[n0075] gives to Christians, not to believe every spirit, was ever necessary, it is so now more than ever, when so many different and contrary 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 direction, each one after its humor. 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 vapor 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 miserable 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, 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. O 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 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 fundamental 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 proposes 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 proper application can have its source only in God, the living and original fountain of all truth. Let us proceed.

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: (1) by his Word as by a formal rule and (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 colors 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 herself 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 same Church expresses herself and speaks by her head-minister.^[n0076] And these are four explaining and applying 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 favors, 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 principles, and starting from one same author, cannot be contrary to each other.

Here then are eight rules of faith: Scripture, tradition, 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 application, the seventh is extraordinary, and the eighth negative. Or, he who would reduce all these rules to 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, 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 position, 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.

I well know, thank God, that tradition was before all Scripture, since a good part of Scripture itself is only tradition reduced to writing, with an infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. But, since the authority of Scripture is more easily received by the reformers than that of tradition, I begin with the former in order to get a better entrance for my argument.

Holy Scripture is in such sort the rule of the Christian faith that we are obliged by every kind of obligation to believe most exactly all that it contains and not to believe anything which may be ever so little contrary to it, for if Our Lord himself has sent the Jews to it^[n0077] to strengthen their faith, it must be a most safe standard. The Sadducees erred because they did not understand the Scriptures;^[n0078] they would have done better to attend to them, as to a light shin ing in a dark place, according to the advice of S. Peter,^[n0079] who having himself heard the voice of the Father in the transfiguration of the Son, bases himself more firmly on the testimony of the prophets than on this experience. When God says to Josue, Let not the book of this law depart from thy mouth,^[n0080] he shows clearly that he willed him to have it always in his mind and to let no persuasion enter which should be contrary to it. But I am losing time; this disputation would be needful against freethinkers (les Libertins). We are agreed on this point and those who are so mad as to contradict it can only rest their contradiction on the Scripture itself, contradicting themselves before contradicting the Scripture, using it in the very protestation which they make that they will not use it.

On this point, again, I will scarcely delay. The Holy Scripture is called the Book of the Old and of the New Testament. When a notary has drawn a contract or other deed, when a testament is confirmed by the death of the testator, there must not be added, withdrawn, or altered, one single word under penalty of falsification. Are not the Holy Scriptures the true testament of the eternal God, drawn by the notaries deputed for this purpose, duly sealed and signed with his blood, confirmed by death? Being such, how can we alter even the smallest point without impiety? “A testament,” says the great Ulpian, “is a just expression of our will as to what we would have done after our death.”^[n0081] 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 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,^[n0082] (I speak after the manner of man), yet a man’s testament, if it be confirmed, no man despiseth, nor addeth to it. And to show how important it is to learn the Scripture in its exactness he gives an example. To Abraham were the promises made, and to his seed. He says not and to his seeds as of many, but as of one; and to thy seed, who is Christ. See, I beg you, how the change from singular to plural would have spoilt the mysterious meaning of this word.

The Ephrathites [Ephraimites] said Sibolleth, not forgetting a single letter, but because they did not pronounce it thickly enough, the Galaadites slew them at the fords of Jordan.^[n0083] The simple difference of pronunciation in speaking, and in writing the mere transposition of one single point on the letter scin caused the ambiguity, and changing the janin into semol, instead of an ear of wheat expressed a weight or a burden. Whosoever alters or adds the slightest accent in the Scripture is a sacrilegious man and deserves the death of him who dares to mingle the profane with the sacred.

The Arians, as S. Augustine tells us,^[n0084] corrupted this sentence of S. John i. 1: In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum, by simply changing a point. For they read it thus: Et verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat. Verbum hoc, &c., instead of Deus erat verbum. Hoc erat in principio apud Deum. They placed the full stop after the erat, instead of after the verbum. They so acted for fear of having to grant that the Word was God; so little is required to change the sense of God’s Word. When one is handling glass beads, if two or three are lost, it is a small matter, but if they were oriental pearls the loss would be great. The better the wine the more it suffers from the mixture of a foreign flavor and the exquisite symmetry of a great picture will not bear the admixture of new colors. Such is the conscientiousness with which we ought to regard and handle the sacred deposit of the Scriptures.

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, 150 Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachy, two of Machabees, first and second; of the New Testament, four Gospels, S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, S. John, the Acts of the Apostles by S. Luke, fourteen Epistles of S. Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews—two of S. Peter, three of S. John, one of S. James, one of S. Jude, and the Apocalypse. The same books were received at the Council of Florence, and long before that, at the third Council of Carthage about 1,200 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 afterward they were placed with those of the first rank.

Those of the first rank in the Old Testament are the five of Moses, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras and Nehemias, Job, 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, the four greater Prophets, the 12 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.^[n0085] 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 14th chapter), Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees 1 and 2. And as to these there is a great probability in the opinion of the same Doctor Genebrard^[n0086] that in the meeting which was held at Jerusalem to send the 72 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 afterward, 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 16th chapter of S. Mark, as S. Jerome says, and S. Luke’s history of the bloody sweat of Our Lord in the garden of olives, according to the same S. Jerome; in the eighth chapter of S. John there has been a doubt concerning the history of the woman taken in adultery, or at least some suspect that it has been doubted, and concerning verse seven of the last chapter of S. John’s First Epistle. These are, as far as we know, the books and parts of books concerning which it appears there was anciently some doubt. And these were not of undoubted authority in the Church at first, but as time went on they were at length recognized 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 received at the Council of Laodicea^[n0087] (which was afterward approved in the sixth general Council^[n0088]), 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 afterward at the third Council of Carthage^[n0089] (at which S. Augustine assisted, and which was confirmed in the sixth general Council in Trullo), besides those of the second rank just mentioned, there were received into the canon, as of full authority, Tobias, Judith, First and Second Machabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Apocalypse. But of all those of the second rank, the book of Judith was first received and acknowledged as divine, in the first General Council of Nice, as S. Jerome witnesses in his preface to this book. Such is the way in which the two ranks were brought together into one, and ever made of equal authority in the Church of God, but progressively and with succession, as a beautiful morning rising, which little by little lights up our hemisphere.

Thus was drawn up in the Council of Carthage, that same ancient list of the canonical books which has ever since been in the Catholic Church and which was confirmed in the sixth general Council, at the great Council of Florence 160 years ago for the union of the Armenians by the whole Church both Greek and Latin, in our age by the Council of Trent, and which was followed by S. Augustine.^[n0090] Before the Council of Carthage they were not all received as canonical by any decree of the general church. I had almost forgotten to say that you must not therefore make a difficulty against what I have just laid down because Baruch is not quoted by name in the Council of Carthage. For since Baruch was secretary of Jeremias, the book of Baruch was reckoned by the ancients as an accessory or appendix of Jeremias, being comprised under this, as that excellent theologian Bellarmine proves in his Controversies. But it is enough for me to have said thus: my brief outline is not obliged to dwell on every particular. In a word, all these books, whether of first or second rank, with all the parts, are equally certain, sacred and canonical, and are received in the Catholic Church.

Such are the sacred and canonical books which the Church has unanimously received and acknowledged during 1,200 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 Robert, otherwise Olivetanus, a relation and friend of Calvin, and again from the newer preface placed to the same books by the professors and pretended pastors of the Church of Geneva, 1588.

(1) They are not found either in Hebrew or Chaldaic, in which languages they (except perhaps the Book of Wisdom) were originally written. Therefore, it would be very difficult to restore them. (2) They are not received as legitimate by the Jews. (3) Nor by the whole Church. (4). S. Jerome says that they are not considered proper for corroborating the authority of Ecclesiastical doctrines. (5) Canon Law condemns them, (6) as does also the Gloss, which says they are read, but not generally, as if to say that they are not approved generally everywhere. (7) They have been corrupted and falsified, as Eusebius says,^[n0091] (8) notably the Machabees, (9) and particularly the Second of Machabees, which S. Jerome says he did not find in Hebrew. Such are the reasons of Olivetanus. (10) “There are in them many false things,” says the new preface. Let us now see what these fine researches are worth.

(1) And as to the first, are you unwilling to receive these books because they are not in Hebrew or Chaldaic? Receive Tobias then, for S. Jerome attests that he translates it from Chaldaic into Latin, in the Epistle which you yourselves quote,^[n0092] 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 afterward. 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 ground Tobias, Judith, the first of Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, which are written either in Hebrew or Chaldaic. But let us now speak in defense 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 saying of jurisconsults: “We blush to speak without a law.” Do you not consider that the controversy about the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures is one of the most important in the sphere of religion? Well then, either remain confounded, or else produce the Holy Scripture for the negative which you maintain. The Holy Spirit certainly declares himself as well in Greek as in Chaldaic. There would be, you say, great difficulty in restoring them, since we do not possess them in their original language, and it is this which troubles you. But, for God’s sake, tell me who told you that they were lost, corrupted or altered, so as to need restoration? You take for granted, perhaps, that those who have translated them from the originals have translated badly, and you would have the original to compare them and judge them. Make your meaning clear then, and say that they are therefore apocryphal because you cannot yourselves be the translators of them from the original and cannot trust the judgment of the translator. So there is to be nothing certain except what you have had the control of. Show me this rule of certitude in the Scripture. Further, are you fully assured that you have the Hebrew texts of the books of the first rank, as pure and exact as they were in the time of the Apostles and of the Seventy? Beware of errors. You certainly do not 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 exclaims,^[n0093] “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.^[n0094] The Council in Trullo the sixth general, that of Florence, and 100 ancient authors are [witnesses] thereto. I name S. Jerome, who witnesses for the book of Judith that it was received in the first Council [of Nice]. Perhaps you would say that of old time some Catholics doubted of their authority. This is clear from the division which I have made earlier. But does their doubt then make it impossible for their successors to come to a conclusion? 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^[n0095] and S. Gregory Nazianzen;^[n0096] 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 humor takes you that you here bring forward the Church, whose authority you hold to be 100 times more uncertain than these books themselves and which you say to have been erring, inconstant, yea apocryphal, if apocryphal means hidden? You only prize it to despise it, and to make it appear inconstant, now recognizing, now rejecting these books. But there is a great difference between doubting whether a thing is to be accepted and 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.

(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 apocryphal meant the having no certain author, and therefore 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 Scripture have been corrupted by the ancient enemies of the Church, but by the providence of God they have remained free and pure in the Church’s hands, as a sacred deposit, and they have never been able to spoil so many copies as that there should not remain enough to restore the others.

(8) But you 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 assertion I will return your pass by a simple negation.

(9) S. Jerome, you say, could not find the Second in Hebrew, and although it is true that it is only as it were a letter which [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 commentary sent for the consolation of the Jews who were in Egypt, was written in Greek rather than in Hebrew.

(10) It remains for the new preachers to point out those falsehoods of which they accuse these books; which they will in truth never do. But I see them coming, bringing forward the intercession of Saints, prayer for the dead, free will, the honoring 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 humor? Because you will not believe what the books teach, you condemn it; why do you not rather condemn your presumption which is incredulous to their teaching?

Here now, I think, are all your reasons scattered to the winds, and you can bring no more. But we may well say: if it be thus lawful indifferently to reject or make doubtful the authority of those Scriptures, about which there was formerly a doubt, though the Church has now decided, it will be necessary to reject or to doubt of a great part of the Old and the New Testament. It is then no little gain to the enemy of Christianity, to have at one stroke scratched out of the Holy Scripture so many noble parts. Let us proceed.

SECOND VIOLATION OF THE SCRIPTURES: BY THE RULE WHICH THESE REFORMERS BRING FORWARD TO DISTINGUISH THE SACRED BOOKS FROM THE OTHERS AND OF SOME SMALLER PARTS THEY CUT OFF FROM THEM ACCORDING TO THIS RULE .

The crafty merchant keeps out the worst articles of his stock to offer first to buyers, to try if he can get rid of them and sell them to some simpleton. The reasons which these reformers have advanced in the preceding chapter are but tricks, as we have seen, which are used only as it were for amusement, to try whether some simple and weak brain will be content with them, and in reality, when one comes to the grapple, they confess that not the authority of the Church, nor of S. Jerome, nor of the gloss, nor of the Hebrew, is cause sufficient to receive or reject any Scripture. The following is their protestation of faith presented to the King of France by the French pretended reformers. After having placed on the list, in the third article, the books they are willing to receive, they write thus in the fourth article: “We know these books to be canonical and a most safe rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the Church, as by the testimony and interior persuasion of the Holy Spirit, which gives us to discern them from the other ecclesiastical books.” Quitting 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 common accord and consent of the Church, for this common accord has placed on the canon Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees, as much as and as early as the Apocalypse, and yet they choose to receive this and to reject those. Judith, made authoritative by the grand and irreproachable Council of Nice, is blotted out by these reformers. They have reason then to confess that in the reception of canonical books, they do not accept the accord and consent of the Church, which was never greater or more solemn than in that first Council.

But for God’s sake notice the trick. “We know,” say they, “these books to be canonical, not so much by the common consent and accord of the Church.” To hear them speak, would you not say that at least to some extent they let themselves be guided by the Church? Their speech is not sincere: it seems as if they did not 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 or by interior persuasion, since the common accord of the Church has neither value nor place in the matter? It is their custom when they would bring forward some strange opinion not to speak clearly and frankly, in order to give the reader a better impression.

And now let us look at the rule they have for distinguishing the canonical books from the other 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 something that passes in the interior of the soul, which no one sees, nobody knows save the soul itself and its Creator!

(1) Show me clearly that when you tell me that such and such an inspiration exists in your conscience, you are not telling a lie. You say that you feel this persuasion within you. But why am I bound to believe you? Is your word so powerful that I am forced under its authority to believe that you think and feel what you say. I am willing to hold you as good people enough, but when there is question of the foundations of my faith, as of receiving or rejecting the Ecclesiastical Scriptures, I find neither your ideas nor your words steady enough to serve me as a base.

(2) Show me clearly that these inspirations and persuasions that you pretend to have are of the Holy Spirit. Who knows not that the spirit of darkness very often appears in clothing of light?

(3) Does this spirit grant his persuasions indifferently to 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 others among yourselves? If it is to some in particular, show them me, I beg you, and why to these rather than to others? What mark will you give me to know them and to pick them out from the crowd of the rest of men? Must I believe in the first who shall say, here you are? This would be to put ourselves too much at a venture and at the mercy of deceivers. Show me then some infallible rule to recognize these inspired ones, these persuaded ones, or else permit me to credit none of them.

(4) But, in conscience, do you think that the interior persuasion is a sufficient means to distinguish the Holy Scriptures, and put the nations out of doubt? How comes it then that Luther throws off the Epistle of S. James, which Calvin receives? Try to harmonize, I pray you, this spirit and his persuasions, who persuades the one to reject what he persuades the other to receive. You will say, perhaps, that Luther is mistaken. He will say as much of you. Which is to be believed? Luther ridicules Ecclesiastes, he considers Job a fable. Will you oppose him your persuasion? He will oppose you his. So this spirit, divided against himself, will leave you no other conclusion except to grow thoroughly obstinate, each in his own opinion.

(5) Then what reason is there that the Holy Spirit should give inspirations as to what every one must believe to nobodies, to Luther, to Calvin, they having abandoned without any such inspiration the Councils and the entire Church. We do not deny, to speak clearly, but that the knowledge of the true sacred books is a gift of the Holy Spirit, but we say that the Holy Spirit gives it to private individuals through the medium of the Church. Indeed if God had 1,000 times revealed a thing to a private person we should not be obliged to believe it unless he stamped it so clearly that we could no longer call its validity in question. But we see nothing of this among your reformers. In a word, it is to the Church General that the Holy Spirit immediately addresses his inspirations and persuasions, then, by the preaching of the Church, he communicates them to private persons. It is the spouse in whom the milk is produced, then the children suck it from her breasts. But you would have it, on the contrary, that God inspires private persons, and by these means the Church, that the children receive the milk and the mother is nourished at their breasts—an absurdity.

Now if the Scripture is not violated and its majesty offended by the setting up of these interior and private inspirations, it never was nor will be violated. For by this means the door is open to every one to receive or reject of the Scriptures what shall seem good to him. Why shall one allow Calvin to cut off Wisdom or the Machabees and not Luther to remove the Epistle of S. James or the Apocalypse, or Castalio the Canticle of Canticles, or the Anabaptists the Gospel of S. Mark, or another person Genesis and Exodus? If all protest that they have interior revelation why shall we believe one rather than another, so that this rule supposed to be sacred on account of the Holy Spirit, will be violated by the audacity of every deceiver.

Recognizes, I pray you, the stratagem. They have taken away all authority from tradition, the Church, the Councils, what more remains? The Scripture. The enemy is crafty; if he would take all away at one stroke he would cause alarm. He starts a certain and infallible method of getting rid of it bit by bit and very gradually, that is, this idea of interior inspiration, by which everybody can receive or reject what seems good to him. And in fact consider a little how the process works itself out. Calvin removes and erases from the canon Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Machabees, Luther takes away the Epistle of S. James, of S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the Second and Third of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, and holds Job a fable. In Daniel, Calvin has erased the Canticle of the Three Children, the history of Susanna and that of the dragon of Bel, also a great part of Esther. In Exodus, at Geneva and elsewhere among these reformers, they have cut out the 22nd verse of the second chapter, which is of such weight that neither the Seventy nor the other translators would ever have written it if it had not been in the original. Beza casts a doubt over the history of the adulteress in the Gospel of S. John (S. Augustine warns us that already the enemies of Christianity had erased it from their books but not from all, as S. Jerome says). In the mysterious words of the Eucharist, do they not try to overthrow the authority of those words: Which shall be shed for you, because the Greek text^[n0097] clearly shows that what was in the chalice was not wine, but the blood of our Savior? As if one were to say in French: Ceci est la coupe du nouveau Testament en mon sang, laquelle sera respandüe pour vous. For in this way of speaking that which is in the cup must be the true blood, not the wine; since the wine has not been shed for us but the blood, and the cup cannot be poured out except by reason of what it contains. What is the knife with which one has made so many amputations? This tenet of private inspiration. What is it that makes you reformers so bold to cut away one this piece, another that, and the other something else? The pretext of these interior persuasions of the Spirit, which makes them supreme each in his own idea, in judging as to the validity or invalidity of the Scriptures. On the contrary, gentlemen, S. Augustine protests,^[n0098] “For my part, I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me thereto.” And elsewhere,^[n0099] “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.

But here is the difficulty. If these books were not from the beginning of undoubted authority in the Church, who can give them this authority? In truth the Church cannot give truth or certitude to the Scripture or make a book canonical if it were not so but the Church can make a book known as canonical and make us certain of its certitude and is fully able to declare that a book is canonical which is not held as such by every one and thus to give it credit in Christendom, not changing the substance of the book which of itself was canonical, but changing the persuasion of Christians, making it quite assured where previously it had not been so.

But how can the Church herself define that a book is canonical, for she is no longer guided by new revelations but by the old Apostolic ones, of which she has infallibility of interpretation? And if the Ancients have not had the revelation of the authority of a book, how then can she know it? She considers the testimony of antiquity, the conformity which this book has with the others which are received and the general relish which the Christian people find in it. For as we can know what is a proper and wholesome food for animals when we see them fond of it and feed on it with advantage, so, when the Church sees that the Christian people heartily relishes a book as canonical and gains good from it, she may know that it is a fit and wholesome meat for Christian souls, and as when we would know whether one wine is of the same vintage as another we compare them, observing whether the color, the smell and the taste are alike in the two, so when the Church has properly decided that a book has a taste, color 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 Scriptures into her charge and say that it is on this account S. Paul calls her the pillar and ground of the truth.^[n0100] And how would she guard them if she could not know and separate them from the mixture of other books? And how important is it for the Church that she should be able to know in proper time and season which Scriptures is holy and which not, for if she received such and such Scripture as holy and it was not, she would lead us into superstition, and if she refused the honor 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 hath seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us,^[n0101] 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 earlier]: “I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church moved me” and “We receive the New and the Old Testament in that number of books which the authority of the Holy Catholic Church determines.” Truly we should be very ill assured if we were to rest our faith on these particular interior inspirations, of which we only know that they exist or ever did exist, by the testimony of some private persons. And granted that they are or have been, we do not know whether they are from the false or of the true spirit, and supposing they are of the true spirit, we do not know whether they who relate them, relate them faithfully or not, since they have no mark of infallibility whatever. We should deserve to be wrecked if we were to cast ourselves out of the ship of the public judgment of the Church, to sail in the miserable skiff of these new discordant private inspirations. Our faith would not be Catholic but private.

But before I quit this subject, I pray you, reformers, tell me whence you have taken the canon of the Scriptures which you follow? You have not taken it 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 1,500 years he has disclosed to certain private persons the list of the true Scriptures? For our part we follow exactly the list of the Council of Laodicea, with the addition made at the Councils of 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 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.

Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardor of a holy zeal and from entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry, Scripture, Scripture, have despised degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! O ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the sacred body of the Bibles? You take away Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the Machabees, why do you thus dismember the Holy Scripture? Who has told you that they are not sacred? There was some doubt about them in the ancient Church but was there not doubt in the ancient Church about Esther, the Epistle to the Hebrews, those of S. James and S. Jude, the Second of S. Peter, the two last of S. John and especially of the Apocalypse? Why do you not also erase these as you have done those? Acknowledge honestly that what you have done in this has only been in order to contradict the Church. You were angry at seeing in the Machabees the intercession of Saints and prayers for the departed: Ecclesiasticus stung you in that it bore witness to free will and the honor of relics. Rather than do violence to your notions, adjusting them to the Scriptures, you have violated the Scriptures to accommodate them to your notions; you have cut off the holy Word to avoid cutting off your fancies. How will you ever cleanse yourselves from this sacrilege? Have you degraded the Machabees, Ecclesiasticus, Tobias and the rest because some of the Ancients have doubted of their authority? Why then do you receive the other books, about which there has been as much doubt as about these? What can you oppose to them except that their doctrine is hard for you to accept? Open your heart to faith and you will easily receive that which your unbelief shuts out from you. Because you do not will to believe what they teach, you condemn them; rather, condemn your presumption and receive the Scripture. I would chiefly lay stress on the authority of those books which exercise you the most. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 5, etc.), Cyprian (Ep. lxv), Ambrose (de fide iv), Augustine (Ep. ad Oros. contra Prisc.) and the rest of the fathers consider Ecclesiasticus canonical. S. Cyprian (Serm. de op et Eleem.), S. Ambrose (lib. de Tobiâ, i), S. Basil (de avar.), honor Tobias as Holy Scripture. S. Cyprian again (de exhort. mar.), S. Gregory Nazianzen (orat. de Mach.), S. Ambrose (de Jacob et vit beat. x, xi), believed the same of the Machabees. S. Augustine protests that “it is the Catholic Church which holds the Books of Machabees as canonical, not the Jews.” What will you say to this? That the Jews had them not in their catalogues? S. Augustine acknowledges it, but are you Jews or Christians? If you would be called Christians, be satisfied that the Christian Church receives them. Is the light of the Holy Spirit extinguished with the synagogue? Had not Our Lord and the Apostles as much power as the synagogue? Although the Church has not taken authority for her books from the mouth of the Scribes and Pharisees, will it not suffice that she has taken it from the testimony of the Apostles? Now we must not think that the ancient Church and these most ancient doctors would have had the boldness to rank these books as canonical, if they had not had some direction by the tradition of the Apostles and their disciples who could know in what rank the Master himself held them: unless, to excuse our imaginations, we are to accuse of profanation, and of sacrilege, such holy and grave doctors as these, and the whole ancient Church. I say the ancient Church, because the Council of Carthage, Gelasius in the decree de libris 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 Epistle to the Hebrews? But I return to you, gentlemen of Thonon, who have hitherto given ear to such men; I beseech you, let us say in conscience, is there any likelihood that Calvin knows better what grounds they had who anciently doubted of these books, and what grounds they who doubted not than the Bishops and Councils of these days? And still, all things well considered, antiquity received them; what do we allege to the contrary? Oh, if it were lawful for men, in order to raise their opinions on horseback, to use the Scripture as stirrups, to lengthen and shorten them, each one to his own size, where, I beg you, should we be? Do you not perceive the stratagem? All authority is taken away from tradition, the Church, the Councils, the pastors: what further remains? The Scripture. The enemy is crafty. If he would tear it all away at once he would cause an alarm; he takes away a great part of it in the very beginning, then first one piece, then the other, at last he will have you stripped entirely, without Scripture and without Word of God.

Calvin takes away seven books of the Scripture:^[n0103] Baruch, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and the Machabees; Luther has removed the Epistle of S. James, that of S. Jude, the second of S. Peter, the second and third of S. John, the Epistle to the Hebrews; he ridicules Ecclesiastes, he holds Job as a fable. Reconcile, I pray you, this false spirit, who takes away from Luther’s brain what he puts back in that of Calvin. Does this seem to you a trifling discord between these two evangelists? You will say you do not hold Luther’s intelligence in great account; his party thinks no better of that of Calvin. But see the progress of your fine church, how she ever pushes on further. Calvin had removed seven books, she has further thrown out the eighth, that of Esther:^[n0104] 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 be shed for you, because the Greek text (το ὑπερ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον) clearly shows that what was in the chalice was not wine, but the true blood of Our Lord? As if one were to say in French, Cecy est la coupe du Nouveau Testament, en mon sang, laquelle sera respandue pour vous: this is the chalice, the New Testament in my blood, which (chalice) shall be shed for you? For in this way of speaking one sees clearly that what is in the cup must be the blood, not wine, since the wine has not been shed for us, but the blood. In the Epistle of S. John, have they not taken away these noble words: every spirit who dissolveth Jesus is not of God (iv. 3)? What say you, gentlemen? If your church continues in this liberty of conscience, making no scruple to take away what she pleases, soon the Scripture will fail you, and you will have to be satisfied with the Institutes of Calvin, which must indeed have I know not what excellence, since they censure the Scriptures themselves!

Shall I say further this word? Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and violated by its translations. In order that the sectaries of this age may altogether pervert this first and most holy rule of our faith, they have not been satisfied with shortening it or with getting rid of so many beautiful parts, but they have turned and turned it about, each one as he chose, and instead of adjusting their ideas by this rule they have adopted it to the square of their own greater or less sufficiency. The Church had universally received (more than 1,000 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,^[n0105] which has so led astray these refurbishers of old opinions formerly current, that everybody has wanted to drag, one to this side, one to that, and always according to the inclination of his own judgment, this holy and sacred Scripture of God. Herein who sees not the profanation of this sacred vase of the holy letter, in which was preserved the precious balm of the Evangelical doctrine? For would it not have been a profanation of the Ark of the Covenant to maintain that everybody might seize it, carry it home, take it all to pieces and then give it what form he liked provided that it had some semblance of an ark? And what but this is it to maintain that one may take the Scriptures and turn and adjust them according to one’s own sense? And in just the same way, as soon as we are assured that the ordinary edition of the church is so out of shape that it must be built up again new, and that a private man is to set his hand to it and begin the process, the door is open to presumption. For if Luther dares to do it, why not Erasmus? And if Erasmus, why not Calvin or Melancthon, why not Henricus Mercerus, Sebastian Castalio, Beza and the rest of the world, provided that they know some verses of Pindar and four or five words of Hebrew, and have close by some good Thesaurus of the one or other language? And how can so many translations be made by brains so different, without the complete overthrow of the sincerity of the Scripture? What say you? That the ordinary version is corrupt? We allow that transcribers and printers have let certain ambiguities of very slight importance slip in (if, however, anything in the Scripture can be called of slight importance). The Council of Trent commanded that these should be taken out and that for the future care should be taken to print as correctly as possible. For the rest, there is nothing in it which is not most conformable to the meaning of the Holy Spirit who is its author, as has been shown by so many learned men of our Church,^[n0106] opposing the presumption of these new reformers of religion, that it would be losing time to try to speak more of it; besides that it would be folly in me to wish to speak of the correctness of translations, who never well knew how to read with the points in one of the languages necessary for this knowledge, and am hardly more learned in the other. But how have you improved matters? Everybody has held to his own views, everybody has despised his neighbor’s; they have turned it about as they liked, but no one speaks of his comrade’s version. What is this but to overthrow the majesty of the Scripture, and to bring it into contempt with the people, who think that this diversity of editions comes rather from the uncertainty of the Scriptures than from the variety of the translators, a variety which alone ought to put us in assurance concerning the ancient translation, which, as the Council says, the Church has so long, so constantly, and so unanimously approved.

An example or two will suffice. In the Acts,^[n0107] 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 sepul chro). Whoever saw such versions? Instead of soul (and it is Our Lord who is spoken of) to say carrion and instead of hell to say sepulchre! Peter Martyr (in def. de Euch. p. 3a, p. 392) cites 1 Cor. x. 3, and they all eat the same spiritual food as we (nobiscum): he inserts this nobiscum to prove his point. I have seen in several bibles in this country a very subtle falsehood, in the mysterious words of the institution of the most Holy Sacrament. Instead of hoc est corpus meum, cecy est mon corps, they had put c’est cy mon corps.^[n0108] Who does not perceive the deceit?

You see something then of the violence and profanation your ministers do and offer to the Scriptures: what think you of their ways? What will become of us if everybody takes leave, as soon as he knows two words of Greek, and the letters in Hebrew, thus to turn everything topsy turvy? I have therefore shown you what I promised, that this first rule of our faith has been and still is most sadly violated in your pretended church, and that you may know it to be a property of heresy thus to dismember the Scriptures, I will close this part of my subject with what Tertullian says,^[n0109] 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.”

But if the case be thus with the Latin versions, how great are the contempt and profanation shown in the French, German, Polish and other languages! And yet here is one of the most successful artifices adopted by the enemy of Christianity and of unity in our age, to attract the people. He knew the curiosity of men, and how much one esteems one’s own judgment, and therefore he has induced his sectaries to translate the Holy Scriptures, every one into the tongue of the province where he finds himself placed, and to maintain this unheard-of opinion, that every one is capable of understanding the Scriptures, that all should read them, and that the public offices should be celebrated and sung in the vulgar tongue of each district.

But who sees not the artifice? There is nothing in the world which, passing through many hands, does not change and lose it first luster: wine which has been often poured out and poured back loses its freshness and strength, wax when handled changes its color, coins lose their stamp. Be sure also that Holy Scripture, passing through so many translators, in so many versions and reversions, 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 criticize? 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,^[n0110] “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 the result of disturbing and poisoning the source; it is at once to spoil all that comes after.

But let us be frank. Do we not know that the Apostles spoke all tongues? How is it then that their gospels and their epistles are only in Hebrew, as S. Jerome witnesses^[n0111] of the Gospel of S. Matthew; in Latin, as some think concerning that of S. Mark,^[n0112] and in Greek, as is held concerning the other Gospels which were the three languages chosen at Our Lord’s very cross for the preaching of the Crucified? Did they not carry the Gospel throughout the world? And in the world were there no other languages but these three? Truly there were, and yet they did not judge it expedient to vary their writings in so many languages. Who then shall despise the custom of our Church, which has for its warrant the imitation of the Apostles?^[n0113] Now for this, besides the great weight it should have to put down all our curious questionings, there is a reason which I hold to be most sound: it is that these other languages are not fixed, they change between town and town; in accents, in phrases and in words, they are altered, and vary from season to season and from age to age. Take up the Memoires of the Sire de Joinville, or of Philip de Comines, and you will see that time has entirely altered their language, and yet these historians must have been among the most polished of their age, both having been brought up at Court. If then we were to have (particularly for the public services) bibles each in our own tongue, every fifty years it would be necessary to have a revolution, and in every case with adding to, or taking away from, or altering, much of the holy exactness of the Scripture, which could not be done without a great loss. In short, it is more than reasonable that so holy a rule as is the holy Word of God should be kept in fixed languages, since it could not be maintained in this perfect integrity within bastard and unstable languages.

But I inform you that the holy Council of Trent does not reject translations in the vulgar tongue printed by the authority of the Ordinaries; only it commands^[n0114] 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^[n0115] into the hands of one who might kill himself therewith. But of this we will speak by and by.

The Church, then, does not approve that everybody who can read, without further assurance of his capacity than that which he persuades himself of in his own presumption, should handle this sacred memorial, nor truly is it right that she should so approve.

I remember to have read in an essay of the Sieur de Montaigue’s (see earlier text), “It is certainly wrong that there should be seen tossing about in everybody’s hands, in parlour and in kitchen, the holy book of the sacred mysteries of our belief…. It is not casually or hurriedly that we are to prosecute so serious and venerable a study; it should be a reflective and steady act, to which should always be added that preface of our office: sursum corda, and for which the body itself should be brought into a havior which may betoken a particular attention and reverence … and I moreover believe that liberty for everybody to translate it, and by this means to dissipate words so religious and important into all sorts of languages, has much more danger than profit.”

The Council also commands^[n0116] that the public services of the Church shall not be celebrated in the vulgar tongue, but in a fixed language, each one according to the ancient formularies approved by the Church. This decree takes its reasons from what I have already said, for if it is not expedient thus to translate, at every turn, province by province, the venerable text of the Scripture, the greatest part, and we may say all, that is in the offices being taken from the Holy Scripture, it is also not becoming to give these in French. Indeed, is there not a greater danger in reciting the Holy Scripture in the vulgar tongue at public services, on this account that not only the old but little children, not only the wise but the foolish, not only men but women, in short both he who knows and he who knows not how to read, may all take occasion of erring, each one as he likes? Read the passages of David where he seems to murmur against God concerning the prosperity of the wicked; you will see the unwise people justify themselves by this in their impatience. Read where he seems to demand vengeance against his enemies, and the spirit of vengeance will cloak itself under this. Let them see those heavenly and entirely divine loves in the Canticle of Canticles, from not knowing how to spiritualize them these will only profit them unto evil. And that word of Osee,^[n0117] Vade et fac tibi filios fornicationes, and those acts of the ancient Patriarchs, would they not give license to fools? But pray give us some little reason why we should have the Scriptures 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 houppé soit il et ferré), who can understand without study the prophecies of Ezechiel, and others, and the Psalms? What, then, will the people do with them when they hear them except profane them and cast a doubt on them.

At any rate we who are Catholics must in no wise bring down our sacred offices into vernacular languages, but rather, as our Church is universal in time and in place, it ought also to celebrate public offices in a language which is universal in time and in place, as is Latin in the West, Greek in the East; otherwise our priests could not say Mass nor others understand them outside their own countries. The unity and the great extension of our brethren require that we should say our public prayers in a language which shall be common to all peoples. In this way our prayers are universal, by means of the number of persons who in each province can understand Latin, and it seems to me, in conscience, that this reason alone should suffice, for if we consider rightly, our prayers are heard no less in Latin than in French. Let us divide the body of a commonwealth into three parts, according to the ancient French division, or, according to the new, into four; there are four sets of persons: the clergy, the nobility, they of the long robe, and the people or third estate. The three first understand Latin or should understand it, if they do not rather make it their own language; there remains the lowest rank, of which, again, a part understand, and truly as for the rest, if one do not speak the jargon of their country, it is only with great difficulty that they could understand the simple narrative of the Scripture. That most excellent theologian, Robert Bellarmine,^[n0118] relates, having heard it from a most trustworthy source, that a good dame in England having heard a minister read the 25th 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^[n0119] an excellent and true word of S. Basil the Great. The chief of the Emperor’s kitchen wishing to play the sage, began to bring forward certain passages of the Scripture: “It is yours [said the Saint] to mind your dishes, not to cook divine dogmata,” as if he had said, Occupy yourself with tasting your sauces, not with devouring the divine word.

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 honor it was necessary to speak in this manner, but tell me the truth, do you think that the case really runs so? Do you find them so easy, do you understand them so well? If you think you do, I admire your credulity, which goes not only beyond experience, but is contrary to what you see and feel. If it is true that the Scripture is so easy to understand, what is the use of so many commentaries made by your ministers, what is the object of so many harmonies, what is the good of so many schools of theology? 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 Scripture, is it some secret thing? No, you say not to the faithful. Why, then, these interpreters and these preachers? If you are faithful, you will understand the Scriptures as well as they do; send them off to unbelievers and simply keep some deacons to give you the morsel of bread and pour out the wine of your supper. If you can feed yourselves in the field of the Scripture, what do you want with pastors? Some young innocent, some mere child who is able to read, will do just as well. But whence comes this continual and irreconcilable discord which there is among you, brethren in Luther, over these words, This is my body, and on justification? Certainly S. Peter is not of your thinking, who assures us in his second Epistle^[n0120] that in the letters of S. Paul there are certain points hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition. The eunuch who was treasurer-general of Ethiopia was certainly faithful^[n0121] 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 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,^[n0122] Give me understanding, that I may learn thy commandments. If they have left you the Epistle of S. Jerome to Paulinus in the preface of your bibles, read it, for it treats this point expressly. S. Augustine speaks of it in a thousand places but particularly in his Confessions. In the 119th Epistle he confesses that there is much more in the Scripture of which he is ignorant than there is of what he knows. Origen and S. Jerome, the former in his preface on the Canticles, the latter in his on Ezechiel, say that it was not permitted to the Jews before the age of 30 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 criticizes 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^[n0123]—To him that striketh thee on the one cheek offer also the other—immediately explained it in this sense: that as to encourage a child who studies well we lay our hand lightly with little pats upon his cheek to excite him to do better, so Our Lord meant to say, be so grateful to one who may find you doing right and who may caress you for it that he may take occasion another time to treat you still better and to caress or fondle you on both sides. Is not that a fine meaning and a precious? But the reason was even better, that to understand this text otherwise would be against nature, and that while we must interpret Scripture by Scripture, we find in Scripture that Our Lord did not do so when the servant struck him: this is the fruit of your translated theology. An honest man, and one who in my opinion would not lie, has related to me that he heard a minister of this country, treating of the Nativity of Our Lord, assert that he was not born in a crib, and expound the text (which is express on the other side) figuratively, saying, Our Lord also says that he is the vine, yet for all that he is not one; in the same way, although it is said that he is born in a crib, yet born there he is not, but in some honorable place which in comparison with his greatness might be called a crib. The character of this interpretation leads me still more to believe the man who told me, for being simple and unable to read he could hardly have made it up. It is a most curious thing to see how this pretended enlightenment causes the Holy Scripture to be profaned. Is it not doing what God says in Ezechiel:^[n0124] Was it not enough for you to feed upon good pastures; but you must also tread down with your feet the residue of the pastures?

But among all profanations it seems to me that this comes out above the rest, that in the temples publicly, and everywhere, in the fields, in the shops, they sing the rhymes of Marot as Psalms of David. The mere incompetence of the author, who was utterly ignorant; his licentiousness, which he testifies by his writings; his most profane life, which had nothing whatever of the Christian about it, caused him to be refused the communion of the Church. And yet his name and his psalms are, as it were, sacred in your churches; they are recited among you as if they were David’s, whereas who sees not how the sacred word is violated? The measure and restrictions of verse make it impossible that the sacred meaning of the Scripture words should be followed; he mixes in his own to make sense, and it becomes necessary for this ignorant rhymester to choose one sense in places where there might be several. What, is it not an extreme violation and profanation to have left to such an empty-headed witling a judgment of such great consequence and then in the public prayers to follow as closely this buffoon’s selection as one ever did formerly the interpretation of the Seventy, who were so particularly assisted by the Holy Spirit? How many words and how many sentences has he secreted therein which were never in the Scriptures? This is a very different thing from ill-pronouncing Scibboleth.^[n0125] At the same time it is well known that there is nothing which has so delighted busybodies, and above all women, as this authorization to sing in the church and at the meetings. Certainly we forbid no one to sing devoutly, modestly and becomingly, but it seems more proper that Ecclesiastics and their deputies should sing as a general rule, as was done in the Dedication of Solomon’s Temple. O how delightful to get one’s voice heard in the Church! But do they not betray you in the songs they make you utter? I have not leisure or convenience for going into the matter further. When you shout these verses of the eighth Psalm—Thou hast made him such that no more remains to him except to be God; but as to all else thou hast, and so on—how delighted you are to be able to chant and sing these French rhymes Marotées.^[n0126] It would be much better to keep to the Latin than to blaspheme in French. Accept this warning. When you sing this verse, whom do you suppose you speak of? You speak of Our Lord, unless, to excuse the audacity of Marot and of your church, you also erase the Epistle to the Hebrews from the holy Bible: for S. Paul clearly there (ii. 6, 7, 8) expounds this verse of Our Lord. And if you speak of Our Lord, why do you say he is such that no more now remains for him except to be God? Questionless if anything now remains to him to be God he will never be it. What say you, poor people, that it “remains” for Jesus Christ to be God? See how those men make you swallow the poisoned morsel of Arianism, in singing these sorry rhymes. I am no longer astonished that Calvin confessed to Valentine Gentilis that the Name of God by excellence belongs only to the Father. Behold the splendid eversions of the Scripture with which you are well pleased; behold the blasphemies which your Church sings in a body and which she makes you repeat so often.

And as to this fashion of having the Psalms sung indifferently in all places and during all occupations, who sees not that it is a contempt of religion? Is it not to offend His Divine Majesty to say to him words as excellent as those of the Psalms, without any reverence or attention? To say prayers after the manner of common talking, is this not a mocking of him to whom we speak? When we see at Geneva or elsewhere a shop boy laughing during the singing of the Psalms and breaking the thread of a most beautiful prayer, to say, What will you buy, sir? Do we not clearly see that he is making an accessary of the principal and that it is only for pastime that he was singing this divine song, which he at the same time believes to be of the Holy Spirit? Is it not good to hear cooks singing the penitential Psalms of David, and asking at each verse for the bacon, the capon, the partridge! “That voice,” says De Montaigne, “is too divine to have no other use than to exercise the lungs and please the ears.”^[n0127] I allow that all places are good to pray in privately, and the same holds good of every occupation which is not sin, provided that we pray in spirit, because God sees the interior wherein lies the chief and substantial part of prayer. But I consider that he who prays in public ought to make exterior demonstration of the reverence which the very words he is uttering demand, otherwise he scandalizes his neighbor, who is not bound to think there is religion in the interior when he sees the contempt in the exterior. I hold, then, that both in singing as divine Psalms what is very often an imagination of Marot’s, and in singing them irreverently and without respect, they very often sin in that reformed church of yours against that word: God is a spirit, and those who adore him must adore him in spirit and in truth.^[n0128] For besides that in these Psalms you very often attribute to the Holy Ghost the conceptions of Marot contrary to the truth, the mouth also cries in streets and kitchens, O Lord! O Lord! when the heart and the spirit are not there but in traffic and gain, as Isaias says,^[n0129] You draw near God with your mouth, and with your lips glorify him, but 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 reverence.^[n0130] In chapter 14 of the 1st of Corinthians, the Let women keep silence in the churches seems to be understood of hymns (cantiques) as much as of the rest: our nuns are in oratorio non in ecclesiâ.

Now follows what you allege in your defense. S. Paul seems^[n0131] to want to have the service performed in a language intelligible to the Corinthians; you will see that at the same time he does not wish the service to be diversified with all sorts of languages but only that the exhortations and hymns which were uttered by means of the gift of tongues should be interpreted, in order that the Church where any one might be should know what was said: And therefore he that speaketh by a tongue, let him pray that he may interpret. He intends, then, that the praises which were made at Corinth should be made in Greek, for as they were made not now as ordinary services, but as the extraordinary hymns of those who had this gift, for the gladdening of the people, it was reasonable that they should be made in intelligible language, or be at once interpreted. This he seems to show when he says lower down, If, therefore, the whole church come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned persons or infidels, will they not say that you are mad? And further on, If any speak with a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and in course, and let one interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him hold his peace in the church, and speak to himself and to God. Who sees not that he is not speaking of the solemn offices in the Church, which were only performed by the pastor, but of the hymns which were made through the gift of tongues, which he wished to be understood? For in truth if they were not, it distracted the assembly, and was of no benefit. Several ancient fathers speak of these hymns, and among others Tertullian, who, treating of the holiness of the agapes or love feasts of the ancients, says,^[n0132] “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 with their lips, but their heart, and so on.^[n0133] 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.^[n0134]

In Deuteronomy,^[n0135] it is said that the commandments of God are not secret or sealed up, and does not the Psalmist say, The commandment of the Lord is lightsome: thy word is a lamp to my feet?^[n0136] That is all very true, but it means when preached and explained, and properly understood. How shall they believe without a preacher!^[n0137] And all that the great Prophet David has said is not to be understood of everybody.

But you object to me; in any case, ought I not to seek the meat of my soul and of my salvation? Poor man, who denies it? But if everybody goes to pasture like the old ewes, what is the need of shepherds? Seek the pastures, but with your pastor. Should we not laugh at the sick man who would find his health in Hippocrates without the help of the doctor, or at him who would seek out his rights in Justinian without betaking himself to the judge? Seek, one would say to him, your health by means of doctors; seek your right and gain it, but by the hands of the magistrate. “What man of moderately sound mind does not understand that the exposition of the Scriptures is to be sought from those who are doctors in them?” says S. Augustine.^[n0138] But if no one can find his salvation except the one who can read the Scriptures, what will become of so many poor ignorant people? Surely they find and seek their salvation quite satisfactorily when they learn from the mouth of the pastor the substance of what they must believe, hope for, love, do and ask of God. Believe that also according to the spirit that is true which the Wise Man says, Better is the poor man walking in his sim plicity than the rich in crooked ways (Prov. xxviii. 6), and elsewhere, The simplicity of the just shall guide them (xi. 3), and He that walketh sincerely walketh 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 ourselves, without the guidance of those whom God has appointed unto this end, according to the same Wise Man: Lean not upon thy prudence, and be not wise in thy own conceit (iii. 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 among 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 Manichæans.^[n0139]

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^[n0140] “Your charity was to be admonished that confession (confessionem) is not always the voice of a sinner, for as soon as this word of the Lector sounded, there followed the sound of your striking your breast; that is, as soon as you heard that the Lord said: I confess to thee, Father, immediately the word I confess sounded, you struck your breasts; now to strike the breast, what is it but to signify what lies in the breast, and with a visible stroke to chastise an unseen sin? Why did you do this but because you heard I confess to thee, Father? You heard I confess, but you did not take notice who was confessing. Now therefore take notice.” Do you see how the people heard the public reading of the Gospel and did not understand it, except this word: I confess to thee, Father, which they understood by custom, because it was said just at the beginning of the mass as we say it now. It was, no doubt, because the reading was in Latin, which was not their vulgar tongue.

But he who would see the esteem in which Catholics hold the holy Scripture, and the respect they bear it, should regard the great Cardinal Borromeo, who never studied in the Holy Scriptures save on his knees, it seeming to him that he heard God speaking in them, and that such reverence was due to so divine a hearing. Never was a people better instructed, considering the malice of the age, than the people of Milan under the Cardinal Borromeo, but the instruction of the people does not come by force of hurrying over the holy Bible, or often reading the mere letter of this divine Scripture, nor by singing snatches of the Psalms as the fancy takes one but by using them, by reading, hearing, singing, praying to God, with a lively apprehension of the majesty of God to whom we speak, whose Word we read, evermore with that Preface of the ancient Church: sursum corda.

That great servant of God, S. Francis, of whose glorious and most holy memory the Feast was celebrated yesterday^[n0141] throughout the whole world, showed us a beautiful example of the attention and reverence with which we ought to pray to God. This is what the holy and fervent doctor of the Church, S. Bonoventure, tells of it.^[n0142] “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 bareheaded, not with wandering eyes, nor with any shortening of verse or word; if sometimes 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?”

Here are the words of the holy Council of Trent,^[n0143] 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, receives 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 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 commandments of men (Matt. xv. 9); You 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 by phi losophy and vain fallacy, according to the tradition of men (Col. ii. 8); Redeemed from your vain conversation of the tradition of your fathers (1 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 received by the Apostle 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.” 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:^[n0144] All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work. Who are they angry with? This is to force a quarrel.^[n0145] 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 favor 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 book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that believing 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 (Rom. xv. 4), but shall this hinder the Apostles from preaching? These things are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but that is not enough, for how shall they believe 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? 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 speak to you, neither shall you take away from it (Deut. iv. 2); But though we or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you beside that which we have preached to you, let him be 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 compares 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 honor, 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 wisdom, 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 Canonical books have 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.^[n0146] 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 nonobservance of these latter does not make us guilty, provided that they are approved and esteemed as holy, and are not despised.

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 we are never to destroy another. The Scripture is useful to teach; learn then from the Scripture itself that we must receive with honor 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. Run 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 evangelize 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 authorized therein?

Is it not the Holy Scripture of S. Paul which says, Therefore, brethren, hold fast the Traditions which you have received, whether by word or by 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, however, worthy of the same faith, these as much as those” are the words of S. Chrysostom in his commentary 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.

Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard from me … Keep the good deposited, said S. Paul 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 before many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be 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 1st of Corinthians, though the sense of the passage would be forced (but to him who does not want to move every shadow is an excuse), but this is written in the 1st of Corinthians (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 delivered it to posterity and would have written it.

And Our Lord says, Many things I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now (John xvi. 12). I ask you, when did he say these things which he had to say? Certainly it was either after his Resurrection, during the 40 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, I have many things, &c., if all is written? It is said indeed that he was 40 days with them teaching them of the Kingdom of God, but we have neither all his apparitions nor what he told them therein.

Once when Absalom^[n0147] wished to form a faction against his good father, he sat in the way near the gate, and said to all who went by, There is no man appointed by the king to hear thee … O that they would make me judge over the land, that all that have business might come to me, and I might do them justice. Thus did he undermine the loyalty of the Israelites. But how many Absaloms have there been in our age, who, to seduce and distract the people from obedience to the Church and to lead Christians into revolt, have cried up and down the ways of Germany and of France, There is no one appointed by the Lord to hear and resolve differences concerning faith and religion; the Church has no power in this matter! If you consider well, Christians, you will see that whoever holds this language wishes to be judge himself, though he does not openly say so, more cunning than Absalom. I have seen one of the most recent books of Theodore Beza, entitled, Of the true, essential and visible marks of the true Catholic Church, he seems to me to aim at making himself, with his colleagues, judge of all the differences which are between us; he says that the conclusion of all his argument is that “the true Christ is the only true and perpetual mark of the Catholic Church,”—understanding by true Christ, he says, Christ as he has most perfectly declared himself from the beginning, whether in the Prophetic or Apostolic writings, in what belongs to our salvation. Further on he says, “This was what I had to say on the true, sole, and essential mark of the true Church, which is the written Word, prophetic and Apostolic, well and rightly ministered.” Higher up he had admitted that there were great difficulties in the Holy Scriptures, but not in things which touch faith. In the margin he places this warning, which he has put almost everywhere in the text: “The interpretation of Scripture must not be drawn elsewhere than from the Scripture itself, by comparing passages one with another, and adapting them to the analogy of the faith.” And in the Epistle to the King of France, “We ask that the appeal be made to the holy canonical Scriptures, and that, if there be any doubt as to the interpretation of them, the correspondence and relation which should exist among these passages of Scripture and the articles of faith, be the judge.” He there receives the fathers as of authority just as far as they should find their foundation in the Scriptures. He continues, “As to the point of doctrine we cannot appeal to any irreproachable judge save the Lord himself, who has declared all his counsel concerning our salvation by the Apostles and the Prophets.” He says again that “his party are not such as would disavow a single Council worthy of the name, general or particular, ancient or later, (take note)—provided,” says he, “that the touchstone, which is the word of God, be used to try it.” That, in one word, is what all these reformers want—to take Scripture as judge. And to this we answer Amen, but we say that our difference is not there; it is here, that in the disagreements we shall have over the interpretation, and which will occur at every two words, we shall need a judge. They answer that we must decide the interpretation of Scripture by collating passage with passage and the whole with the Symbol of faith. Amen, Amen, we say, but we do not ask how we ought to interpret the Scripture, but—who shall be the judge? For after having compared passages with passages, and the whole with the Symbol of the Faith, we find by this passage: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt, xvi), that S. Peter has been chief minister and supreme steward in the Church of God: you say, on your side that this passage: The kings of the nations lord it over them … but you not so (Luke xxii), or this other (for they are all so weak that I know not what may be your main authority): No one can lay another foundation, and so on (1 Cor. iii. 11), compared with the other passages and the analogy of the Faith makes you detest a chief minister. The two of us follow one same way in our enquiry concerning the truth in this question—namely, whether there is in the Church a Vicar General of Our Lord—and yet I have arrived at the affirmative, and you, you have ended in the negative; who now shall judge of our difference? Here lies the essential point as between you and me.

I quite admit, be it said in passing, that he who shall enquire of Theodore Beza will say that you have reasoned better than I, but on what does he rely for this judgment except on what seems good to himself, according to the prejudgment he has formed of the matter long ago? And he may say what he likes, for who has made him judge between you and me?

Recognize, Christians, the spirit of division: your people send you to the Scriptures; we are there before you came into the world, and what we believe, we find there clear and plain. But, it must be properly understood, adapting passage to passage, the whole to the Creed; we are at this now fifteen hundred years and more. You are mistaken, answers Luther. Who told you so? Scripture. What Scripture? Such and such, collated so, and fitted to the Creed. On the contrary, say I, it is you, Luther, who are mistaken: the Scripture tells me so, in such and such a passage, nicely joined and adjusted to such and such a Scripture, and to the articles of the Faith. I am not in doubt as to whether we must give belief to the holy Word; who knows not that it is in the supreme degree of certitude? What exercises me is the understanding of this Scripture—the consequences and conclusions drawn from it, which being different beyond 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 Scripture in its native color? For the neck of this dove changes its appearance as often as those who look upon it change position and distance. The Scripture is a most holy and infallible touchstone; every proposition, which stands this test^[n0148] 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 each one will believe what he likes. Let us take care lest with regard to these words we be drawing the Scripture after our notions, instead of following it. If the salt hath lost its savour, with what shall it be salted (Matt. v. 13)? If the Scripture be the subject of our disagreement, who shall decide?

Ah, whoever says that Our Lord has placed us in the bark of his Church, at the mercy of the winds and of the tide, instead of giving us a skilful pilot perfectly at home, by nautical art, with chart and compass, such a one says that he wishes our destruction. Let him have placed therein the most excellent compass and the most correct chart in the world, what use are these if no one knows how to gain from them some infallible rule for directing the ship? Of what use is the best of rudders if there is no steersman to move it as the ship’s course requires? But if every one is allowed to turn it in the direction he thinks good, who sees not that we are lost?

It is not the Scripture which requires a foreign light or rule, as Beza thinks we believe; it is our glosses, our conclusions, understandings, interpretations, conjectures, additions and other such workings of man’s brain, which, being unable to be quiet, is ever busied about new inventions. Certainly we do not want a judge to decide between us and God, as he seems to infer in his Letter. It is between a man such as Calvin, Luther, Beza and another such as Eckius, Fisher, More, for we do not ask whether God understands the Scripture better than we do, but whether Calvin understands it better than S. Augustine or S. Cyprian. S. Hilary says excellently,^[n0149] “Heresy is in the understanding, not in the Scripture, and the fault is in the meaning, not in the words” and S. Augustine,^[n0150] “Heresies arise simply from this, that good Scriptures are ill understood, and what is ill understood in them is also rashly and presumptuously given forth.” It is a true Michol’s game; it is to cover a statue, made expressly, with the clothes of David (1 Kings xix) He who looks at it thinks he has seen David, but he is deceived, David is not there. Heresy covers up, in the bed of its brain, the statue of its own opinion in the clothes of Holy Scripture. He who sees this doctrine thinks he has seen the Holy Word of God, but he is mistaken; it is not there. The words are there, but not the meaning. “The Scriptures,” says S. Jerome,^[n0151] “consist not in the reading but in the understanding,” that is, faith is not in the knowing the words but the sense. And it is here that I think I have thoroughly proved that we have need of another rule for our faith, besides the rule of Holy Scripture. “If the world last long (said Luther once by good hap^[n0152]) 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 afterward they will have to be.

I have dwelt on this at length, but when it is well understood, we have no small means of determining a most holy deliberation.

I say as much of traditions, for if each one will bring forward traditions, and we have no judge on earth to make in the last resort the difference between those which are to be received and those which are not, where, I pray you, shall we be? We have clear examples. Calvin finds that the apocalypse is to be received, Luther denies it; the same with the Epistle of S. James. Who shall reform these opinions of the reformers? Either the one or the other is ill formed, who shall put it right? Here is a second necessity which we have of another rule besides the Word of God.

There is, however, a very great difference between the first rules and this one. For the first rule, which is the Word of God, is a rule infallible in itself, and most sufficient to regulate all the understandings in the world. The second is not properly a rule of itself, but only in so far as it applies the first and proposes to us the right doctrine contained in the Holy Word. In the same way the laws are said to be a rule in civil causes. The judge is not so of himself, since his judging is conditioned by the ruling of the law; yet he is, and may well be called, a rule, because the application of the laws being subject to variety, when he has once made it we must conform to it.

The Holy Word then is the first law of our faith; there remains the application of this rule, which being able to receive as many forms as there are brains in the world, in spite of all the analogies of the Faith, there is need further of a second rule to regulate this application. There must be doctrine and there must be some one to propose it. The doctrine is in the Holy Word, but who shall propose it? The way in which one deduces an article of faith is this: the Word of God is infallible, the Word of God declares that Baptism is necessary for salvation, therefore, Baptism is necessary for salvation. The first proposition cannot be gainsayed, we are at variance with Calvin about the second—who shall reconcile us? Who shall resolve our doubt? If he who has authority to propose can err in his proposition all has to be done over again. There must therefore be some infallible authority in whose propounding we are obliged to acquiesce. The Word of God cannot err, He who proposes it cannot err, thus shall all be perfectly assured.

Now is it not reasonable that no private individual should attribute to himself this infallible judgment on the interpretation or explanation of the Holy Word? Otherwise, where should we be? Who would be willing to submit to the yoke of a private individual? Why of one rather than of another? Let him talk as much as he will of analogy, of enthusiasm, of the Lord, of the Spirit—all this shall never so bind my understanding as that, if I must sail at hazard, I will not jump into the vessel of my own judgment, rather than that of another, let him talk Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Tartar, Moorish and whatever you like. If we are to run the risk of erring, who would not choose to run it rather by following his own fancy, than by slavishly following that of Calvin or Luther? Everybody shall give liberty to his wits to run promiscuously about among opinions the most diverse possible, and indeed, he will perhaps light on truth as soon as another will. But it is impious to believe that Our Lord has not left us some supreme judge on earth to whom we can address ourselves in our difficulties and who is so infallible in his judgments that we cannot err.

I maintain that this judge is no other than the Church Catholic, which can in no way err in the interpretations and conclusions she makes with regard to the Holy Scripture, nor in the decisions she gives concerning the difficulties which are found therein. For who has ever heard this doubted of?

All that our adversaries can say is that this infallibility is only true of the invisible Church.^[n0153] But they arrive at this their opinion of the invisibility of the Church by two roads, for some say it is invisible because it consists only of persons elect and predestinate; the others attribute this invisibility to the rareness and scattering of the believers and faithful. Of these the first consider the Church to be invisible at all times, the others say that this invisibility has lasted about 1,000 years, more or less; that is, from S. Gregory to Luther, during which time the papal authority was peaceably established among Christians: for they say that during this time there were some true Christians in secret, who did not manifest their intentions and were satisfied with thus serving God in concealment. This theology is imagination and guesswork, so that others have preferred to say that during those 1,000 years the Church was neither visible nor invisible, but altogether effaced and suffocated by impiety and idolatry. Permit me, I beseech you, to say the truth freely; all these words are the incoherencies of fever, they are but dreams had while awake, and not worth the dream Nabuchodonosor had while asleep. And they are entirely contrary to it if we believe Daniel’s interpretation,^[n0154] for Nabuchodonosor saw a stone cut out of a mountain without hands, which went rolling till it overthrew the great statue, and so increased that having become a mountain it filled the whole earth; this Daniel understood of the Kingdom of Our Lord, which shall last for ever. If it be as a mountain, and a mountain so large as to fill the whole earth, how shall it be invisible or secret? And if it last forever, how shall it have failed 1,000 years? And it is certainly of the Kingdom of the Church militant that this passage is to be understood, for that of the triumphant will fill heaven, not earth only, and will not arise during the time of the other Kingdoms, as Daniel’s interpretation says, but after the consummation of the world. Add to this that to be cut from the mountain without hands, belongs to the temporal generation of Our Lord, according to which he has been conceived in the womb of the Virgin, and engendered of her own substance without work of man, by the sole benediction of the Holy Ghost. Either then Daniel has badly prophesied, or the adversaries of the Catholic Church have done so when they have said the Church was invisible, hidden and destroyed. In God’s name have patience; we will go in order and briefly, while showing the vanity of those opinions. But we must, before all things, say what the Church is.

Church comes from the Greek word meaning to call. Church then signifies an assembly, or company of persons called. Synagogue means a flock, to speak properly. The assembly of the Jews was called Synagogue, that of Christians is called Church, because the Jews were as a flock of animals, assembled and herded by fear; Christians are brought together by the Word of God, called together in the union of charity, by the preaching of the Apostles and their successors. Wherefore S. Augustine has said^[n0155] that the Church is named from convocation, the synagogue from flock, because to be convoked belongs more to men, to be driven together refers rather to cattle. Now it is with good reason that we call the Christian people the Church, or convocation, because the first benefit God does to a man whom he is about to receive into grace is to call him to the Church. Those whom he predestinated them he also called, said S. Paul to the Romans (viii. 30)—that is the first effect of his predestination—and to the Colossians (iii. 15), Let the peace of Christ rejoice in your hearts, wherein also you are called in one body. To be called in one body is to be called in the Church, and in those comparisons which Our Lord makes, in S. Matthew (xx, xxii), of the vineyard and the banquet to the Church, the workmen in the vineyard and the guests at the banquet, he names the called and invited ones: Many, says he, are called, but few are chosen. The Athenians called the assemblage of the citizens the Church, an assemblage of strangers was called by another name—Διακλήσις. Whence the word Church belongs properly to Christians, who are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens of the saints and domestics of God (Eph. ii. 19). You see whence is taken the word Church, and here is its definition:^[n0156] 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.

I will not dwell long on this point. You know that all we Catholics acknowledge the Pope as Vicar of Our Lord. The universal Church acknowledged him lately at Trent, when she addressed herself to him for confirmation of what she had resolved, and when she received his deputies as the ordinary and legitimate presiding body of the Council. I should lose time also [to prove that] you have no visible head; you admit it. You have a supreme consistory, like those of Berne, Geneva, Zurich and the rest, which depend on no other. You are so far from consenting to recognize a universal head, that you have not even a provincial head. Your ministers are one as good as another, and have no prerogative in the Consistory, yea, are inferior in knowledge and in vote to the president who is no minister. As for your bishops or superintendents, you are not satisfied with lowering them to the rank of ministers, but have made them inferior, so as to leave nothing in its proper place.

The English hold their queen as head of their church, contrary to the pure Word of God. Not that they are mad enough, so far as I know, to consider her head of the Catholic Church, but only of those unhappy countries.

In short, there is no one head over all others in spiritual things, either among you or among 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 (1 iii. 15): That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church, … the pillar and ground of the truth. It is of her that David says, Blessed are they who dwell in thy house, O Lord (Ps. lxxxiii. 5). It is of her that the angel said: He shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever (Luke i. 32). It is of her that Our Lord said, In my Father’s house there are many mansions (John xiv. 2). The kingdom of heaven is like to a master of a family, in Matthew, chapter 20, and in a hundred thousand other places.

Now the Church being a house and a family, the Master thereof can doubtless be but one, Jesus Christ, and so is it called house of God. But this Master and householder ascending to the right hand of God, having left many servants in his house, would leave one of them who should be servant-in-chief, and to whom the others should be responsible; wherefore Christ said, Who (thinkest thou) is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath set over his family (Matt. xxiv. 45). In truth, if there were not a foreman in a shop, think how the business would be done—or if there were not a king in a kingdom, a captain in a ship, a father in a family—in fact it would no longer be a family. But hear Our Lord in S. Matthew (xii): Every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. Never can a province be well governed by itself, above all if it be large. I ask you, gentlemen so wise, who will have no head in the Church, can you give me an example of any government of importance in which all the particular governments are not reduced to one? We may pass over the Macedonians, Babylonians, Jews, Medes, Persians, Arabians, Syrians, French, Spaniards, English and a vast number of eminent states, in regard to which the matter is evident, but let us come to republics. Tell me, where have you ever seen any great province which has governed itself? Nowhere. The chief part of the world was at one time in the Roman Republic, but a single Rome governed; a single Athens, Carthage and so of the other ancient republics; a single Venice, a single Genoa, a single Lucerne, Fribourg and the rest. You will never find that the single parts of some notable and great province have set to work to govern themselves. But it was, is and will be necessary that one man alone, or one single body of men residing in one place, or one single town, or some small portion of a province, has governed the province if the rest of the province were large. You, gentlemen, who delight in history, I am assured of your suffrages; you will not let me be contradicted. But supposing (which is most false) that some particular province was self-governed, how can this be said of the Christian Church, which is so universal that it comprehends all the world? How could it be one if it governed itself? And if not, there would be need to have a Council of all the bishoprics always standing—and who would convoke it? It would be necessary for all the bishops to be absent; and how could that be? And if all the bishops were equal, who would call them together? And how great a difficulty would it be, if there were some doubt in a matter of faith, to assemble a Council! It cannot then possibly be that the whole Church and each part thereof should govern itself, without dependence of one part on the other.

Now, since I have sufficiently proved that one part should depend on another, I ask which part it is on which the dependence should be, whether a province, or a city, or an assembly, or a single person? If a province, where is it? It is not England, for when 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 a city, it must be one of the Patriarchal ones: now of the Patriarchal cities there are but five, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Which of the five? All are pagan except Rome. If then it must be a city, it is Rome; if an assembly, it is that at Rome. But no, it is not a province, not a town, not a simple and perpetual assembly; it is a single man, established head over all the Church: A faithful and prudent servant whom the Lord hath appointed. Let us conclude then that Our Lord, when leaving this world, in order to leave all his Church united, left one single governor and lieutenant-general, to whom we are to have recourse in all our necessities.

Which being so, I say to you that this servant general, this dispenser and governor, this chief steward of the house of Our Lord is S. Peter, who on this account can truly say, O Lord, for I am thy servant (Ps. cxv. 16), and not only servant but doubly so: I am thy servant, because they who rule well are worthy of double honour (1 Tim. v. 17). And not only thy servant, but also son of thy hand maid. When there is some servant of the family kin he is trusted the more, and the keys of the house are willingly entrusted to him. It is therefore not without cause that I introduce S. Peter saying, O Lord, for I am thy servant, and so on. For he is a good and faithful servant, to whom, as to a servant of the same kin, the Master has given the keys: To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

S. Luke shows us clearly that S. Peter is this servant, for after having related that Our Lord had said by way of warning to his disciples (Luke xii), Blessed are those servants whom the Lord when he cometh shall find watching: Amen I say to you, that he will gird himself, and make them sit down to meat, and passing will minister to them. S. Peter alone asked Our Lord, Dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all? Our Lord answering S. Peter does not say, Who (thinkest thou) are the faithful servants? as he had said, Blessed are those servants, but, Who (thinkest thou) is the faithful and wise steward whom his Lord setteth over his family to give them their measure of wheat in due season? And in fact Theophylact here says that S. Peter asked this question as having the supreme charge of the Church, and S. Ambrose in the seventh book on S. Luke, says that the first words, blessed, and so on refer to all, but the second, who, thinkest thou, refer to the bishops, and much more properly to the supreme bishop. Our Lord, then, answers S. Peter as meaning to say: what I have said in general applies to all, but to thee particularly: for whom dost thou think to be the prudent and faithful servant?

And truly, if we sift this parable a little, who can be the servant who is to distribute the bread except S. Peter, to whom the charge of feeding the others has been given: feed my sheep? When the master of the house goes out he gives the keys to the chief steward and procurator, and is it not to S. Peter that Our Lord said, I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven? Everything has reference to the governor, and the rest of the officers depend on him for their authority, as all the building does upon the foundation; thus S. Peter is called the stone on which the Church is founded: Thou art Cephas, and upon this rock, and so on. Now Cephas means a stone in Syriac as well as in Hebrew, but the Latin translator has said Petrus, because in Greek there is πέτρος, 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.^[n0157] 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,^[n0158] and in a Rochelle.^[n0159]

Further, Our Lord requires that this servant should be prudent and faithful. And St. Peter truly has these two qualities, for how could prudence be wanting to him, since neither flesh nor blood directs him but the heavenly Father? And how could fidelity fail him, since Our Lord said, I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not (Luke xxii. 32)? And he, we must believe, was heard for his reverence (Heb. v. 7). And that he was heard he gives an excellent testimony when he adds, And thou being converted, confirm thy brethren. As if he would say, I have prayed for thee, and therefore be the confirmer of the others, because for the others I have only prayed that they may have a secure refuge in thee. Let us then conclude that as Our Lord was one day to quit his Church as regards his corporal and visible being, he left a visible lieutenant and vicar general, namely S. Peter, who could therefore rightly say, O Lord, for I am thy servant.

You will say to me, Our Lord is not dead, and moreover is always with his Church, why then do you give him a vicar? I answer you that not being dead he has no successor but only a vicar and moreover that he truly assists his Church in all things and everywhere by his invisible favor, 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 favors, he perpetually administers his Church, and in a manner suitable to the sweetness of his providence. You will tell me, again, that there is no other foundation than Our Lord in the Church: No one can lay another foundation than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii. 11). I grant you that as well the Church militant as the triumphant is supported and founded on Our Lord, as on the principal foundation, but Isaias has foretold to us that in the Church there were to be two foundations. In chapter xxviii, Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation. I know how a great personage explains it, but it seems to me that that passage of Isaias ought certainly to be interpreted without going outside chapter xvi of St. Matthew, in the Gospel of to-day.^[n0160] There then Isaias, complaining of the Jews and of their prophets, in the person of Our Lord, because they would not believe: Command, com mand 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 founda tions, because although the other Apostles were foundations of the Church (And the wall of the city, says the Apocalypse [xxi. 14], had twelve foundations, and in them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and elsewhere, Built upon the foundation of the prophets and apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone (Eph. ii. 20), and the Psalmist (lxxxvi), The foundations thereof are in the holy mountains). Yet, among 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 cornerstone, founded in the foundation, he shall be a foundation, but not first, for there will be another foundation—Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. 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.

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. lxvii. 7); therefore the true Church of God must be united, fastened and joined together in one same doctrine and belief.

It is necessary, says S. Irenæus (iii. 3), that all the faithful should come together and unite themselves to the Roman Church [on account of] its superior ruling power. She is the mother of their sacerdotal dignity, says Julius I. (ad Euseb.) “She is the commencement of the unity of the priesthood, she is the bond of unity,” says S. Cyprian (Ep. 55). Again, “We are not ignorant that there is but one God, one Christ and Lord, whom we have confessed, one Holy Spirit, one pastoral office (episcopatus) in the Catholic Church” (de un. Ec. iv). The good Optatus also said to the Donatists (ii. 2, 3), “Thou canst not deny that thou knowest that in the city of Rome the chief chair has been first granted to S. Peter, in which sat the chief of the Apostles, S. Peter, whence he was called Cephas; the chair in which the unity of the whole was preserved, in order that the other Apostles might not seek to put forward and maintain each his own, and that henceforward he might be a schismatic who would set up another chair against this one chair. Therefore in this one chair, which is the first of its prerogatives, was first seated S. Peter.” These are almost the words of this ancient and holy doctor, and every Catholic of this age is of the same conviction. We hold the Roman Church to be our refuge in all our difficulties; we all are her humble children and receive our food from the milk of her breasts; we are all branches of this most fruitful stock and draw no sap of doctrine save from this root. This is what clothes us all with the same livery of belief, for knowing that there is one chief and lieutenant general in the Church, what he decides and determines with the other prelates of the Church when he is seated in the chair of Peter to teach Christendom, serves as law and measure to our belief. Let there be error everywhere throughout the world, yet you will see the same faith in Catholics. And if there be any difference of opinion, either it will not be in things belonging to the Faith, or else, as soon as ever a general Council or the Roman See shall have determined it, you will see every one submit to their decision. Our understandings do not stray away from one another in their belief, but keep most closely united and linked together by the bond of the superior authority of the Church, to which each one gives in with all humility, steadying his faith thereon, as upon the pillar and ground of truth. Our Catholic Church has but one language and one same form of words throughout the whole earth.

On the contrary, gentlemen, your first ministers had no sooner got on their feet, they had no sooner begun to build a tower of doctrine and science which was visibly to reach the heavens, and to acquire them the great and magnificent reputation of reformers, than God, wishing to traverse this ambitious design, permitted among them such a diversity of language and belief, that they began to contradict one another so violently that all their undertaking became a miserable Babel and confusion. What contradictions has not Luther’s reformation produced! I should never end if I would put them all on this paper. He who would see them should read that little book of Frederick Staphyl’s de concordiâ discordi, and Sanders, Book 7 of his Visible Monarchy, and Gabriel de Preau, in the Lives of Heretics: I will only say what you cannot be ignorant of, and what I now see before my eyes.

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 among them two archbishops, 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 controversialist. In a word, each man has his own language, and out of as many Huguenots as I have spoken to I have never found two of the same belief.

But the worst is, you are not able to come to an agreement, for where will you find a trusted arbitrator? You have no head upon earth to address yourselves to in your difficulties; you believe that the very Church can err herself and lead others into error. You would not put your soul into such unsafe hands; indeed, you hold her in small account. The Scripture cannot be your arbiter, for it is concerning the Scripture that you are in litigation, some of you being determined to have it understood in one way, some in another. Your discords and your disputes are interminable, unless you give in to the authority of the Church. Witness the Colloquies of Lunebourg, of Malbron, of Montbeliard, and that of Berne recently. Witness Titman, Heshusius and Erastus, to whom I add Brenz and Bullinger. Take the great division there is among you about the number of the Sacraments. Now, and ordinarily among you, only two are taught; Calvin made three, adding to Baptism and the Supper, Order; Luther here puts Penance for the third, then says there is but one: in the end, the Protestants, at the Colloquy of Ratisbonne, at which Calvin assisted, as Beza testifies in his life, confessed that there were seven Sacraments. How is it you are divided about the article of the almightiness of God, one party denying that a body can by the divine power be in two places, others denying absolute almightiness, others make no such denials? But if I would show you the great contradictions among those whom Beza acknowledges to be glorious reformers of the Church, namely, Jerome of Prague, John Hus, Wicliff, Luther, Bucer, Œcolampadius, Zuingle, Pomeranius and the rest, I should never come to an end. Luther can sufficiently inform you as to the good harmony there is among them, in the lamentation which he makes against the Zuinglians and Sacramentarians, whom he calls Absaloms and Judases, and fanatic spirits (in the year 1527).

His deceased Highness of most happy memory, Emmanuel [of Savoy], related to the learned Anthony Possevin, that at the Colloquy of Cormasse when the Protestants were asked for their profession of faith, they all one after the other departed from the assembly, as being unable to agree together. That great prince, most worthy of trust, relates this as having been present there. All this division has its foundation in the contempt which you have for a visible head on earth, because, not being bound as to the interpretation of God’s Word by any superior authority, each one takes the side which seems good to him. This is what the wise man says, that among the proud there are always contentions,^[n0161] 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.^[n0162] This unity of language among us is a true sign that we are the army of the Lord, and you can but be acknowledged as Madianites, whose opinions are only cries and shouts: each in your own fashion you slash at one another, cutting one another’s throats, and cutting your own throats by your dissensions, as God says by Isaias^[n0163], The Egyptians shall fight against the Egyptians … and the spirit of Egypt shall be broken. And S. Augustine says that as Donatus had tried to divide Christ, so he himself was by a daily separation of his party divided within himself.

This mark [of unity] alone ought to make you quit your pretended church, for he who is not with God is against God. God is not in your church, for he only inhabits a place of peace, and in your church there is neither peace nor concord.

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 (1. ii. 9). The bridegroom is holy, and the bride holy. She is holy as being dedicated to God, as the Elders under the ancient synagogue were called holy on this account alone. She is holy again because the Spirit who informs her is holy, and because she is the mystical body of a head who is called most holy. She is holy, moreover, because all her actions, interior and exterior, are holy. She neither believes nor hopes nor loves but holily; in her prayers, sermons, sacraments, sacrifices, she is holy. But this Church has her interior sanctity, according to the word of David (Ps. xliv. 14), All the glory of the King’s daughter is within. She has also her exterior sanctity in golden borders clothed about with variet ies (Ib). The interior sanctity cannot be seen; the exterior cannot serve as a mark, because all the sects vaunt it, and because it is hard to recognize 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 odors, 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 odors and perfumes run after and find the true Church and the trace of the son of the unicorn.^[n0164]

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 exterior sanctities, which can be seen. But because the sects and heresies disguise their clothing, and by false stuffs make them look like hers, she has, besides that, perfumes and odors 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 odor and perfume, and are express signs of the presence of the immortal God with her, as S. Augustine styles them. And, indeed, when Our Lord quitted this world he promised that the Church should be filled with miracles: These signs, he said, shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents, poison shall not hurt them, and by the imposition of hands they shall heal the sick.^[n0165]

Consider, I pray you, these words closely. (1) He does not say that the Apostles only would work these miracles, but simply, those who believe. (2) He does not say that every believer in particular would work miracles, but that those who believe will be followed by these signs. (3) He does not say it was only for them—10 or 20 years—but simply that miracles will follow them that believe. Our Lord, then, speaks to the Apostles only, but not for the Apostles only; he speaks of the faithful, of the body and general congregation ^[n0166] of the Church, he speaks absolutely, without limitation of time. Let us take his holy words in the extent which Our Lord has given them. The believers are in the Church, the believers are followed by miracles, therefore, in the Church there are miracles. There are believers in all times, the believers are followed by miracles, therefore, in all times there are miracles.

But let us examine a little why the power of miracles was left in the Church. There is no doubt it was to confirm the Gospel preaching, for S. Mark so testifies, and S. Paul, who says that God gave testimony by miracles to the Faith which they announced.^[n0167] God placed these instruments in the hand of Moses, that he might be believed. Wherefore Our Lord said that if he had not done miracles the Jews would not have been obliged to believe him. Well now, must not the Church ever fight with infidelity? And why then would you take away from her this good stick which God has put into her hand? I am well aware that she has not so much need of it as at the beginning, now that the holy plant of the Faith has taken firm and good root, one need not water it so often. But, all the same, to wish to have the effect altogether taken away, the necessity and cause remaining intact, is poor philosophy.

Besides, I beg you to show me at what period the visible Church may have been without miracles, from the time that it began until this 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 concerning Theodosius and Constantine, for which we have authors of irreproachable authority—Eusebius, Rufinus, S. Jerome, Basil, Sulpicius, Athanasius? Who knows not again what happened at the Invention of the Holy Cross, and in the time of Julian the Apostate? In the time of S. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, many miracles were seen, which they themselves relate. Why then would you have the same Church now cease from miracles? What reason would there be? In truth, what we have always seen, in all varieties of times, accompanying the Church, we cannot do otherwise than call a property of the Church.

The true Church then makes her sanctity appear by miracles. And if God made so admirable the Propitiatory, and his Sinai, and his burning bush, because he wished to speak with men, why shall he not have made miraculous this his Church in which he wills to dwell for ever?

Here now I desire that you show yourselves reasonable, free from quibbling and from obstinacy. It is found on informations duly and authentically taken that about the commencement of this century S. Francis of Paula was renowned for undoubted miracles, such as are the raising of the dead to life. We find the same as to S. Diego of Alcala. These are not uncertain rumors, 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,^[n0168] and so many persons had part in?

The devout Gaspar Berzée, 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 paralyzed, 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 15 years after his death, and these two died within the last 45 years.

In Meliapor has been found a cross cut on a stone, which is considered to have been buried by the Christians in the time of S. Thomas. A wonderful but true thing, almost every year, about the feast of this glorious Apostle, that cross sweats a quantity of blood, or liquid like blood, and changes color, becoming white, pale, then black, and sometimes blue, brilliant and then of softer hue, and at last it returns to its natural color. This many people have seen, and the Bishop of Cochin sent a public attestation of it to the holy Council of Trent. Miracles, therefore, are worked in the Indies, where the Faith is not yet established, a whole world of which I leave on one side, in order to observe due brevity.

The good Father Louis of Granada, in his Introduction on the Creed, narrates many recent and unquestionable miracles. Among others he brings forward the cures which the Catholic kings of France have worked in our age, even in incurable cases of king’s evil, by saying no more than these words: May God heal you, and the king touches the person, no other disposition being required than Confession and Communion on that day.

I have read the history of the miraculous cure of James, son of Claude Andrew, of Belmont, in the bailiwick of Baulme in Burgundy. He had been helpless during eight years. After making his devotions in the Church of S. Claude, on the very day of the feast, June 8, 1588, he found himself immediately cured. Do you not call that a miracle? I am speaking of things in the neighborhood; 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,^[n0169] and the greatest S. John mentions is that he will make fire descend from heaven; Satan can work miracles, indeed has done so, no doubt, but God will leave a prompt remedy with his Church, for, to those false miracles, the servants of God, Elias and Enoch, as the apocalypse and interpreters witness, will oppose other miracles of very different make. For not only will they employ fire to punish their enemies miraculously, but will have power to shut the heavens so that there may be no rain, to change and convert the waters into blood, and to strike the earth with what chastisements they like for three days and a half. After their death they shall rise again and ascend to heaven; the earth shall tremble at their ascension. Then, therefore, by the opposition of the true miracles, the illusions of Antichrist will be discovered, and as Moses at last made the magicians of Pharaoh confess, The finger of God is here, so Elias and Enoch will effect that their enemies shall give glory to the God of heaven. Elias will do at that time some of those holy prophet’s deeds of his, which he did of old to put down the impiety of the Baalites and other professors of false religions.

I wish then to say (1) that the miracles of Antichrist are not such as those we bring forward for the Church, and therefore, it does not follow that if those are not marks of the Church these likewise are not so. The former will be proved false and be overcome by greater and more solid ones, the latter are solid, and no one can oppose to them more certain ones. (2) The wonders of Antichrist will be simply an illusion of three years and a half, but the miracles of the Church are so properly hers, that since her foundation she has always shone in miracles. The miracles of Antichrist will be unnatural and will not endure, but in the Church they are grafted as it were naturally on her supernatural nature, and therefore they ever accompany her, to verify these words: These signs shall follow them that believe.

You will be ready to say that the Donatists worked miracles, according to S. Augustine, but they were only certain visions and revelations of which they themselves boasted, without any public testimony. Certainly the Church cannot be proved true by these private revelations. On the contrary, these visions themselves cannot be proved or held as true save by the testimony of the Church, says the same S. Augustine. And if Vespasian healed a blind and a lame man, the doctors themselves, according to Tacitus, decided that it was a blindness and an infirmity which were not incurable. It is no marvel then if the devil was able to heal them. A Jew having been baptized went and presented himself to Paulus, a Novatian bishop, to be rebaptized, says Socrates;^[n0170] 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 among the Pagans, says S. Augustine, not in proof of Paganism, but of innocence, virginity, fidelity, which, wherever they are, are loved and valued by God who is the author thereof. Further, these wonders are done but rarely, and from them no conclusion can be drawn: the clouds sometimes give forth light, but it is only the sun which has for its mark and property the giving of light. Let us then conclude this subject: the Church has always been accompanied by miracles, solid and certain as those of her spouse; therefore, she is the true Church. For, to use the argument of the good Nicodemus (John iii. 2) in like case, I will say, No society can do these miracles which this does, so glorious and so continual, unless God was with it. And what did Our Lord say to the disciples of S. John (Matt. xi. 5), Say, the blind see, the lame walk, the deaf hear, to show that he was the Messias. Hearing that in the Church are done such grand miracles, we must conclude that the Lord is indeed in this place (Gen. xxviii. 16). But as regards your pretended Church, I can say nothing more to it than, If it can believe, all things are pos sible 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 Berzée. “Those raised up the living from the dead,” says Tertullian,^[n0171] “these make dead men out of the living.” A rumor 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 among 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 rumor, which is so timid and so feeble that nobody ventures to say from which side it came.

The total answer that I have got from you in this extreme necessity is that people do you a wrong when they ask miracles from you. And so they do, I agree with you; it would be turning you into ridicule, like asking a blacksmith to make an emerald or a diamond. Nor do I ask any from you. Only I request you to confess frankly that you have not made your apprenticeship with the Apostles, Disciples, martyrs and confessors, who have been masters of the craft.

But when you say you have no need of miracles, because you do not want to establish a new faith, tell me then again whether S. Augustine, S. Jerome, S. Gregory, S. Ambrose and the rest preached a new doctrine. And why then were there done miracles so great and so numerous as theirs? Certainly the Gospel was better received in the world than it is at present; there were then pastors more excellent, many martyrs and miracles had gone before, but the Church was still not wanting in that gift of miracles, for the greater glory of most holy religion. Or if miracles were to cease in the Church, it would have been in the time of Constantine the Great, after the Empire had become Christian, the persecutions had ceased and Christianity been quite secured, but so far were they from ceasing then that they were multiplied on all sides.

Moreover, the doctrine which you preach has never been proclaimed, either in general or in detail; your heretical predecessors have preached it, with each of whom you agree on some points and with all on none, as I will make clear afterward. Where was your church 80 years ago? It has only just begun, and you call it old. Ah, you say, we have made no new Church, we have rubbed up and cleaned the old money, which, having long lain in decayed buildings, had become discolored and encrusted with dirt and mould. Say that no more, I beg you, that you have the metal and the mold. Are not the Faith, the Sacraments, necessary ingredients in the composition of the Church? And you have changed everything both in the one and the other. You are then false coiners, if you do not show the power which you claim to put false stamps on the King’s coin. But let us not delay on this. Have you purified this Church, have you cleaned this money? Show us then the characters which it had when you say that it fell on the ground and began to get rusty. It fell, you say, in the time of S. Gregory, or a little after. You may say what you like, but at that time it had the character of miracles. Show it to us now? For if you do not show us most unmistakably the inscription of the King on your money, we will show it you on ours; ours will pass as royal and good, yours, as being light and clipped, will be sent back to the melting pot. If you would represent to us the Church as it was in the time of S. Augustine, show it to us not only speaking well but doing well, in miracles and holy operations, as it was then. If you would say that then it was nearer than it is now, I answer that so notable an interruption as that which you pretend of 900 or 1,000 years, makes this money so strange that unless we see on it, in large letters, the ordinary characters, the inscription and the image, we will never receive it. No, no, the ancient Church was powerful in all seasons, in adversity and prosperity, in work and in word, like her spouse; yours has naught but talk, whether in prosperity or in adversity. At least let it now show some vestiges of the ancient mark. Otherwise it will never be received as the true Church, nor as daughter of that ancient mother. If it would boast further, it must have silence imposed upon it with these holy words:^[n0172] If you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. 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.

SANCTITY OF THE CHURCH (CONTINUED) THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY OUGHT TO BE IN THE TRUE CHURCH. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY; THE PRETENDED HAS IT NOT .

Prophecy is a very great miracle, which consists in the certain knowledge which the human understanding has of things, without any experience or any natural reasoning, by supernatural inspiration, and therefore all that I have said of miracles in general ought to be predicated of this. The prophet Joel foretold (2:28–29 & 3:1) 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 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 (1 Cor. xiv. 22). How then do you say that Our Lord having given it once to the Church has taken it away afterward? The chief reason for which it was granted remaining still, the concession therefore also remains. Add, as I said of miracles, that at all times the Church has had prophets; we cannot therefore say that this is not one of her qualities and properties and a good portion of her dowry.

Jesus Christ, ascending on high, led captivity captive, he gave gifts to men … And some indeed he gave to be apostles, and some prophets, and others evangelists, and others pastors and teachers (Eph. iv). The apostolic, evangelic, pastoral and teaching spirit is always in the Church, and why shall the spirit of prophecy also not be left in her? It is a perfume of the garments of this spouse.

There have been scarcely any saints in the Church who have not prophesied. I will only name these more recent ones: S. Bernard, S. Francis, S. Dominic, S. Anthony of Padua, S. Bridget, S. Catherine of Siena, who were most sound Catholics. The saints of whom I spoke above are of the number, and in our age Gaspar Berzée and Francis Xavier. You would find no one of the older generation who did not repeat with full belief some prophecy of Jean Bourg; many of them had seen and heard him: The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

And now bring forward some one of yours who has prophesied in your church. We know that the sybils were in some sort the prophetesses of the Gentiles, and almost all the Ancients speak of them. Balaam also prophesied, but it was for the true Church, and hence their prophecies did not give credit to the church in which they were made, but to the Church for whom they were made, though I deny not that there was among the Gentiles a true Church, consisting of a few persons, maintaining by divine grace faith in a true God and the observance of the natural commandments. Witness Job in the Old Testament and the good Cornelius with seven other soldiers fearing God in the New Testament. 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 favorable to the Catholic Church that when we get its fulfillment we will be content to consider him as something of a prophet.

Here are the sublimer instructions of Our Lord and the Apostles. A rich young man was protesting that he had observed the commandments of God from his tender youth. Our Lord, who sees everything, looking upon him loved him, a sign that he was such as he had said he was, and still he gave him this counsel (Matt., xix. Mark, x): If thou wouldst 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 example and that of his companions (Matt. xix): Behold we have left all things and have followed thee. Our Lord returns this solemn promise: You who have followed me … shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that shall have left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred-fold, and shall possess life everlasting. You see the words, now behold the example: The Son of man hath not where to lay his head (Luke ix. 58). He was entirely poor to make us rich; he lived on alms, says S. Luke—certain women ministered to him of their substance (viii. 3). In two Psalms^[n0173] 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.

Here are others similar on another subject (Matt. xix): There are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that can receive it, let him receive it.

It is precisely that which had been foretold by Isaias (lvi): Let not the eunuch say: behold I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs: They that shall keep my Sabbaths, and shall choose the things that please me, and shall hold fast my covenant, I will give them in my house and within my walls a place and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name which shall never per ish. 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 (1 Cor. vii): It is good for a man not to touch a woman: … now, I say to the unmarried and to the widows: it is good for them if they so continue, even as I…. Concerning virgins I have no commandment, but I give counsel, as hav ing received mercy of the Lord to be faithful. And here is the reason: He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to 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 woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is mar ried thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment … He that giveth his virgin in marriage 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; and I think that I also have the Spirit of God. Behold the instructions of Our Lord and his Apostles, having the authority of the example of Our Lord, of Our Lady, of S. John Baptist, of S. Paul, S. John, S. James, who have all lived in virginity, and in the Old Testament, Elias and Eliseus, as the Ancients have pointed out.

Lastly, the most humble obedience of Our Lord, which is so particularly signified in the evangelists, not only to his Father, to which he was obliged, but to S. Joseph, to his mother, to Cæsar (to whom he paid tribute), and to all creatures in his Passion, for the love of us, He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross (Phil. ii. 8), the humility which he shows in having come to teach us, when he said (Matt. xx, Luke xxii), The Son of man is not come to be ministered unto but to minister…. I am amongst you as he that serveth. Are not these perpetual repetitions and expositions of that most sweet lesson (Matt. xi), Learn of me, because I am meek and humble of heart, and that other (Luke ix), If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me? He who keeps the commandments denies himself sufficiently for salvation; to humble oneself in order to be exalted is quite enough, but still there remains another obedience, humility and self-abnegation, to which the examples and instructions of Our Lord invite us. He would have us learn humility from him, and he humbles himself, not only to those whose inferior he was, in so far as he was wearing the form of a servant, but also to his actual inferiors. He desires then, that as he abased himself, never indeed against his duty but beyond duty, we also should voluntarily obey all creatures for love of him. He would have us renounce ourselves, after his example, but he has renounced his own will so decisively that he has submitted to the cross itself, and has served his disciples and servants—witness he who finding it extraordinary said (John xiii): Thou shalt not wash my feet for ever. What remains then save that we should recognize in his words a sweet invitation to a voluntary submission and obedience toward those to whom otherwise we have no obligation, not resting, however lightly, on our own will and judgment, according to the advice of the wise man (Prov. iii), but making ourselves subjects and enslaved to God, and to men for the love of the same God. So the Rechabites are magnificently praised in Jeremias xxxv, because they obeyed their father Jonadab in things very hard and extraordinary, in which he had no authority to oblige them, such as were not to drink wine, neither they nor any of theirs, not to sow, not to plant, not to have vineyards, not to build. fathers certainly may not so tightly fasten the hands of their posterity, unless they voluntarily consent thereto. The Rechabites, however, are praised and blessed by God in approval of this voluntary obedience, by which they had renounced themselves with an extraordinary and more perfect renunciation.

Well now, let us return to our road. Such signal examples and instructions as these, in poverty, chastity and abnegation of self, to whom have they been left? To the Church. But why? Our Lord tells us, He who can receive, let him receive. And who can receive them? He who has the gift of God, and no one has the gift of God but he who asks for it, but, how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed…. How shall they believe … without a preacher! And how can they preach unless they be sent (Rom. x)? Now, there is no mission outside the Church, therefore the he who can receive let him receive, is addressed immediately only to the Church, or for those who are in the Church, since outside the Church it cannot be put in practice. S. Paul shows it more clearly: I speak this, he says, for your profit, not to make snares and nets for you, but to persuade you to that which is decent, and which may give you power and facility to attend upon the Lord, and to honor him without impedi ment. 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 among the first Christians sold his goods and brought the price to the feet of the Apostles. And S. Peter, putting in practice the first rule, said, Gold and silver have I none (Acts iii). S. Philip had four daughters, virgins, whom Eusebius testifies to have always remained such. S. Paul kept virginity or celibacy; so did S. John and S. James, and when S. Paul (1 Tim. v) reproves, as having damnation, certain young widows who, after they have grown wanton in Christ will marry, having damnation because they have left their first faith, the fourth Council of Carthage (at which S. Augustine assisted) S. Epiphanius, S. Jerome, with all the rest of antiquity, understand it of widows who, being vowed to God and to the observance of chastity, broke their vows, entering into the ties of marriage against the Faith which previously they had given to the heavenly spouse. From that time, then, the counsel of [being] eunuchs, and the other which S. Paul gives, were practiced in the Church.

Eusebius of Cæsarea records that the Apostles instituted two lives, the one according to commandment, the other according to counsel. And that so it was, evidently appears, for, on the model of the perfection of life followed and counseled 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,^[n0174] wherein he treats of S. Mark and his disciples, as Eusebius, Nicephorus, S. Jerome, bear witness. And among the rest, Epiphanius,^[n0175] 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, while S. Mark was preaching in Egypt, were so called, either on account of the name of Jesse, from whose race Our Lord sprang, or on account of the name of Jesus, their Master’s name, which they ever had in their mouth. Now he who will look at the books of Philo, will see in these Jessenes or Therapeuts (healers or servers) a most perfect renunciation of oneself, of one’s flesh, of one’s goods.

S. Martial, a disciple of Our Lord, in an Epistle which he wrote to the Tolosians, relates that at his preaching the blessed Valeria, wife of an earthly king, had vowed the virginity of her body and of her spirit to the celestial King. S. Denis, in his Eccle siastical 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,^[n0176] on account of the union with God, in which they made progress. Behold the perfection of the Evangelic life excellently practiced in this first time of the Apostles and their disciples, who, having traced this path thus straight to heaven, and ascended by it, have been followed, one after another, by many excellent Christians. S. Cyprian observed continency, and gave all his goods to the poor, as Pontius the Deacon records. The same did S. Paul, the first Hermit, S. Anthony and S. Hilarion, witness S. Athanasius and S. Jerome. S. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola—S. Ambrose is our authority—of an illustrious family in Guienne, gave all his goods to the poor and, as if discharged from a weighty burden, said farewell to his father and his family, to serve his God more devotedly. By his example it was that S. Martin quitted all, and excited others to the same perfection. George, Patriarch of Alexandria, relates that S. Chrysostom gave up all and became a monk. Politian, an African gentleman, returning to the Emperor’s court, related to S. Augustin, that in Egypt there were a great number of monasteries and religious, who manifested a great sweetness and simplicity in their manners, and that there was a monastery at Milan, outside the town, furnished with a good number of religious, living in great union and brotherhood, to whom S. Ambrose, bishop of the place, was as Abbot. He told them also that near the town of Treves, there was a monastery of good religious, in which two courtiers of the Emperor had become monks, and that two young ladies who were betrothed to these two courtiers, having heard the resolution of their spouses, similarly vowed their virginity to God, and retired from the world to live in religion, poverty and chastity. S. Augustin himself tells all this. Possidius relates the same and says that he had instituted a monastery, which S. Augustine himself relates in one of his Epistles. These great fathers have been followed by S. Gregory, Damascene, Bruno, Romuald, Bernard, Dominic, Francis, Louis, Anthony, Vincent, Thomas, Bonaventure, who having all renounced and said an eternal adieu to the world and its pomps, have presented themselves as a perfect holocaust to the living God.

Now let us conclude. These consequences seem to me inevitable. Our Lord has had these instructions and counsels of chastity, poverty and obedience laid down in his Scriptures. He has practiced them and has had them practiced in his early Church. All the Scripture and all the life of Our Lord were but an instruction for the Church which was to make profit by them, and it was then to be one of the institutions of the Church, this chastity, poverty, obedience or self-renunciation. Moreover, the Church has always put in practice these things at all times and in every season; this then is one of her properties. And what would be the use of so many exhortations if they were not to be put in practice? The true Church therefore ought to shine in the perfection of the Christian life, not so that everybody in the Church is bound to follow it; it is enough that it be found in some notable members and parts, in order that nothing may be written or counseled in vain and that the Church may make use of all the parts of Holy Scripture.

The Church which is now, following the voice of her pastor and savior, 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, among whom religious discipline flourishes, you would be uncertain whether you should call them earthly angels or heavenly men and that you would not know which to admire the more, whether in such blooming youth so perfect a chastity, or in such great knowledge so profound a humility, or in so much diversity so close a fraternity. And all, like heavenly bees, work in and compose, with the rest of Christianity, the honey of the Gospel, these by preachings, these by writings, these by meditations and prayers, these by teaching and disputations, these by the care of the sick, these by the administration of the Sacraments, under the authority of the pastors. Who should ever detract from the glory of so many religious of all orders, and of so many secular priests, who, leaving their country, or, to say it better, their own world, have exposed themselves to the mercy of wind and tide, to get to the nations of the New World, in order to lead them to the true faith, and to enlighten them with the light of the Gospel, who, without other equipment than a lively confidence in the Providence of God, without other expectation than of labors, miseries and martyrdom, without other aim than the honor of God and the salvation of souls, here hastened among the Cannibals, Canarians, Negroes, Brazilians, Malays, Japanese, and other foreign nations, and made themselves prisoners there, banishing themselves from their own earthly country in order that these poor people might not be banished from the heavenly Paradise? I know that some ministers have been thither, but they went having their means of support from men, and when these failed they returned and did no more, because an ape is always an ape, but ours remained there, in perpetual continency to fertilize the Church with these new plants, in extreme poverty to enrich these people with the Gospel and died in bondage to place that world in Christian liberty.

But if, instead of making your profit of these examples and refreshing your minds with the sweetness of so holy a perfume, you turn your eyes toward 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 behavior 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 honor of the Apostolic order, nor Lucifer of the angelic, nor Nicholas of the diaconate, and in the same way these abominable men ought not to tarnish the righteousness of so many devout monasteries, which the Catholic Church has preserved amid all the dissolution of this age of iron, in order that not one word of her spouse should be in vain or fail to be put in practice.

On the contrary, gentlemen, your pretended church despises and contradicts all this as much as she can. Calvin in the fourth book of his Institutions aims only at the abolition of the observance of the Evangelical counsels, and you cannot show me any effort or goodwill among your party, in which every one down to the ministers marries, every one labors 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 (1 Cor. vii), It is good for a man not to touch a woman? If everybody runs after money and possessions, to whom will that word of Our Lord (Matt. vi) be addressed, Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth, or that other (Ib. xix), Go, sell all, give to the poor? If every one will govern in his turn, where shall be found the practice of that most solemn sentence (Luke ix): He who will come after me let him deny himself? If then your Church puts itself in comparison with ours, ours will be the true spouse, who puts in practice all the words of her beloved and leaves not one talent of the Scripture idle; yours will be false, who hears not the voice of the Beloved, yea, despises it. For it is not reasonable that to keep yours in credit we should make vain the least syllable of the Scriptures, which being addressed only to the true Church, would be vain and useless if in the true Church all these parts are not made use of.

That great father, Vincent of Lerins, in his most useful Memorial, says that he must before all things have a great care to believe “that which has been believed by all [always and everywhere]” … ^[n0177]such as the jugglers and tinkers, for the rest of the world call us Catholic, and if we add Roman, it is only to inform people of the See of that Bishop who is general and visible pastor of the Church. And already in the time of S. Ambrose to be Roman in communion was the same thing as to be Catholic.

But as for your church, it is called everywhere Huguenot, Calvinist, Heretical, Pretended, Protestant, New, or Sacramentarian. Your church was not before these names, and these names were not before your church, because they are proper to it. Nobody calls you Catholics, you scarcely dare to do so yourselves. I am well aware that among you your churches call themselves Reformed, but just as much right to that name have the Lutherans, and the Ubiquitarians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians and other offshoots of Luther, and they will never yield it to you. The name of religion is common to the Church of the Jews and of the Christians, in the Old Law and in the New; the name of Catholic is proper to the Church of Our Lord. The name of Reformed is a blasphemy against Our Lord, who has so perfectly formed and sanctified his Church in his blood, that it must never take other form than of his all lovely spouse, of pillar and ground of truth. One may reform the nations in particular, but not the Church or religion. She was rightly formed, change of formation is called heresy or irreligion. The tint of Our Savior’s blood is too fair and too bright to require new colors.

Your church, then, calling itself Reformed, gives up its part in the form which the Savior had established. But I cannot refrain from telling you what Beza, Luther and Peter Martyr think on this. Peter Martyr calls you Lutherans, and says you are brothers to them, you are then Lutherans. Luther calls you Zwinglians^[n0178] and Sacramentarians, Beza calls the Lutherans Consubstantiators and Chymists, and yet he puts them in the number of reformed churches. See then the new names which the reformers acknowledge for one another. Your church, therefore, not having even the name of Catholic, you cannot with a good conscience say the Apostles’ Creed; if you do, you judge yourselves, who, confessing the Church Catholic and universal, obstinately keep to your own, which most certainly is not such. If S. Augustine were living now, he would remain in our Church, which from immemorial time is in possession of the name of Catholic.

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,^[n0179] “Error is a corruption of truth, truth then must precede.” The good seed is sown first, the enemy who oversows cockle comes afterward. Moses was before Abiron, Dathan and Core, the Angels were before the devils, Lucifer stood in the light before he fell into the eternal darkness; the privation must follow the form. S. John says of heretics (1 Ep. ii. 19), They went out from us; they were then within before they went out, the going out is heresy, the being within is fidelity, the Church then precedes heresy. So the coat of Our Lord was whole before it was divided. And 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,^[n0180] and they are worthy of close attention.

“You own to us, and would not dare to do otherwise, that for a time the Roman Church was holy, Catholic, Apostolic. Certainly then, when it deserved those holy praises of the Apostle (Rom. i. xv. xvi): Your faith is spoken of in the whole world…. I make a com memoration of you always…. I know that when I come to you I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of the gospel of Christ…. All the Churches of Christ salute you…. For your obedience is published in every place; then, when S. Paul, in prison free, sowed the Gospel; when S. Peter was governing the Church assembled in Babylon; when Clement, so highly praised by the Apostle, was stationed at the rudder; when the profane Cæsars, like Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Antoninus, were massacring the Bishops of Rome; yea and then also when Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius, and Innocent were holding the Apostolic helm: this on the testimony of Calvin himself, for he freely confesses that at that time they had not yet strayed from the Evangelic doctrine. Well then, when was it that Rome lost this widely renowned faith? When did it cease to be what it had been?—at what time?—under what bishop?—by what means?—by what force?—by what steps did the strange religion take possession of the City and of the whole world?—what protest, what troubles, what lamentations did it evoke? How!—was everybody asleep throughout the whole world, while Rome, Rome I say, was forging new Sacraments, new Sacrifices, and new doctrines? Is there not to be found one single historian, either Greek or Latin, friend or stranger, to publish or leave behind some traces of his commentaries and memoirs on so great a matter?”

And, in good truth, it would be a strange hap if historians, who have been so curious to note the most trifling changes in cities and peoples had forgotten the most noteworthy of all those which can occur, that is, the change of religion in the most important city and province of the world, which are Rome and Italy.

I ask you, gentlemen, whether you know when our Church began the pretended error. Tell us frankly, for it is certain that, as S. Jerome says,^[n0181] “to have reduced heresy to its origin is to have refuted it.” Let us trace back the course of history up to the foot of the Cross; let us look on this side and on that, we shall never see that this Catholic Church has at any time changed its aspect—it is ever itself, in doctrine and in Sacraments.

We have no need against you, on this important point, of other witnesses than the eyes of our fathers and grandfathers to say when your pretended Church began. In the year 1517 Luther commenced his tragedy. in’34 and’35 they composed an act in these parts; Zwingle and Calvin were the chief players in it. Would you have me detail by list with what fortune and deeds, by what force and violence, this reformation gained possession of Berne, Geneva, Lausanne and other towns—what troubles and woes it brought forth? You will not find pleasure in this account; we see it, we feel it. In a word, your Church is not yet 80 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 invisible, for if it were not seen who can say that it existed? Besides, Luther contradicts you, who confesses that in the beginning he was quite alone.

Now, if Tertullian already in his time bears witness that Catholics refuted the errors of heretics by their posteriority and novelty, when the Church was only in her youth—“We are wont,” says he,^[n0182] “to prescribe against heretics, for brevity’s sake, on the argument of posteriority”—how much more right have we now? And if one of the Churches must be the true, this title falls to ours which is most ancient and to your novelty the infamous name of heresy.

Although the Church might be ancient, yet it would not be universal in time if it had failed at any period. The heresy of the Nicolaites is ancient but not universal, for it only lasted a very little while. And as a whirlwind which seems ready to displace the sea then suddenly is lost in itself, or as a mushroom, which is born of some noxious vapor 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.^[n0183]

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 Cæsar Baronius in his Annals. But if you are not willing all at once to abandon the books of your masters, and have not your eyes blinded with too excessive a passion, you will, if you look closely into the Centuries of Magdebourg, see everywhere nothing but the actions of Catholics, for, says very well a learned man of our age, if they had not collected these there they would have left one thousand 500 years without history. I will say something on this point afterward.

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 100, 200 or 300 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.

The universality of the Church does not require that all provinces or missions receive the Gospel at once, it is enough that they do so one after another; in such sort, however, that the Church is always seen, and is always known as that which has existed throughout the whole world or the greater part thereof, so that one may be able to say, Come let us go up into the mountain of the Lord (Is. ii. 3). For the Church shall be as the sun, says the Psalm, and the sun is not always shining equally in all countries, enough if by the end of the year there is no one who can hide from its heat (Ps. xviii). So will it suffice that by the end of the world Our Lord’s prediction be fulfilled, that it behoves that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem (Luke ult.).

Now the Church in the time of the Apostles everywhere spread forth its branches, covered with the fruits of the Gospel, as S. Paul testifies (Rom. i) S. Irenæus says the same of his time,^[n0185] speaking of the Roman or papal Church, to which he will have all the rest of the Church subject on account of its superior authority.

Prosper speaks of our Church, not of yours, when he says,^[n0186] “In the pastoral honour, Rome, see of S. Peter, is head of the universe, which she has not reduced to her dominion by war and arms, but has acquired by religion.” You see clearly that he speaks of the Church, that he acknowledged the Pope of Rome as its head. In the 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 Roman and papal. So that even if our Church now were much less than it is, it would not cease to be most Catholic, because it is the same Roman Church which has been, and which has possessed all the provinces of the nations, and peoples without number, but, it is still now extended over the whole world, in Transylvania, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia and throughout all Germany, in France, in Italy, in Sclavonia, in Candia, in Spain, Portugal, Sicily, Malta, Corsica, in Greece, in Armenia, in Syria and everywhere.

Shall I add to the list the Eastern and Western Indies? He who would have a compendium of these must attend a general Chapter or assembly of the Religious of S. Francis, called Observantines. He would see Religious arrive from every quarter of the world, old and new, under the obedience of a simple, lowly, insignificant man, so that these alone would seem enough for the Church to fulfill that part of the prophecy of Malachy (i): In every place there is sacrifice … to my name.

On the contrary, gentlemen, the pretenders pass not the Alps on our side, nor the Pyrenees on the side of Spain; Greece knows you not. The other three parts of the world do not know who you are and have never heard of Christians without sacrifice, without altar, without head, without cross, as you are; in Germany your comrades the Lutherans, Brentians, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, eat into your portion, in England the Puritans, in France the Libertines. How then can you be so obstinate and continue thus apart from the rest of the world, as did the Luciferians and Donatists? I will say to you, as S. Augustine said to one of your fellows,^[n0187] “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.^[n0188] But if you say your church was already Catholic, in the time of the Apostle, show us that it existed at that time, for all the sects will say the same. How will you graft this little scion of pretended religion on that holy and ancient stock? Make your church touch by a perpetual continuation the primitive Church, for if they touch not, how can the one draw sap from the other. But this you will never do, unless you submit to the obedience of the Catholic [Church], you will never be, I say, with those who shall sing (Apoc. v. 9): Thou hast redeemed us in thy blood, from every tribe and tongue, and people and nation, and hast made us a kingdom to our God.

Perhaps you will say, at last, that after a time your church will spread its wings, and will become Catholic by process of time, but this is talking in the air. For if an Augustine, a Chrysostom, an Ambrose, a Cyprian, a Gregory, and that great multitude of excellent pastors, have not been able to manage well enough to prevent the Church from tumbling over soon after their time, how [shall] Calvin, Luther and the rest [do so]? What likelihood is there that it should grow stronger now, under the charge of your ministers, who neither in sanctity nor in doctrine are comparable with those? If the Church in its spring, summer and autumn has not been fruitful, how would you have one gather fruits from it in winter? If in its youth it has made no progress, how far would you have it run in its old age?

But I say further, your church is not only not Catholic, but never has been, not having the power nor the faculty of producing children, but only of stealing the offspring of others, as the partridge does. And yet it is certainly one of the properties of the Church to be fertile. It is for that, among 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 barren woman to dwell in a house, the joy ful mother of many children (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 walk in thy light, says the Prophet (Ib. lx), and kings in the glory of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round about and see; all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side, and (liii) because his soul hath laboured … therefore will I distribute to him very many. Now this fertility and these great nations of the Church come principally by preaching, as S. Paul says (1 Cor. iv. 15), In the Gospel I have begotten you. The preaching, then, of the Church ought to be as a flame, Thy word is fiery, O Lord (Ps. cxviii. 140). And what is more active, lively, penetrating and more quick to alter and give its form to other matters than fire?

Such was the preaching of S. Augustine in England, of S. Boniface in Germany, of S. Patrick in Ireland, of Willibrord in Frisia, of Cyril in Bohemia, of Adalbert in Poland, of Stephen in Hungary, of S. Vincent Ferrer and John Capistran; such the preaching of^[n0189]…. Francis Xavier, and 1,000 others who have overturned idolatry by holy preaching, and all were Roman Catholics.

On the contrary, your ministers have not yet converted any province from paganism, nor any country. To divide Christendom, to create factions there, to tear in pieces the robe of Our Lord, is the effect of their preachings. Christian doctrine is as a gentle rain, which makes unfruitful soil to bring forth: theirs rather resembles hail, which beats down and destroys the harvests, and makes barren the most fertile lands. Take notice of what S. Jude says, Woe to them who … have perished in the gainsaying of Core (Core was a schismatic), these are spots in their banquets, feasting together without fear, feeding themselves, clouds without water which are carried about by the wind—they have the exterior of the Scriptures, but they have not the interior moisture of the Spirit—unfruitful trees of the autumn, which have not the leaves of the letter nor the fruit of the inner meaning; twice dead—dead to charity by schism, and to faith by heresy; plucked up by the roots, unable any more to bear fruit—raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own 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 meaning; no wonder you cannot uproot idolatry. So S. Paul,^[n0190] speaking of those who separate from the Church, protests that they shall advance no further. If then your Church can in no way style itself Catholic up to this present, still less can you hope it may do so afterward, since its preaching is so feeble, and its preachers have never undertaken, as Tertullian says,^[n0191] the business or commission “of converting heathens, but only 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.

[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.]

We will begin with the words of S. Leo:^[n0192] (“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 afterward 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 (1) 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.^[n0193] And in truth it is the pastors 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 bear not in vain.^[n0194] 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 shepherd 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 wholesome for the flock. This is properly to assemble the pastors in the name of Jesus Christ,^[n0195] that is, by the authority of Our Lord. For 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 authority 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 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 territory they meet should have permitted and authorized the meeting, and the collections must be authorized 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 convocation 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 Christian 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,^[n0196] which the good Father Hosius wrote to the Emperor Constantius: “To thee God has committed the Empire, to us what 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. While 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,^[n0197] 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 this 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.^[n0198] 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. 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.^[n0199] 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.^[n0200]

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, Damasus, Bishop of Rome, was acknowledged as lawful head and president.^[n0201]

In the Council of Ephesus S. Cyril presided as legate and lieutenant of Pope Celestine. Here are the words of S. Prosper of Aquitaine:^[n0202] “By this man” (he is speaking of Pope Celestine) “the Eastern Churches also were purged of a double pestilence when he helped Cyril of Alexandria, your Bishop, 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: “The Nestorian impiety is opposed by the signal energy of Cyril, Bishop of Alexandria, and the authority 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 universal 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, Then 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.

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 least of a notable part, in which discussion 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.”^[n0203] 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 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 be to thee as the heathen and the publican.^[n0204] 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 two of you shall agree on earth concerning anything whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done for them by 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?^[n0205] 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.^[n0206]— What would become of it? And how would the Church be the pillar and ground of truth,^[n0207] if its bases and foundations support error and falsehood? Doctors and pastors are the visible foundations 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,^[n0208] and that Our Lord has given them to us that we may not be tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine!^[n0209] 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 savor, 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 Scripture, 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.”^[n0210] 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 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 declarations 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^[n0211] that “the word of the Lord by the Ecumenical Council of Nice remains for ever.” S. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of the Apollinarists who boasted of having been recognized by a Catholic Council: “If either now,” says he,^[n0212] “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^[n0213] 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 Rufinus (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 destruction, 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 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:^[n0214] 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.

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 why? An debebit episcopus aut concionator illum intolerabilem ardorem et æstum 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 Curé 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 consultation, 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 antiquity 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 receive a doctrine at haphazard or should test it by the application of God’s Word. 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 contrary to the profession of faith of our Church.” Gracious heavens, the doctrine of the Council of Nice, after an approbation of 1,300 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 inconsistent! Why, at least, may not each one try it for himself? If that of Nice has not been able to quiet 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 ὁμοουσιον (consubstantialem) 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 Savior 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 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 Constantinople attributes the primacy to the Pope of Rome, 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 generally? 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 inviolable rules for our faith.

But all this is to be understood of true Councils, either general or provincial, approved by general Councils or the Apostolic See. Such as was not that of the four hundred prophets assembled by Achab:^[n0215] 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 by 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 lieutenants 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 authority 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 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 honor 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),^[n0216] which he spoke not of himself and by chance, but he prophesied, says the evangelist, being the High Priest of that year.

Thus Our Lord would conduct the Synagogue and the priestly authority with singular honor 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: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,^[n0217] said Our Lord after the Supper. And in the Supper Our Lord had instituted the New Testament, so that the Old, with its ceremonies and its priesthood, lost its force and its privileges, though the confirmation of the New was only made by the death of the testator, as S. Paul says.^[n0218] We must then no longer take account of the privileges of the Synagogue, as they were founded on a Testament 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 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 contrary to it.

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.^[n0219] There is no better plan in the world. Since Calvin and Beza own that the Church continued pure for the first 600 years, let us see whether your Church is in the same faith and the same doctrine. 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 honor 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 witnesses 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 will seek out the wisdom of all the ancients, and will be occupied in the prophets. He will keep the sayings of renowned men (Ecclus. xxxix. 1, 2). Hear what Jeremias says (vi. 16): 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 souls. And the wise man (Ecclus. viii. 11): Let not the discourse of the ancients escape thee, for they have learned of their fathers. And we must not only honor 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 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,^[n0220] 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 according 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 newcomers? That is where we stand. Now who does not see at first sight, that it is an unbearable impudence to refuse belief to these myriad martyrs, confessors, doctors, who have preceded us? And if the faith of that ancient Church ought 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.

When Our Lord imposes a name upon men he always bestows some particular grace according to the name which he gives them. If he changes the name of that great father of believers, and of Abram makes him Abraham, also of a high father he makes him father of many, giving the reason at the same time: Thou shalt be called Abra ham; because I have made thee the father of many nations.^[n0221] 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 powerful against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against men.^[n0222] So that God by the names which he imposes not only marks the things named, but teaches us something of their qualities and conditions. Witness the angels, who have names only according to their offices, and S. John Baptist, who has the grace in his name which he announced in his preaching; as is customary in that holy language of the Israelites. The imposition of the name in the case of S. Peter is no small argument of the particular excellence of his charge, according to the very reason which Our Lord appended: Thou art Peter, and so on.

But what name does he give him? A name full of majesty, not common, not trivial, but one expressive of superiority and authority, like unto that of Abraham himself. For if Abraham was thus called because he was to be father of many nations, S. Peter has received this name because upon him as upon a firm rock was to be founded the multitude of Christians. And it is on account of this resemblance that S. Bernard^[n0223] 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 (petram) whence you are hewn:…. look unto Abraham your father;^[n0224] 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?^[n0225] This changing and imposition of name is then very worthy of consideration. For the names that God gives are full of power and might. He communicates Peter’s name to him; he has therefore communicated to him some quality corresponding with the name. Our Lord himself is by excellence called the rock, because he is the foundation of the Church, and the cornerstone, the support and the firmness, of this spiritual edifice. And he has declared that on S. Peter should his Church be built, and that he would establish him in the Faith: Confirm thy brethren.^[n0226] I am well aware that he imposed a name upon the two brothers John and James, Boanerges, the sons of thunder,^[n0227] but this name is not one of superiority or command, but rather of obedience, nor proper or special but common to two, nor, apparently, was it permanent, since they have never since been called by it. It was rather a title of honor, on account of the excellence of their preaching. But in the case of S. Peter he gives a name permanent, full of authority, and so peculiar to him that we may well say to which of the others hath he said at any time, Thou art Peter? showing that S. Peter was superior to the others.

But I will remind you that Our Lord did not change S. Peter’s name, but only added a new name to his old one, perhaps in order that he might remember in his authority what he had been, what his stock was, and that the majesty of the second name might be tempered by the humility of the first, and that if the name of Peter made us recognize him as chief, the name of Simon might tell us that he was not absolute chief, but obeying and subaltern chief, and head servant. S. Basil seems to have given support to what I am saying, when he said,^[n0228] “Peter denied thrice and was placed in the foundation. Peter had previously not denied, and had been pronounced blessed. He had said: Thou art the Son of the living God, and thereupon had heard that he was Peter. The Lord thus returned his praise, because although he was a rock, yet he was not the rock; for Christ is truly the immovable rock, but Peter on account of the rock. Christ indeed gives his own prerogative to others, yet he gives them not losing them himself, he holds them none the less. He is a rock, and he made a rock; what is his, he communicates to his servants; this is the proof of opulence, namely, to have and to give to others.” Thus speaks S. Basil.^[n0229]

What does he [Christ] say? Three things, but we must consider them one after the other: Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.^[n0230] 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, and so on, 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 feminine. But we do not equivocate here, for it is but one same word, and taken in the same sense, when Our Lord said to Simon, Thou art Peter, and when he said, and on this rock I will build my church. And this name of Peter was not a proper name of a man, but was only [then] appropriated to Simon Bar-jona. This you will much better understand, if you take it in the language in which Our Lord said it; he spoke not Latin but Syriac. He therefore called him not Peter but Cephas, thus, Thou art Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build, as if one said in Latin, Thou art saxum, and on this saxum, or in French, Thou art rocher, and on this rocher I will build my church.^[n0231] Now what doubt remains that it is the same person of whom he says, Thou art Rock, and of whom he says, And on this Rock? Certainly there is no other Cephas spoken of in all this chapter but Simon. On what ground then do we come to refer this relative hanc to another Cephas besides the one who immediately precedes?

You will say, Yes, but the Latin says, Thou art Petrus, and not, Thou art Petra. Now this relative hanc, which is feminine, cannot refer to Petrus, which is masculine. The Latin version indeed has other arguments enough to make it clear that this stone is no other than S. Peter, and therefore, to accommodate the word to the person to whom it was given as a name, who was masculine, there is given it a corresponding termination as the Greek does, which had put, Thou art πετρος, and on this τῇ πέτρᾳ. 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 πετρος and πέτρα is the very same thing. Similarly in French rocher and roche is the same thing, yet still so that if I had to predicate either word of a man, I would rather apply to him the name of rocher than of roche, to make the masculine word correspond with the masculine subject. I have only to add, on this interpretation, that nobody doubts that Our Lord called S. Peter Cephas (for S. John records it most explicitly, and S. Paul, to the Galatians), or that Cephas means a stone or a rock, as S. Jerome says.^[n0232]

In fine, to prove to you that it is really S. Peter of whom it is said, And on this rock, I bring forward the words that follow. For it is all one to promise him the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and to say to him, Upon this rock; now we cannot doubt that it is S. Peter to whom he promises the keys of the kingdom of heaven, since he says clearly, And to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. If therefore we do not wish to disconnect this piece of the Gospel from the preceding and the following words in order to place it elsewhere at our fancy, we cannot believe but that all this is said to S. Peter and of S. Peter, Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. And this the Catholic Church, when, even according to the admission of the ministers, she was true and pure, has confessed loudly and clearly in the assembly of 630 Bishops at the Council of Chalcedon.^[n0233]

Let us now see what these words are worth and what they import. (1) We know that what the head is to a living body, the root to a tree, that the foundation is to a building. Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on S. Peter, shows that S. Peter will be its foundation stone, the root of this precious tree, the head of this excellent body. The French call both the building and the family, house, on this principle, that as a house is simply a collection of stones and other materials arranged with order, correspondence and measure, so a family is simply a collection of persons with order and interdependence. It is after this likeness that Our Lord calls his Church a building, and when he makes S. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this family.

(2) By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice.

He shows one of the differences there are between S. Peter and himself. For Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation and builder, but S. Peter is only foundation. Our Lord is its Master and Lord in perpetuity; S. Peter has only the management of it, as we shall explain by and by.

(3) By these words Our Lord shows that the stones which are not placed and fixed on this foundation are not of the Church, although they may be in the Church.

But a great proof of the contrary, as our adversaries think, is that, according to S. Paul, No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus,^[n0234] and according to the same we are domestics of God; built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone.^[n0235] And, in the apocalypse,^[n0236] the wall of the holy city had 12 foundations, and in these 12 foundations the names of the 12 Apostles. If then, say they, all the 12 Apostles are foundations of the Church, how do you attribute this title to S. Peter in particular? And if S. Paul says that no one can lay another foundation than Our Lord, how do you dare to say that by these words: Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, S. Peter has been established as foundation of the Church? Why do you not rather say, asks Calvin, that this stone on which the Church is founded is no other than Our Lord? Why do you not rather declare, says Luther, that it is the confession of faith which Peter had made?

But in good truth it is an ill way of interpreting Scripture to overturn one passage by another, or to strain it by a forced interpretation to a strange and unbecoming sense. We must leave to it as far as possible the naturalness and sweetness of the sense which belongs to it.

In this case, then, since we see that Scripture teaches us there is no other foundation than Our Lord, and the same teaches us clearly that S. Peter is such also, yea and further that the Apostles are so, we are not to give up the first teaching for the second, the second for the third, but to leave them all three in their entirety. Which we shall easily do if we consider these passages in good faith and sincerely.

Now Our Lord is in very deed the only foundation of the Church; he is the foundation of our faith, of our hope and charity; he is the foundation of all ecclesiastical authority and order, and of all the doctrine and administration which are therein. Who ever doubted of this? But, someone will say to me, if he is the only foundation, how do you place S. Peter also as foundation? (1) You do us wrong; it is not we who place him as foundation. He, besides whom no other can be placed, he himself placed him. So that if Our Lord is true founder of the Church, as he is, we must believe that S. Peter is such too, since Our Lord has placed him in this rank. If any one besides Our Lord himself had given him this grade we should all cry out with you, No one can lay another foundation but that which is laid. (2) And then, have you well considered the words of S. Paul? He will not have us recognize any foundation besides Our Lord, but neither is S. Peter nor are the other Apostles foundations besides Our Lord, they are subordinate to Our Lord: their doctrine is not other than that of their master, but their very master’s itself. Thus the supreme charge which S. Peter had in the militant Church, by reason of which he is called foundation of the Church, as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing. We do not indeed recognize any other secular authority than that of His Highness [of Savoy], but we recognize several under this, which are not properly other than that of His Highness, because they are only certain portions and participations of it. (3) In a word, let us interpret S. Paul passage by passage: do you not think he makes his meaning clear enough when he says, You are built upon the foundations of the Prophets and Apostles? But that you may know these foundations to be no other than that which he preached, he adds, Christ himself being the chief cornerstone. Our Lord then is foundation and S. Peter also, but with so notable a difference that in respect of the one the other may be said not to be it. For Our Lord is foundation and founder, foundation without other foundation, foundation of the natural, Mosaic and Evangelic Church, foundation perpetual and immortal, foundation of the militant and triumphant, foundation by his own nature, foundation of our faith, hope and charity, and of the efficacy of the Sacraments.

S. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the whole Church, foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord, foundation of the Evangelic Church alone, foundation subject to succession, foundation of the militant not of the triumphant, foundation by participation, ministerial not absolute foundation, in fine, administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments. A difference so great as this makes the one unable, in comparison, to be called a foundation by the side of the other, while, 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^[n0237] under himself, between whom and his majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd.^[n0238]

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 afterward 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, and so on? It would be to violate the Scripture to say that all the Apostles in general have not been foundations of the Church. It would also be to violate the Scripture to deny that S. Peter was so in particular. It is necessary that the general word should produce its general effect, and the particular its particular, in order that nothing may remain useless and without mystery out of Scriptures so mysterious. We have only to see for what general reason all the Apostles are called foundations of the Church, namely, because it is they who by their preaching have planted the Faith and the Christian doctrine, in which if we are to give some prerogative to any one of the Apostles it will be to that one who said, I have laboured more abundantly than all they.^[n0239]

And it is in this sense that is meant the passage of the Apocalypse. For the 12 Apostles are called foundations of the heavenly Jerusalem, because they were the first who converted the world to the Christian religion, which was as it were to lay the foundations of the glory of men, and the seeds of their happy immortality. But the passage of S. Paul seems to be understood not so much of the person of the Apostles as of their doctrine. For it is not said that we are built upon the Apostles, but upon the foundation of the Apostles, that is, upon the doctrine which they have announced. This is easy to see, because it is not only said that we are upon the foundation of the Apostles, but also of the Prophets, and we know well that the Prophets have not otherwise been foundations of the Evangelical Church than by their doctrine. And in this matter all the Apostles seem to stand on a level, unless S. John and S. Paul go first for the excellence of their theology. It is then in this sense that all the Apostles are foundations of the Church, but in authority and government S. Peter precedes all the others as much as the head surpasses the members, for he has been appointed ordinary pastor and supreme head of the Church, the others have been delegated pastors entrusted with as full power and authority over all the rest of the Church as S. Peter, except that S. Peter was the head of them all and their pastor as of all Christendom. Thus they were foundations of the Church equally with him as to the conversion of souls and as to doctrine, but as to the authority of governing, they were so unequally, as S. Peter was the ordinary head not only of the rest of the whole Church but of the Apostles also. For Our Lord had built on him the whole of his Church, of which they were not only parts but the principal and noble parts. “Although the strength of the Church,” says S. Jerome,^[n0240] “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,^[n0241] 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.”

Our adversaries are so angry at our proposing to them the chair of S. Peter as a holy touchstone by which we may test the meanings, imaginations and fancies they put into the Scriptures, that they overthrow heaven and earth to wrest out of our hands the express words of Our Lord, by which, having said to S. Peter that he would build his Church upon him, in order that we might know more particularly what he meant he continues in these words: And to thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. One could not speak more plainly. He has said, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood, and so on. And I say to thee that thou art Peter, … and to thee will I give, and so on. This to thee refers to that very person to whom he had said, And I say to thee; it is then to S. Peter. But the ministers try as hard as they can to disturb the clear fountain of the Gospel, so that S. Peter may not be able to find his keys therein, and that we may turn disgusted from the water of the holy obedience which we owe to the vicar of Our Lord.

And therefore they have bethought them of saying that S. Peter had received this promise of Our Lord in the name of the whole Church, without having received any particular privilege in his own person. But if this is not violating Scripture, never did man violate it. For was it not to S. Peter that he was speaking? And how could he better express his intention than by saying, And I say to thee…. I will give to thee? Put with this his having just spoken of the Church, and said, The gates of hell shall not prevail against it, which would have prevented him from saying, And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom, if he had wished to give 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 surmising over clear words, there will be nothing in the Scripture which cannot be twisted into any meaning whatever; though I do not deny that S. Peter in this place was speaking in his own name and in that of the whole Church, not indeed as delegated by the Church or by the disciples (for we have not the shadow of a sign of this commission in the Scripture, and the revelation on which he founds his confession had been made to himself alone—unless the whole college of Apostles was named Simon Bar-jona), but as mouthpiece, prince and head of the Church and of the others, according to S. Chrysostom and S. Cyril on this place, and “on account of the primacy^[n0242] 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, traveling over all that blessed country rather as scholars with their tutor to learn the profound lessons which afterward they taught to others than as Apostles or Envoys, which they afterward were throughout the whole world, when their sound went forth into all the earth.^[n0243] Neither do I deny that the rest of the prelates of the Church have a share in the use of the keys, and as for the Apostles I own that they have every authority here. I say only that the giving of the keys is here promised principally to S. Peter, and for the benefit of the Church. For although it is he who has received them, still it is not for his private advantage but for that of the Church. The control of the keys is promised to S. Peter in particular, and principally, then afterward to the Church, but it is promised principally for the general good of the Church, then afterward 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 afterward? For in truth it seems to have been but the same, because Our Lord explaining what he meant by the keys said, And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose, and so on, which is just what he said to the Apostles in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, and so on.^[n0244] If then he promises to all in general what he promises to Peter in particular, there will be no ground for saying that S. Peter is greater than one of the others by this promise.

I answer that in the promise and in the execution of the promise Our Lord has always preferred S. Peter by expressions which oblige us to believe that he has been made head of the Church. And as to the promise, I confess that by these words: And what soever thou shalt loose, Our Lord has promised no more to S. Peter than he did to the others afterward: Whatsoever you shall bind, and so on. For the words are the same in substance and in meaning in the two passages. I admit also that by these words: And whatsoever thou shalt loose, said to S. Peter, he explains the preceding: And I will give to thee the keys, but I deny that it is the same thing to promise the keys and to say, Whatsoever thou shalt loose. Let us then see what it is to promise the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And who knows not that when a master, going away from his house, leaves the keys with some one, what he does is to leave him the charge and governance thereof. When princes make their entrance into cities, the keys are presented to them as an acknowledgment of their sovereign authority.

It is then the supreme authority which Our Lord here promises to S. Peter, and in fact when the Scripture elsewhere wishes to speak of a sovereign authority it has used similar terms. In the Apocalypse (i. 17, 18), when Our Lord wishes to make himself known to his servant, he says to him, I am the first and the last, and alive and was dead: and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and of hell. What does he mean by the keys of death and of hell, except the supreme power over the one and the other? And there also where it is said, These things saith the Holy one and the True one, who hath the key of David: he that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth (Ibid. iii. 7)—what can we understand but the supreme authority of the Church? And what else is meant by what the Angel said to Our Lady (Luke i. 32): The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever—the Holy Spirit making us know the kingship of Our Lord, now by the seat or throne, now by the keys? But 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 him that dwelleth in the tabernacle, to Sobna who is over the temple; and thou shalt say to him—what dost thou here? And further on: I will depose thee. See there the deposition of one, and now see the institution of the other. And it shall come to pass in that day that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house 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 I will call my servant Eliacim 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, and so on. Does this not signify the same as I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand, and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Juda? And what else is it to be the foundation or foundation stone of a family than to be there as father, to have the superintendence, to be governor there? And if one has had this assurance, I will lay the key of the house of David upon 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, Whatever thou shalt loose, although one is an explanation of the other. And what is the difference? Certainly just that which there is between the possession of an authority and the exercise of it. It may well happen that while a king lives, his queen, or his son, may have just as much power as the king himself to chastise, absolve, make gifts, grant favors. Such person, however, will not have the scepter but only the exercise of it. He will indeed have the same authority, but not in possession, only in use and exercise. What he does will be valid, but he will not be head or king, he must recognize that his power is extraordinary, by commission and delegation, whereas the power of the king, which may be no greater, is ordinary and is his own. So Our Lord promising the keys to S. Peter remits to him the ordinary authority and gives him that office in ownership, the exercise of which he referred to when he said, Whatsoever thou shalt loose, and so on. Now afterward, when he makes the same promise to the other Apostles, he does not give them the keys or the ordinary authority, but only gives them the use and exercise thereof. This difference is taken from the very terms of the Scripture, for to loose and to bind signifies but the action and exercise, to have the keys, the habit…. See how different is the promise which Our Lord made to S. Peter from that which he made to the other Apostles. The Apostles all have the same power as S. Peter, but not in the same rank, inasmuch as they have it as delegates and agents, but S. Peter as ordinary head and permanent officer. And in truth it was fitting that the Apostles who were to plant the Church everywhere, should all have full power and entire authority as to the use of the keys and the exercise of their powers, while it was most necessary that one among them should have charge of the keys by office and dignity, “that the Church, which is one,” as S. Cyprian says,^[n0245] “should by the word of the Lord be founded upon one who received the keys thereof.”

To which of the others was it ever said, I have 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 (vos)—you all; but I have prayed for thee, Peter, is not this to place him alone as responsible for all, as head and guide of the whole flock? But who sees not how pregnant this passage is for our purpose? Let us consider what precedes, and we shall find that Our Lord had declared to his Apostles that there was one of them greater than the others: He who is the greatest among you … and he that is the leader, and immediately Our Lord goes on to say to him that the adversary was seeking to sift them, all of them, as wheat, but that still he had prayed for him in particular that his faith should not fail. I pray you, does not this grace which was so peculiar to him, and which was not common to the others, according to S. Thomas, show that S. Peter was that one who was greatest among them? All are tempted, and prayer is made for one alone. But the words following render all this quite evident. For some Protestant might say that he prayed for S. Peter in particular on account of some other reason that might be imagined (for the imagination ever furnishes support enough for obstinacy), not because he was head of the others or because the faith of the others was maintained in their pastor. On the contrary, gentlemen, it is in order that being once converted he might confirm his brethren. He prays for S. Peter as for the confirmer and support of the others, and what is this but to declare him head of the others? Truly one could not give S. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care of them. For how could he put this command in practice without paying regard to the weakness or the strength of the others in order to strengthen or confirm them? Is this not to again call him foundation of the Church? If he supports, secures, strengthens the very foundation stones, how shall he not confirm all the rest? If he has the charge of supporting the columns of the Church, how shall he not support all the rest of the building? If he has the charge of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself? The gardener who sees the young plant exposed to the continual rays of the sun, and wishes to preserve it from the drought which threatens it, does not pour water on each branch, but having well steeped the root considers that all the rest is safe, because the root continues to distribute the moisture to the rest of the plant. Our Lord also, having planted this holy assembly of the disciples, prayed for the head and the root, in order that the water of faith might not fail to him who was therewith to supply all the rest, and in order that through the head the Faith might always be preserved in the Church.

But I must tell you, before closing this part of my subject, that the denial which S. Peter made on the day of the Passion must not trouble you here, for he did not lose the Faith, but only sinned as to the confession of it. Fear made him disavow that which he believed. He believed right but spoke wrong.

We know that Our Lord gave a most ample procuration and commission to his Apostles to treat with the world concerning its salvation, when he said to them (John xx): As the Father hath sent me I also send you … receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall forgive, and so on. It was the execution of that promise of his which had been made them in general: Whatsoever you shall bind, and so on. But it was never said to any one of the other Apostles in particular: Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, nor was it ever said to one of the others: Feed my sheep (John xxi. 17). S. Peter alone had this charge. They were equal in the Apostolate, but into the pastoral dignity S. Peter alone was instituted: Feed my sheep. There are other pastors in the Church; each must feed the flock which is under him, as S. Peter says (1 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,^[n0246] “were ever the sheep so absolutely, so universally committed: Feed my sheep?”

And to prove that it is truly S. Peter to whom these words are addressed, I betake myself to the holy Word. It is S. Peter only who is called Simon son of John, or of Jona (for one is the same as the other, and Jona is but the short of Joannah), and in order that we may know that this Simon son of John is really S. Peter, S. John bears witness that it was Simon Peter—Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? It is then S. Peter to whom in particular Our Lord says, Feed my sheep.

And Our Lord puts S. Peter apart from the others in that place where he compares him with them: Lovest thou me, there is S. Peter on the one side—more than these, there are the Apostles on the other. And although all the Apostles were not present, yet the principal ones were, S. James, S. John, S. Thomas and others. It is only S. Peter who is grieved, it is only S. Peter whose death is foretold. What room is there then for doubting that it was to him alone that this word feed my sheep is addressed, a word which is united to all these others?

Now that to feed the sheep includes the charge of them, appears clearly. For what is it to have the charge of feeding the sheep, but to be pastor and shepherd, and shepherds have full charge of the sheep, and not only lead them to pasture, but bring them back, fold them, guide them, rule them, keep them in fear, chastise them and guard them. In Scripture to rule and to feed the people is taken as the same thing, which is easy to see in Ezekiel (xxxiv), in the second Book of Kings (v. 2), and in several places of the Psalms, where, according to the original there is to feed, and we have to rule, and in fact, between ruling and pasturing the sheep with iron crook there is no difference. In Psalm xxii., verse 1, The Lord ruleth me, i.e., as shepherd governeth me, and when it is said that David had been elected to feed Jacob his servant and Israel his inheritance: and he fed them in the innocence of his heart (Ps. lxxvii. 71, 72), it is just the same as if he said to rule, to govern, to preside over. And it is after the same figure of speech that the peoples are called sheep of the pasture of Our Lord (Ps. xcix. 3), so that, to have the commandment of feeding the Christian sheep is no other thing than to be their ruler and pastor.

It is now easy to see what authority Our Lord intrusted to S. Peter by these words: Feed my sheep. For in truth the charge is so general that it includes all the faithful, whatever may be their condition; the commandment is so particular that it is addressed only to S. Peter. He who wishes to have this honor of being one of Our Lord’s sheep must acknowledge S. Peter, or him who takes Peter’s place, as his shepherd. “If thou lovest me”—I quote S. Bernard^[n0247]—“feed my sheep. Which sheep? The people of this or that city or region or even kingdom? My sheep, Christ says. Is it not clear to everybody that he did not mean some, but handed over all. There is no exception where there is no distinction. And perhaps the others, his fellow disciples, were present when, giving a charge to one, he commended unity to all in one flock with one pastor, according to that (Cant. vi): One is my dove, my beautiful one, my perfect one. Where unity is there is perfection.”

When Our Lord said, I know my sheep, he spoke of all; when he said feed my sheep, he still means it of all, for Our Lord has but one fold and one flock. And what else is it to say, feed my sheep, but take care of my flock, of my pastures, or of my sheep and my sheepfold? It is then entirely under the charge of S. Peter. For if he said to him, Feed my sheep, either he recommended all to him or some only; if he only recommended some—which? I ask. Were it not to recommend to him none, to recommend to him some only without specifying which, and to put him in charge of unknown sheep? If all, as the Word expresses it, then he was the general pastor of the whole Church. And the matter is thus rightly settled beyond doubt. It is the common explanation of the Ancients, it is the execution of his promises. But there is a mystery in this institution which our S. Bernard does not allow me to forget, now that I have taken him as my guide in this point. It is that Our Saviour thrice charges him to do the office of pastor, saying to him first: Feed my lambs; secondly, my lambs; thirdly, my sheep: not only to make this institution more solemn, but to show that he gave into his charge not only the people, but the pastors and Apostles themselves, who, as sheep, nourish the lambs and young sheep, and are mothers to them.

And it makes nothing against this truth that S. Paul and the other Apostles have fed many peoples with the Gospel doctrine, for being all under the charge of S. Peter, what they have done belongs also to him, as the victory does to the general, though the captains have fought, nor that S. Paul received from S. Peter the right hand of fellowship (Gal. ii. 9), for they were companions in preaching, but S. Peter was greater and chief in the pastoral office, and the chiefs call the soldiers and captains comrades.

Nor that S. Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and S. Peter of the Jews, because it was not to divide the government of the Church, nor to hinder either the one or the other from converting the Gentiles and the Jews indifferently, nor because the chief authority was not in the hands of one, but it was to assign them the quarters where they were principally to labor in preaching in order that each one attacking impiety in his own province the world might the sooner be filled with the sound of the Gospel.

Nor that he would seem not to have known that the Gentiles were to belong to the fold of Our Lord, which was confided to him, for what he said to the good Cornelius, In truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him (Acts x), is nothing different from what he had said before: Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (ii) and the prophecy which he had explained, And in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed (iii). He was only uncertain as to the time when the bringing back of the Gentiles was to begin, according to the holy Word of the Master: You shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa 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 word of God, but see ing you reject it, we turn to the Gentiles (xiii), just as Our Lord had already opened the mind of the Apostles to the intelligence of the Scriptures when he said to them, Thus it behoved … that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning with Jerusalem (Luke ult.).

Nor that the Apostles instituted deacons without the command of S. Peter, in the Acts of the Apostles (vi), for S. Peter’s presence there sufficiently authorized that act; besides, we do not deny that the Apostles had full powers of administration in the Church, under the pastoral authority of S. Peter. And we bishops, in union with the Holy See of Rome, ordain both deacons and priests without any special authorization.

Nor that the Apostles sent Peter and John into Samaria (Ib. viii), for the people also sent Phinees, who was the High Priest, and their superior, to the children of Ruben and Gad (Jos. xxii), and the centurion sent the chiefs and heads of the Jews, whom he considered to be greater than himself (Luke vii), and S. Peter being in the Council, himself consented to and authorized his own mission.

Nor finally, that which is made so much of—that S. Paul with stood S. Peter to the face (Gal. ii), for every one knows that it is permitted to the inferior to correct the greater and to admonish him with charity and submission when charity requires; witness our S. Bernard in his books On Consideration. And on this subject the great S. Gregory^[n0248] 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.”

It is a thing very worthy of consideration in this matter that the evangelists never name either all the Apostles or a part of them together without putting S. Peter ever at the very top, ever at the head of the band. This we cannot consider to be done accidentally, for it is perpetually observed by the evangelists, and it is not four or five times that they are thus named together, but very often. And besides, as to the other Apostles, they do not keep any particular order.

The names of the twelve Apostles are these, says S. Matthew (x): The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Mathew the publican, James of Alpheus and Thaddeus, Simon Chananeus, and Judas Iscariot. He names S. Andrew the second, S. Mark names him the fourth and to better show that it makes no difference, S. Luke, who in one place has put him second, in another puts him fourth. S. Matthew puts S. John fourth; S. Mark puts him third; S. Luke in one place fourth, in another second. S. Matthew puts S. James third; S. Mark puts him second. In short, it is only S. Philip, S. James of Alpheus and Judas who are not sometimes higher, sometimes lower. When the evangelists elsewhere name all the Apostles together there is no principle except as regards S. Peter, who goes first everywhere. Well now, let us imagine that we were to see in the country, in the streets, in meetings, what we read in the Gospels (and in truth it is more certain than if we had seen it)—if we saw S. Peter the first and all the rest grouped together, should we not judge that the others were equals and companions and S. Peter the chief and captain?

But, besides this, very often when the evangelists talk of the Apostolic company they name only Peter, and mention the others as accessory and following: And Simon and they who were with him followed after him (Mark i): But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep (Luke ix) You know well that to name one person and put the others all together with him, is to make him the most important and the others his inferiors.

Very often again he is named separately from the others, as by the Angel: Tell his disciples and Peter (Mark xvi): But Peter standing up, with the eleven … they said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles (Acts ii). Peter then answering and the Apostles said, Have we not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas (1 Cor. ix)? What does this mean, to say, Tell his disciples and Peter—Peter and the Apostles answered? Was Peter not an Apostle? Either he was less or more than the others, or he was equal. No man, who is not altogether mad, will say he was less. If he is equal and stands on a level with the others, why is he put by himself? If there is nothing particular in him, why is it not just as well to say, Tell his disciples and Andrew, or John? Certainly it must be for some particular quality which is in him more than in the others, and because he was not a simple Apostle. So that having said, Tell his disciples, or, as the rest of the Apostles, how can one longer doubt that S. Peter is more than Apostle and disciple? Only once in the Scriptures S. Peter is named after S. James, James and Cephas and John gave the right hands of fellowship (Gal. ii) But in truth there is too much occasion to doubt whether in the original and anciently S. Peter was named first or second, to allow any valid conclusion to be drawn from this place alone. For S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, both in the commentary and in the text, have written Peter, James, John, which they could never have done if they had not found this same order in their copies. S. Chrysostom has done the same in the commentary. All this shows the diversity of copies, which makes the conclusion doubtful on either side. But even if the copies we now have were originals, one could deduce nothing from this single passage against the order of so many others, for S. Paul might be keeping to the order of the time in which he received the hand of fellowship, or without concerning himself about the order might have written first the one which came first to his mind.

But S. Matthew shows us clearly what order there was among the Apostles, that is, that one was first, and the remainder were equal without second or third. First, says he, Simon who is called Peter; he does not say second, Andrew, third, 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 among 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 among the Apostles, or on account of some privilege which existed among them. But what is the worth of such a reason as this, I should like to know? To say that S. Peter was the oldest of the society is to seek at hazard an excuse for obstinacy, and the Scripture distinctly tells us he was not the earliest Apostle when it testifies that S. Andrew led him to Our Lord. The reasons are seen quite clearly in the Scripture, but because you are resolved to maintain the contrary, you go seeking about with your imagination on every side. Why say that S. Peter was the oldest, since it is a pure fancy which has no foundation in the Scripture, and is contrary to the Ancients? Why not say rather that he was the one on whom Christ founded his Church, to whom he had given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, who was the confirmer of the brethren? For all this is in the Scripture. What you want to maintain you do maintain; whether it has a base in Scripture or not makes no difference. And as to the other privileges, let anybody go over them to me in order, and none will be found special to S. Peter but those which make him head of the Church.

If I wanted to bring together here all that is to be found, I should make this proof as large as I want to make all the section, and without effort on my part. For that excellent theologian, Robert Bellarmine, would put many things into my hands. But particularly has Doctor Nicholas Sanders treated this subject so solidly and so amply that it is hard to say anything about it which he has not said or written in his books On the Visible Monarchy. I will give some extracts.

Whoever will read the Scriptures attentively will see this Primacy of S. Peter everywhere. If the Church is compared to a building, as it is, its rock and its secondary foundation is S. Peter (Matt. xvi).

If you say it is like a family, it is only Our Lord who pays tribute as head of the household, and after him S. Peter as his lieutenant (Ib. 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 (Ib. and John xxi).

If to draw nets (Matt. xiii), it is S. Peter who casts them into the sea, S. Peter who draws them; the other disciples are his coadjutors. It is S. Peter who brings them to land and presents the fish to Our Lord (Luke v., John xxi).

Do you say it is like an embassy? S. Peter is first ambassador (Matt. x).

Do you say it is a brotherhood? 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 lambs? S. Peter is its pastor and shepherd-general (John xxi).

Say now in conscience, how could Our Lord testify his intention more distinctly. Perversity cannot find use for its eyes amid such light. S. Andrew came the first to follow Our Lord, and it was he who brought his brother, S. Peter, and S. Peter precedes him everywhere. What does this signify except that the advantage one had in time the other had in dignity?

But let us continue. When Our Lord ascends to heaven, all the holy Apostolic body goes to S. Peter, as to the common father of the family (Acts i).

S. Peter rises up among them and speaks the first and teaches the interpretation of weighty prophecy (Ib.).

He has the first care of the restoration and increase of the Apostolic college (Ib.). It is he who first proposed to make an Apostle, which is no act of light authority, for the Apostles have all had successors and by death have not lost their dignity. But S. Peter teaching the Church shows both that Judas had lost his Apostolate and that another was needed in his place, contrary to the ordinary course of this authority, which in the others continues after death, and which they will even exercise on the Day of Judgment, when they shall be seated around the Judge, judging the 12 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 (Ib. 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 (Ib. v). From this springs the hatred which lying heretics bear against his See and succession, because, as S. Gregory says,^[n0249] “Peter by his word strikes liars dead.”

He is the first who recognizes and refutes heresy in Simon Magus (Ib. viii). Hence comes the irreconcileable hatred of all heretics against his See.

He is the first who raises the dead, when he prays for the devout Tabitha (Ib. ix).

When it is time to put the sickle into the harvest of paganism, it is S. Peter to whom the revelation is made, as to the head of all the laborers, and the steward of the farmstead (Ib. x).

The good Italian centurion, Cornelius, is ready to receive grace of the Gospel; he is sent to S. Peter, that the Gentiles may by his hands be blessed and consecrated. He is the first in commanding the pagans to be baptized (Acts x).

When a general Council is sitting, S. Peter as president therein opens the gate to judgment and definition, and his sentence [is] followed by the rest, his private revelation becomes a law (Ib. xv).

S. Paul declares that he went to Jerusalem expressly to see Peter, and stayed with him fifteen days (Gal i). He saw S. James there, but to see him was not what he went for, only to see S. Peter. What does this signify? Why did he not go as much to see the great and most celebrated Apostle S. James as to see S. Peter? Because we look at people in their head and face, and S. Peter was the head of all the Apostles.

When S. Peter and S. James were in prison the evangelist testifies that prayer was made without ceasing by the Church to God for S. Peter, as for the general head and common ruler (Acts xii).

If all this put together does not make you acknowledge S. Peter to be head of the Church and of the Apostles, I confess that Apostles are not Apostles, pastors not pastors, and doctors not doctors. For in what other more express words could be made known the authority of an Apostle and pastor over the people than those which the Holy Ghost has placed in the Scriptures to show that S. Peter was above Apostles, pastors and the whole Church?

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 favor of the Primacy of S. Peter, one might think that we were wresting it. But how do things stand? It is most clear on the point and has been understood in this sense by all the primitive Church. Those, then, force it who bring in a new sense, who gloss it against the natural meaning of the words, and against the sense of Antiquity. If this be lawful for everybody, the Scripture will no longer be anything but a toy for fanciful and perverse wits.

What is the meaning of this—that the Church has never held as patriarchal sees any but those of Alexandria, of Rome and of Antioch? One may invent a thousand fancies, but there is no other reason than that which S. Leo produces,^[n0250] because S. Peter founded these three sees they have been called and esteemed patriarchal, as testify the Council of Nice, and that of Chalcedon, in which a great difference is made between these three sees and the others. As for those of Constantinople and Jerusalem, the above-named Councils show how differently they are considered from those three others founded by S. Peter.

Not that the Council of Nice speaks of the see of Constantinople, for Constantinople was of no importance at all at that time, having only been built by the great Constantine, who dedicated and named it in the 25th 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 preeminence 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 formatæ, after the first letter of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, there was put the first letter of Peter, except that after Almighty God, who is the absolute King, the lieutenant’s authority is in great esteem with all those who are good Christians?

As for the consent of the fathers concerning this point, Surius, Sanders and a thousand others have taken away from posterity all occasion of doubting it. I will only bring forward the names by which the fathers have called him, which sufficiently show their belief concerning his authority.

Optatus of Milevis called him “the head of the Churches” (Contra Parm. ii). They have called him “Head of the Church,” as S. Jerome (adv. Jov. i), and S. Chrysostom (Hom. 11 in Matt). “Happy foundation of the Church,” as S. Hilary (in Matt. xvi), and “Janitor of heaven, the first of the Apostles,” as S. Augustine (in J. 56) after S. Matthew. “Mouth and crown of the Apostles,” as Origen (in Luc. xvii), and S. Chrysostom (in Matt. 55). “Mouth and prince of the Apostles,” as the same S. Chrysostom (in J. 87). “Guardian of the brethren, and of the whole world” (Ib. ult.). “Pastor of the Church and head stronger than adamant” (Id. in Matt. 55). “The immovable rock, immovable pedestal, the great Apostle, first of the disciples, first called and first obeying” (Id. in Pæn. 3). “Firmament of the Church, leader and master of Christians, column of the spiritual Israel, guardian of the feeble, master of the heavens, mouth of Christ, supreme head of the Apostles” (Id. in ador. caten. et glad. Apost. princ. Petri). “Prince of the Church, port of faith, master of the world” (Id. in SS. P. et P. et Eliam). “First in the supremacy of the Apostolate” (Greg. in Ezech. xviii). “High Priest of Christians” (Euseb. in Chron. 44). “Master of the army of God” (Id. Hist. ii. 14). “Set over the other disciples” (Bas. de Judic. Dei 9). “President of the world” (Chrys. in Matt. 11). “The Lord of the house of God, and prince of all his possession” (Bern. Ep. 137, ad Eugen.).

Who shall dare to oppose this company? Thus they speak, thus they understand the Scripture, and according to it do they hold that all these names and titles are due to S. Peter.

The Church then was left on earth by her Master and spouse with a visible chief and lieutenant of the Master and Lord. The Church is therefore to be always united together in a visible chief-minister of Christ.

I have clearly proved so far that the Catholic Church was a monarchy in which Christ’s head minister governed all the rest. It was not then S. Peter only who was its head, but, as the Church has not failed by the death of S. Peter, so the authority of a head has not failed; otherwise, it would not be one, nor would it be in the state in which its founder had placed it. And in truth all the reasons for which Our Lord put a head to this body, do not so much require that it should be there in that beginning when the Apostles who governed the Church were holy, humble, charitable, lovers of unity and concord, as in the progress and continuation thereof, when charity having now grown cold each one loves himself, no one will obey the word of another nor submit to discipline.

I ask you, if the Apostles, whose understanding the Holy Spirit enlightened so immediately, who were so steadfast and so strong, needed a confirmer and pastor as the form (forme) and visible maintenance of their union, and of the union of the Church, how much more now has the Church need of one, when there are so many infirmities and weaknesses in the members of the Church? And if the wills of the Apostles, so closely united in charity, had need of an exterior bond in the authority of a head, how much more afterward 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,”^[n0251] how much more now, for the same reason, must there be a chief in the Church? The fold of Our Lord is to last till the consummation of the world, in visible unity. The unity then of external government must remain in it, and nobody has authority to change the form of administration save Our Lord who established it.^[n0252]

All this has been well proven above, and it follows therefrom that S. Peter has had successors, has them in these days and will have them even to the end of the ages.

I do not profess here to treat difficulties to the very bottom. It is enough for my purpose to indicate some principal reasons and to expose our belief precisely. Indeed, if I were to take notice of the objections which are made on this point, while I should find small difficulty I should have great trouble, and most of them are so slight that they are not worth losing time over. Let us see what conditions are required for succeeding to an office.

There can only be succession to one who, whether by deposition or by death, gives up and leaves his place; whence Our Lord is always head and sovereign Pontiff of the Church, to whom no one succeeds, because he is always living, and has never resigned or quitted this priesthood [or] pontificate; though here below, in the Church militant, he partly exercises it by his ministers and servants, his authority, however, being too excellent to be altogether communicated. But these ministers and representatives, as many pastors as ever there are, can give up and do give up, either by deposition or by death, their offices and dignities.

Now we have shown that S. Peter was head of the Church as prime minister of Christ, and that this office or dignity was not conferred on him for himself alone, but for the good and profit of the whole Church, so that Christianity being 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 the visible Church.

It remains to learn how he made this quittance, how he left this pontificate of his; whether it was by laying it down during his life or by natural death. Then we will see who succeeded him and by what right.

And on the one hand nobody doubts that S. Peter continued in his charge all his life. For those words of Our Lord, Feed my sheep, were to him not only an institution into this supreme pastoral charge, but an absolute commandment, which had no other limitation than the end of his life, any more than that other, Preach the Gospel to every creature,^[n0253] which the Apostles labored in until death. While therefore S. Peter lived this mortal life, he had no successor, he did not lay down his charge, and was not deposed from it. For he could not be so (except by heresy, which never had access to the Apostles, least of all to their head) unless the Master of the fold had removed him, which was not done.

It was death then which removed him from this guard and general watch which he was keeping as ordinary pastor over the whole sheepfold of his Master. But who succeeded in his place? As to this, all antiquity agrees that it was the Bishop of Rome, for this reason that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome—therefore the diocese of Rome was the last seat of the head of the Church: therefore the Bishop of Rome who came after the death of S. Peter, succeeded to the head of the Church, and consequently was head of the Church. Some one might say that he succeeded the head of the Church as to the bishopric of Rome, but not as to the kingship of the world. But such a one must show that S. Peter had two sees, of which the one was for Rome, the other for the universe, which was not the case. It is true that he had a seat at Antioch, but he who held it after him had not the vicar-generalship, because S. Peter lived long afterward, 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.

I have presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and died such. This the opposite party deny; many of them even deny that he ever was at Rome, but I am not obliged to attack all these negatives in detail, because when I shall have fully proved that S. Peter was and died Bishop of Rome, I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my contention, and from which again will follow a clear certainty that S. Peter was at Rome and died there.

And now here is my first witness, S. Clement, disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote to James, the brother of the Lord, which is so authentic that Rufinus became the translator of it about 1,200 years ago. Now he says these words: “Simon Peter, the chief apostle, brought the King of ages to the knowledge of the city of Rome, that it also might be saved. He being inspired with a fatherly affection, taking my hand in the assembly of the brethren, said: I ordain this Clement, Bishop, to whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine.” And a little further on, “to him I deliver the power of binding and loosing which was delivered to me by the Lord.” And as to the authority of this epistle, Damasus in the Pontifical, in the life of Clement, speaks of it thus, “In the letter which was written to James you will find how to Clement was the Church committed by Blessed Peter.” And Rufinus, in the preface to the book of the Recognitions of S. Clement, speaks of it with great honor, 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. Irenæus (iii. 3), “To the greatest and oldest and most famous Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.” And a little further on, “The blessed Apostles therefore, founding and instituting the Church, delivered to Linus the office of administering it as Bishop; to him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement receives the episcopate.”

The third, Tertullian (de Pr. xxxii), “The Church also of the Romans publishes”—that is, shows by public instruments and proofs—“that Clement was ordained by Peter.” And in the same book (xxxvi), “Happy Church, into which the Apostles poured with their blood their whole doctrine!”—and he speaks of the Roman Church, “where Peter’s passion is made like to the Lord’s.” Whereby you see that S. Peter died at Rome and instituted S. Clement there. So that joining this testimony to the others, it is seen that he was Bishop there and died teaching there.

The fourth, S. Cyprian (Ep. 55, ad Corn.), “They dare to sail off to the chair of Peter, and to the head Church, whence the sacerdotal unity has come forth”—and he is speaking of the Roman Church.

Eusebius (Chron. ann. 44), “Peter, by nation a Galilæan, the first pontiff of Christians, having first founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Rome, where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five years bishop of the same city.”

Epiphanius (ii. 27), “The succession of bishops at Rome is in this order; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, &c.”

Dorotheus (in Syn.), “Linus was Bishop of Rome after the first ruler, Peter.”

Optatus of Milevis (de Sch Don.), “You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first intrusted to Peter, in which Peter, head of all the Apostles, sat.” And a little further on, “Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement.”

S. Jerome (ad Dam.), “With the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross do I treat: I am united in communion with thy Blessedness, in the chair of Peter.”

S. Augustine (Ep. 53, ad Gen.), “To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement.”

In the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon (Act. iii), when the legates of the Holy See would deliver sentence against Dioscorus, they speak in this fashion: “Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and ever to be praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the foundation of the Catholic Church, has stripped him of the episcopal dignity and also ejected him from the priestly ministry.” Give a little attention to these particulars, that the Bishop of Rome alone deprives him, by his legates and by the Council, that they unite the Bishop of Rome with S. Peter. For such things show that the Bishop of Rome holds the place of S. Peter.

The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, in its letter to Felix II, uses remarkable words on this point, and among other things, relates that in the Council of Nice it had been determined that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without the consent of the Holy See of Rome, but that the canons which had been made to that effect had been burnt by the Arian heretics. And in fact, Julius I, in the Rescript against the Orientals in Favour of Athanasius (cc. 2, 3), cites two canons of the Council of Nice which relate to this matter, which work of Julius I has been cited by Gratian, 400 years ago, and by Isidore 900. And the great father, Vincent of Lerius, makes mention of it 1,000 years back. I say this because all the canons of Nice are not in existence, only 20 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 but pays in good coin. S. Peter has had successors in his vicarship. And who has ever in the ancient Church had the reputation of being successor of S. Peter, and head of the Church, except the Bishop of Rome? In truth all ancient authors, whosoever they be, all give this title to the Pope, and never to others.

And how then shall we say it does not belong to him? Truly it were to deny the known truth. Or let them tell us what other bishop is the head of the Church, and successor of S. Peter. At the Council of Nice, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is not seen that any bishop usurps the primacy for himself. It is attributed, according to ancient custom, to the Pope; no other is named in equal degree. In short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, of any bishop in the first 500 years that he was head or superior over the rest, except of the Bishop of Rome, about him indeed it was never doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. On what ground, then, after 1,500 years passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition? I should never end were I to try to catalogue all the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we have in the ancients’ writings. But this will suffice just now to prove that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died Bishop at Rome.

There is no question which the ministers fight over so pertinaciously as this. For they try by force of conjectures, presumptions, dilemmas, explanations, and by every means, to prove that S. Peter was never at Rome, except Calvin, who, seeing that this was to belie all antiquity, and that it was not needed for his opinion, contents himself with saying that at least S. Peter was not long Bishop at Rome: “On account of the consent of writers, I do not dispute that he was at Rome. But that he was bishop, especially for a long time, I cannot admit.” But in truth, though he were Bishop of Rome for but a very short time, if he died there he left there his chair and his succession. So that as to Calvin we should not have great cause for discussion, provided that he was resolved to acknowledge sincerely that S. Peter died at Rome, and that he was bishop there when he died. And as to the others we have sufficiently proved above that S. Peter died Bishop of Rome.

The statements which are made to the contrary are more captious than hard to resolve, and because he who shall have the true account of the life of S. Peter before his eyes will have enough answer for all the objections, I will briefly say what I think the more probable, in which I will follow the opinion of that excellent theologian, Gilbert Genebrard, Archbishop of Aix, in his Chro nology, and of Robert Bellarmine, Jesuit, in his Controversies, who closely follow S. Jerome, and Eusebius in Chronico.

Our Lord then ascended into heaven in the 18th year of Tiberius, and commanded his Apostles to stay in Jerusalem 12 years, according to the ancient tradition of Thraseas, martyr, not all indeed but some of them (to verify the word spoken by Isaias,^[n0254] and as SS. Paul and Barnabas seem to imply ^[n0255]), for S. Peter was in Lydda and in Joppa before the 12 years had expired. It was enough that some Apostles should remain in Judæa as witnesses to the Jews. S. Peter then remained in Judæa about five years after the Ascension, preaching and announcing the Gospel, and at the end of the first year, or soon afterward, S. Paul was converted, who after three years went to Jerusalem to see Peter,^[n0256] with whom he stayed 15 days. S. Peter then having preached about five years in Judæa, toward the end of the fifth year went to Antioch, where he remained Bishop about seven years, that is, till the second year of Claudius, but meanwhile making evangelic journeys into Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia and elsewhere, for the conversion of the nations. From thence, having committed his episcopal charge to the good Evodius, he returned to Jerusalem, on his arrival in which place he was imprisoned by Herod to please the Jews ^[n0257] about the time of the Passover. But escaping from the prison soon afterward under the direction of the angel, he came, that same year, which was the second of Claudius, to Rome, where he established his chair, which he held about 25 years, during which he did not omit to visit various provinces, according to the necessity of the Christian commonwealth, but among other things, about the 18th year of the Passion and Ascension of the Savior, which was the ninth of Claudius, he was driven with the rest of the Hebrews from Rome, and went away to Jerusalem, where the Council of Jerusalem was celebrated, in which S. Peter presided. Then Claudius being dead, S. Peter returned to Rome, taking up again his first work of teaching and of visiting from time to time various provinces, where at last Nero, having imprisoned him for death, with S. Paul his companion, Peter, yielding to the holy importunities of the faithful, was about to make his escape and get out of the city by night, when meeting Our Savior by the gate he said to him, Domine quo vadis?—Lord, whither goest thou? He answered, I go to Rome to be crucified anew,^[n0258] an answer which S. Peter well knew pointed toward his cross. So that, after having been about five years in Judæa, seven years in Antioch, 25 years at Rome, in the 14th year of Nero’s empire he was crucified, head downward, and on the same day S. Paul had his head cut off.

But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S. Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the administration of the Roman bishopric. So that to him who would know why some authors place S. Clement first in order after S. Peter, and others S. Linus, I will make him an answer by S. Epiphanius, an author worthy of credit, whose words are these:^[n0259] “Let no man wonder that Linus and Cletus took up the episcopate before S. Clement, he being a disciple of the Apostles, contemporary with Peter and Paul, for they also were contemporaries of the Apostles; whether therefore whilst they were alive he received from Peter the imposition of the hands of the episcopate, and refusing the office waited, or, after the departure of the Apostles was appointed by the bishop Cletus, we do not clearly know.”

Because therefore S. Clement had been chosen by S. Peter, as he himself testifies, and yet would not accept the charge before the death of Linus and Cletus, some, in consideration of the election made by S. Peter, place him the first in order, others, looking at the refusal he gave and at his leaving the exercise of it to Linus and Cletus, place him the fourth.

Besides, S. Epiphanius may have had reason to doubt about the election of S. Clement made by S. Peter, for want of having had sufficient proofs, while possibly Tertullian, Damasus, Rufinus and others may have had means of ascertaining the truth, and this may be the reason why S. Epiphanius speaks thus indecisively. Tertullian, who was more ancient, states positively, “The Church of the Romans publishes that Clement was ordained by Peter,” that is, proves by documents and public acts. As for myself I prefer, and reasonably, to place myself on the side of those who are certain, because he who doubts what a man of probity and sense distinctly certifies contradicts the speaker. On the contrary, to be sure of that which another doubts about is simply to imply that the doubter does not know all, as indeed he has first confessed himself, by doubting, for doubting is nothing but not certainly knowing the truth of a thing.

And now, having seen by this short account of the life of S. Peter, which bears every mark of probability, that S. Peter did not always stay in Rome, but, having his chair there, did not omit to visit many provinces, to return to Jerusalem and to fulfill the Apostolic office, all those frivolous reasons which are drawn from the negative authority of the Epistle of S. Paul will no longer have entrance into your judgments. For if it be said that S. Paul, writing to Rome and from Rome, has made no mention of S. Peter, we need not be surprised, for, perhaps, he was not there at that time.

So, it is quite certain that the First Epistle of S. Peter was written from Rome, as S. Jerome witnesses:^[n0260] “Peter,” says he, “in his first Epistle, figuratively signifying Rome under the name of Babylon, says, “The Church which is in Babylon, elected together, saluteth you.” This that most ancient man Papias, a disciple of the Apostles, had previously attested, as Eusebius records. But would this consequence be good—S. Peter, in that Epistle, gives no sign that S. Paul was with him, therefore Paul was never in Rome? This Epistle does not contain everything, and if it does not say that he was there, it also does not say that he was not. It is probable that he was not there then, or that if he were it was not expedient to name him in that place for some reason. I say the same of S. Paul’s letter.

Lastly, to adjust the times of the life of S. Peter to the reigns of Tiberius, Caius Caligula and Nero, we can lay them out something in this fashion. In the 18th 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—toward the end of the second of Claudius he came to Rome, where he remained seven years, that is, till the ninth of Claudius, when the Jews were driven out of Rome, which caused S. Peter to withdraw into Judæa. About five years afterward, Claudius being dead in the 14th year of his reign, S. Peter returned to Rome, where he stayed until the fourteenth and last year of Nero. This makes about 37 years that S. Peter lived after the death of his Master, of which he lived 12 partly in Judæa partly in Antioch, and 25 he lived as Bishop of Rome.

Hear in few words what the Ancients thought of this matter, and in what rank they held the Bishop of Rome. This is the way they speak, whether of the See of Rome and its Church, whether of the Pope, for all comes to the same.

Thus do they name the Roman Church; now see how they style the Pope.

I should never end if I tried to heap together all the titles which the Ancients have given to the Holy See of Rome and to its Bishop. The above ought to suffice to make even the most perverse wits see the extravagant lie which Beza continues to tell after his master Calvin, in his treatise On the Marks of the Church, where he says that Phocas was the first to give authority to the Bishop of Rome over the rest, and to place him in Primacy.

What is the use of uttering so gross a lie? Phocas lived in the time of S. Gregory the Great, and every one of the authors I have cited is earlier than S. Gregory, except S. Bernard, whom I have quoted, from his books On Consideration, because Calvin holds these so true that he considers truth itself has spoken in them.^[n0261]

It is objected that S. Gregory would not let himself be called Universal Bishop. But universal Bishop may be understood of one who is in such sort bishop of the universe that the other bishops are only vicars and substitutes, which is not the case. For the bishops are truly spiritual princes, chiefs and pastors; not lieutenants of the Pope, but of Our Lord, who therefore calls them brethren. Or the word may be understood of one who is superintendent over all, and in regard of whom all the others who are superintendents in particular are inferiors indeed but not vicars or substitutes. And it is in this sense that the Ancients have called him Universal Bishop, while S. Gregory denies it in the other sense.

They object the Council of Carthage, which forbids that any one shall call himself Prince of Priests, but it is for want of something to go on with that they put this in, for who is ignorant that this was a provincial Council affecting the bishops of that Province, in which the Bishop of Rome was not—the Mediterranean Sea lies between them.

There remained the name of Pope, which I have kept for the ending of this part of my subject, and which is the ordinary one by which we call the Bishop of Rome. This name was common to bishops; witness S. Jerome, who thus styles S. Augustine in an Epistle,^[n0262] “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 tre mentes anteferunt patribus seri novâ curâ nepotes.^[n0263]

And that you may know how ancient this name is among good men—[hear] S. Ignatius, disciple of the Apostles: “When thou wast,” says he, “at Rome with Pope Linus.”^[n0264] 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:^[n0265] “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 Second of Thessalonians, to make you believe the Pope is Antichrist, may have told you that he makes himself be called God on earth, or Son of God, are the greatest liars in the world, for so far are the popes from taking any ambitious title that from the time of S. Gregory they have for the most part called themselves servants of the servants of God. Never have they called themselves by such names as you say except in the ordinary acceptation, as every one can be if he keep the commandments of God, according to the power given to them that believe in his name (John i). Rightly indeed might those call themselves children of the devil who lie so foully as do your ministers.

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, and so on (Matt. xix). In S. Luke (xii), Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?

It is usual that the head should speak for the whole body, and what the head says is considered to be said by all the rest. Do you not see that in the election of S. Matthias it is he alone who speaks and determines?

The Jews asked all the Apostles, What shall we do, men and breth ren (Acts. ii)? S. Peter alone answers for all: Do penance, and so on. And it is for this reason that S. Chrysostom and Origen have called him “the mouth and the crown of the Apostles,” as we saw above, because he was accustomed to speak for all the Apostles, and the same S. Chrysostom calls him “the mouth of Christ,” because what he says for the whole Church and to the whole Church as head and pastor, is not so much a word of man as of Our Lord: Amen, I say to you he that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me (John xiii). Therefore, what he said and determined could not be false. And truly if the confirmer be fallen, have not all the rest fallen? If the confirmer fall or totter, who shall confirm him? If the confirmer be not firm and steady, when the others grow weak who shall strengthen them? For it is written that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch, and if the unsteady and the feeble would hold up and support the feeble, they shall both come to ground. So that Our Lord, giving authority and command to Peter to confirm the others, has in like proportion given him the power and the means to do this; otherwise, vainly would he have commanded things that were impossible. Now in order to confirm the others and to strengthen the weak, one must not be subject to weakness oneself but be solid and fixed as a true stone and a rock. Such was S. Peter, in so far as he was pastor-general and governor of the Church.

So when S. Peter was placed as foundation of the Church, and the Church was certified that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, was it not enough to say that S. Peter, as foundation stone of the ecclesiastical government and administration, could not be crushed and broken by infidelity or error, which is the principal gate of hell? For who knows not that if the foundation be overthrown, if that can be sapped, the whole building 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^[n0266] confirmer to whom she can appeal, of a foundation which the gates of hell, and principally error, cannot overthrow and has always need that her pastor should be unable to lead her children into error. The successors, then, of S. Peter all have these same privileges, which do not follow the person but the dignity and public charge.

S. Bernard calls the Pope another “Moses in authority.” Now how great the authority of Moses was every one knows. For he sat and judged concerning all the differences among 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 be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest … that man shall die. What will you say to this necessity of accepting the judgment of the sovereign pontiff, that one was obliged to accept that judgment which was according to the law, not any other? Yes, but in this it was needful to follow the sentence of the priest; otherwise, if one had not followed it but had examined into it, it would have been vain to have gone to him, and the difficulty and doubt would never have been settled. Therefore, it is said simply, He that shall be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest and the decree of the judge shall die. And in Malachy (ii. 7), The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge; and they shall seek the law at his mouth. Whence it follows that not everybody could answer himself in religious matters, nor bring forward the law after his own fancy but must do so according as the pontiff laid it down. Now if God had such great providence over the religion and peace of conscience of the Jews as to establish for them a supreme judge in whose sentence they were bound to acquiesce, there can be no doubt he has provided Christianity with a pastor, who has this same authority, to remove the doubts and scruples which might arise concerning the declarations of the Scriptures.

And if the High Priest wore on his breast the rational of judgment (Ex. xxviii), in which were the Urim and the Thummim, doctrine and truth, as some interpret them, or illuminations and perfections, as others say (which is almost the same thing, since perfection consists in truth and doctrine is only illumination), shall we suppose that the High Priest of the New Law has not also the efficacy of them? In truth, all that was given out to the ancient Church, and to the servant Agar, has been given in much better form to Sara and to the spouse. Our High Priest then still has the Urim and the Thummim on his breast.

Now whether this doctrine and truth were nothing but these two words inscribed on the Rational, as S. Augustine seems to think and Hugh of S. Victor maintains, or whether they were the name of God, as Rabbi Solomon asserts according to Vatablus and Augustine bishop of Eugubium, or whether it was simply the stones of the Rational, by which Almighty God revealed his will to the priest, as that learned man Francis Ribera holds; the reasons why the High Priest had doctrine and truth in the Rational on his breast was without doubt because he declared the truth of judgment, as by the Urim and Thummim the priests were instructed as to the good pleasure of God, and their understandings enlightened and perfected by the Divine revelation. Thus, the good Lyra understood it, as Ribera has in my opinion sufficiently proved. Hence, when David wished to know whether he should pursue the Amalecites he said to the priest Abiathar, Bring me hither the ephod (1 Kings xxx. 7), or vestment for the shoulders, which was without doubt to discover the will of God by means of the Rational which was joined to it, as this Doctor Ribera continues learnedly to prove. I ask you, if in the shadow there were illuminations of doctrine and perfections of truth on the breast of the priest to feed and confirm the people therewith, what is there that our High Priest shall not have, the priest of us, I say, who are in the day and under the risen sun? The High Priest of old was but the vicar and lieutenant of Our Lord, as ours is, but he would seem to have presided over the night by his illuminations, and ours presides over the day by his instructions, both of them as ministering for another and by the light of the Sun of Justice, who though he is risen is still veiled from our eyes by our own mortality, for to see him face to face belongs ordinarily to those alone who are delivered from the body which goes to corruption. This has been the faith of the whole ancient Church, which in its difficulties has always had recourse to the Rational of the See of Rome to see therein doctrine and truth. It is for this reason that S. Bernard has called the Pope “Aaron in dignity,”^[n0267] and S. Jerome the Holy See “the most safe harbour of Catholic communion,” and “heir of the Apostles,” for he bears the Rational to enlighten with it the whole of Christendom, like the Apostles and Aaron, in doctrine and truth. It is in this sense that S. Jerome says to S. Damasus, “He who gathereth not with thee scattereth, that is, he who is not of Christ is of Antichrist;” and S. Bernard says^[n0268] that the scandals which occur, particularly in the Faith, must be brought before the Roman See, “for I think it proper that there chiefly should the damage of faith be repaired where faith cannot fail; for to what other see was it ever said: I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not?” And S. Cyprian,^[n0269] “They dare to sail off to the Apostolic See and to the chief (principalem) Church, forgetting that those are Romans, to whom wrong faith cannot have access.” Do you not see that he speaks of the Romans because of the Chair of S. Peter and says that error cannot prevail there. The fathers of the Council of Milevis with the Blessed S. Augustine demand help and invoke the authority of the Roman See against the Pelagian heresy, writing to Pope Innocent in these terms: “We beseech you to deign to apply the pastoral solicitude to the great dangers of the infirm members of Christ; since a new heresy and most destructive tempest has begun to arise amongst the enemies of the grace of Christ.” And if you would know why they appeal to him, what do they say? “The Lord has by his highest favour placed thee in the Apostolic See.” This is what this holy Council with its great S. Augustine believed, to whom S. Innocent replying in a Letter which follows the one just quoted among those of S. Augustine: “Carefully and rightfully,” he says, “have you consulted the secret oracles of the Apostolic honour: his, I say, with whom, besides those things which are outside, remains the solicitude of all the churches as to what doctrine is to be held in doubtful things. For you have followed the fashion of the ancient rule, which you and I know to have been always held by the whole world. But this I pass over, for I do not believe that it is unknown to your wisdom; how indeed have you confirmed it by your actions, save knowing that throughout all the provinces answers to petitioners ever emanate from the Apostolic See? Especially when questions of faith are discussed, I consider that all our brethren and cobishops 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 honor and credit in which was the Apostolic See with the most learned and most holy of the Ancients, yea with entire Councils. They went to it as to the true Ephod and Rational of the new law. Thus did S. Jerome go to it in the time of Damasus, to whom, after having said that the East was cutting and tearing to pieces the robe of Our Lord, seamless and woven from the top throughout, and that the little foxes were spoiling the vineyard of the Master, he says, “As it is difficult, amongst broken cisterns that can hold no water, to discern where is that fountain sealed up, and garden enclosed, therefore I considered that I must consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by Apostolic mouth.” I shall never end if I try to bring forward the grand words which the Ancients have uttered on this point. He who wishes can read them quoted in the great Catechism of Peter Canisius, in which they have been given in full by Busembaum. S. Cyprian refers all heresies and schisms to the contempt of this chief minister,^[n0270] so does S. Jerome;^[n0271] S. Ambrose holds for one same thing “to communicate and agree with the Catholic bishops and to agree with the Roman Church.”^[n0272] he protests that he follows in all things and everywhere the form of the Roman Church. S. Irenæus will have every one be united to this Holy See, “on account of its principal power.” The Eusebians bring before it the accusations against S. Athanasius; S. Athanasius, who was at Alexandria, a principal and patriarchal see, went to answer at Rome, being called and cited to appear there. His adversaries would not appear, “knowing,” says Theodoret, “that their lies were manifested in open court.” The Eusebians acknowledge the authority of the see of Rome when they call S. Athanasius thither, and S. Athanasius when he presents himself. But particularly do those Arian heretics the Eusebians confess the authority of the see of Rome when they dare not appear there for fear of being condemned.

But who does not know that all the ancient heretics tried to get themselves acknowledged by the Pope? Witness the Montanists or Cataphrygians, who so deceived Pope Zephyrinus, if we may believe Tertullian (not now the man he had been but become a heretic himself), that he issued letters of reunion in their favor, which, however, he promptly revoked by the advice of Praxeas. In fine, he who despises the authority of the Pope will restore the Pelagians, Priscillians and others, who were only condemned by provincial Councils with the authority of the Holy See of Rome. If I wished to occupy myself in showing you how much Luther made of it in the beginning of his heresy I should astonish you with the great alteration in this old dotard. Look at him in Cochlæus: “Prostrate at the feet of Your Beatitude, I offer myself with all I am and have; give me life, slay me, call, recall, approve, reject; I shall acknowledge the voice of Christ presiding and speaking.” These are his words in the dedicatory letter which he wrote to Pope Leo X on certain conclusions of his, in the year 1518. But I cannot omit what this great archminister wrote in 1519, in certain other resolutions of other propositions, for in the 13th he not only acknowledges the authority of the Holy Roman See but proves it by six reasons which he holds to be demonstrations. I will summarize them: First 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. Second, we must give in to an adversary rather than break the union of charity; therefore, it is better to obey the Pope than to separate from the Church. Third, 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). Fourth, there is no power which is not from God, therefore, that of the Pope which is so fully established is from God. Fifth, practically the same. Sixth, all the faithful so believe, and it is impossible that Our Lord should not be with them; now we must stay with Our Lord and Christians in all things and everywhere: He says afterward that these reasons were unanswerable, and that all the Scripture comes to support them. What do you think of Luther, is he not a Catholic? And yet this was at the beginning of his reformation.

Calvin gives the same testimony, though he goes on to embroil the question as much as he can, for speaking of the See of Rome he confesses that the Ancients have honored 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.

Under the ancient law the High Priest did not wear the Rational except when he was vested in the pontifical robes and was entering before the Lord. Thus, we do not say that the Pope cannot err in his private opinions, as did John XXII, or be altogether a heretic, as perhaps Honorius was. Now when he is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church must either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See, and must say as S. Peter did, Let another take his bishopric.^[n0273] When he errs in his private opinion he must be instructed, advised, convinced; as happened with John XXII, who was so far from dying obstinate or from determining anything during his life concerning his opinion, that he died while he was making the examination which is necessary for determining in a matter of faith, as his successor declared in the Extravagantes 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 honor, follow and firmly embrace his doctrine, for then he carries on his breast the Urim and Thummim, doctrine and truth. And again we must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church, for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission and discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right, that he can err extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter, that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor and to conduct them into the pastures of the Faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man, which spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church and, as the Greek says and the Church seems to understand in a collect of Pentecost,^[n0274] conducts and directs his Church into all truth: But when that Spirit of truth shall come, he will teach you all truth, or, will lead you into all truth.^[n0275] And how does the Holy Spirit lead the Church except by the ministry and office of preachers and pastors? But if the pastors have pastors they must also follow them, as all must follow him who is the supreme pastor, by whose ministry Our God wills to lead not only the lambs and little sheep, but the sheep and mothers of lambs, that is, not the people only but also the other pastors. He succeeds S. Peter, who received this charge: Feed my sheep. Thus it is that God leads his Church into the pastures of his Holy Word, and in the exposition of this he who seeks the truth under other leading loses it. The Holy Spirit is the leader of the Church, he leads it by its pastor; he therefore who follows not the pastor follows not the Holy Spirit.

But the great Cardinal of Toledo remarks most appositely on this place that it is not said he shall carry the Church into all truth, but he shall lead; to show that though the Holy Spirit enlightens the Church, he wills at the same 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 acknowledged the drawing and presence of the Holy Spirit. Thus is the Christian flock led by the Holy Spirit but under the charge and guidance of its pastor, who however does not walk at hazard but according to necessity convokes the other pastors, either partially or universally, carefully regards the track of his predecessors, considers the Urim and Thummim of the Word of God, enters before his God by his prayers and invocations and, having thus diligently sought out the true way, boldly puts himself on his voyage and courageously sets sail. Happy the man who follows him and puts himself under the discipline of his crook! Happy the man who embarks in his boat, for he shall feed on truth and shall arrive at the port of holy doctrine!

Thus, he never gives a general command to the whole Church in necessary things except with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, who, as he is not wanting in necessary things even to second causes, because he has established them, will not be more wanting to Christianity in what is necessary for its life and perfection. And how would the Church be one and holy, as the Scriptures and Creeds describe her? For if she followed a pastor, and the pastor erred, how would she be holy; if she followed him not, how would she be one? And what confusion would be seen in Christendom, while the one party should consider a law good the others bad, and while the sheep, instead of feeding and fattening in the pasture of Scripture and the Holy Word, should occupy themselves in controlling the decision of their superior?

It remains therefore that according to Divine Providence we consider as closed that which S. Peter shall close with his keys, and as open that which he shall open, when seated in his chair of doctrine teaching the whole Church.

If indeed the ministers had censured vices, proved the inutility of certain decrees and censures, borrowed some holy counsels from the ethical books of S. Gregory, and from S. Bernard’s De Consid eratione, 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 honored them and favored their designs. The good Cardinals Contarini the Theatine, Sadolet and Pole, with those other great men who counseled the reformation of abuses in this way, have thereby deserved immortal commendation from posterity. But to fill heaven and earth with invectives, railings, outrages, to calumniate the Pope, and not only in his person, which is bad enough, but in his office, to attack the See which all antiquity has honored, 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 honor, speaks to him with reverence. What shall we say of that fine preface in which Luther addressed the Holy See: “Martin Luther to the most Holy Apostolic See and its whole Parliament, grace and health. In the first place, most holy see, crack but burst not on account of this new salutation in which I place my name first and in the principal place”? And after having quoted the Bull against which he was writing, he begins with these wicked and vile words: “Ego autem dico ad papam et bullæ hujus minas, istud: qui præ minis moritur ad ejus sepulturam compul sari debet crepitibus ventris.” And when writing against the King of England, “Living,” said he, “I will be the enemy of the papacy, burnt I will be thy enemy.” What say you of this great Father of the Church? Are not these words worthy of such a reformer? I am ashamed to read them, and my hand is vexed when it lays out such shameful things, but if they are hidden from you, you will never believe that he is such as he is—and when he says, “It is ours not to be judged by him but to judge him.”

But I detain you too long on a subject which does not require great examination. You read the writings of Calvin, of Zwingle, of Luther. Take out of these, I beg you, the railings, calumnies, insults, detraction, ridicule and buffoonery which they contain against the Pope and the Holy See of Rome, and you will find that nothing will remain. You listen to your ministers; impose silence upon them as regards railings, detraction, calumnies against the Holy See and you will have your sermons half their length. They utter a thousand calumnies on this point; this is the general rendezvous of all your ministers. On whatever subjects they may be composing their books, as if they were tired and spent with their labor 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 Roman Chair done to thee,” says S. Augustine,^[n0276] “in which Peter sat and in which now Anastasius sits? … Why do you call the Apostolic Chair the chair of pestilence? If it is on account of men whom you consider to be declaring and not keeping the law—did Our Lord, on account of the Pharisees, of whom he said: they say and do not do any injury to the chair in which they sat? Did he not commend that chair of Moses, and reprove them, saving the honour of their chair? For he says, Super cathedram, and so on (Matt. xxiii. 2). If you considered these things you would not, on account of the men you speak against, blaspheme the Apostolic Chair, with which you do not communicate. But what does it all mean save that they have nothing to say, and yet are unable to keep from ill-saying.”

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, 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 persuasive 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.

Thou art the God who doest wonders, says David (Ps. lxxvi. 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 evidently 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 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 many 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,^[n0278] 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.

I said that among 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 circumstances 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. 18), or than to change the water into wine (Ib. 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. For, to make things pass from privation and nonexistence to actuality,^[n0279] and to give to man the vital operations, are things impossible to all human powers; these are strokes of the sovereign Master, and when afterward he pleases to effect cures or alterations in things by his almighty power, he still makes them to be recognized 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 done].^[n0280] As when a man has made a masterpiece, though he may afterward 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, otherwise 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 authority of the Master of nature, whose power is unlimited, 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 language. Among 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 Providence 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 in its full force, but when God speaks by works everybody understands—this is a language common to all nations. So the writing on letters of protection may not be recognized 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.

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.

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 [I have put off showing] that they have not the efficacy of the doctrine of Catholicism, for not only are they not Catholics, but cannot be, effecting the destruction of the body of Our Lord, instead of acquiring new members for it.

Also when Luther says^[n0282] that infants in Baptism have the use of their understanding and reason, and when the synod of Wittenberg says^[n0283] that infants in Baptism have movements and inclinations like to the movements of faith and charity, and this without understanding, is not this to mock God, nature and experience?

And when it is said that “in sinning we are incited, pushed, necessitated by the will, ordinance, decree, and predestination of God,” is this not to blaspheme against all reason, and against the majesty of the supreme goodness? Such is the fine theology of Zwingle, Calvin and Beza.^[n0284] “But,” says Beza, “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 (energiam), but yet the will of Adam was not forced.” Goodness of God, I call you as my witness! You have pushed me to do evil; you have so decreed, ordained and willed. I could not act otherwise, I could not will otherwise, what fault of mine is there? O God of my heart, chastise my will, if it is able not to will evil and wills to will it, but if it cannot help willing evil, and thou art the cause of its impossibility, what fault of mine can there be? If this is not contrary to reason, I protest that there is no reason in the world.

The law of God is impossible, according to Calvin and the others.^[n0285] 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 1,000 years in the understanding of the Word of God, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin can guarantee that they understand it aright. This absurdity is greater when a mere wretched minister (ministrot), while preaching as a word of God that all the visible Church has erred, that Calvin and all men can err, dares to pick and choose among the interpretations of the Scripture that one which pleases him, and to certify and maintain it as the Word of God. And you yourselves carry the absurdity still further when, having heard that everybody may err in matter of religion—even the whole Church—without trying to find for yourselves some other religion among 1,000 sects, which all boast of rightly understanding the Word of God, and rightly preaching it, you believe so obstinately in the minister who preaches to you, that you will hear no more? If everybody can err in the understanding of the Scripture, why not you and your minister? I wonder that you do not always walk trembling and shaking. I wonder how you can live with so much assurance in the doctrine which you follow, as if you could not err, and yet you hold as certain that every one has erred and can err.

The Gospel soars far above all the most elevated reasonings of nature; it never goes against them, never injures them nor dissolves them. But these fancies of your evangelists obscure and destroy the light of nature.

It is a saying full of pride and ambition among your ministers, and one which is ordinary with them, that we must interpret the Scriptures and test the exposition of them by the analogy of the Faith. The simple people when they hear this analogy of the Faith think that it is some word of secret potency and cabalistic virtue, and they wonderingly admire every interpretation which is given, provided that this word be brought into the field. In truth the ministers are right when they say that we must interpret the Scripture and prove our expositions of it by the analogy of faith, but they are wrong in not doing what they say. The poor people hear nothing but their bragging about this analogy of faith, and the ministers do nothing but corrupt, spoil, force it and tear it to shreds. Let us look into this, I beg you. You say that the Scripture is easy to understand, provided that one adjust it to the rule and proportion, or analogy, of the Faith. But what rule of faith can they have who have no Scripture except one entirely glossed, wrested and strained by interpretations, metaphors, metonymies? If the rule is subject to irregularity, who shall regulate it? And what analogy or proportion of faith can there be if a man proportion the articles of faith with conceptions the most foreign to their true sense? If the fact of proportion with the articles of faith is to serve you to decide upon doctrine and religion, leave the articles of faith in their natural shape; do not give them a form different from that which they have received from the Apostles. I leave you to guess what use the Symbol of the Apostles can be to me in interpreting the Scriptures when you gloss it in such a way that you put me in greater difficulties about its sense than ever I was in about the Scriptures themselves.

If any one ask how the same body of Our Lord can come to be in two places, I shall say that this is easy to God, and I shall confirm it by this reason of faith: I believe in God the Father Almighty. But if you gloss both the Scripture and the article of faith itself, how will you confirm your gloss? At this rate there will be no first principle except your notions. If the analogy of faith be subject to your glosses and opinions, you must say so openly that we may know what you are at, which will now be this—to interpret Scripture by Scripture and analogy, adjusting everything to your own interpretations and ideas. I apply the whole question [of the Real Presence]^[n0286] to the analogy of the Faith. This explanation agrees perfectly with that first word of the creed where Credo takes away all difficulties of human reason; the omnipotentem strengthens me, the mention of creation heartens me—for why shall he who made all things out of nothing not make the Body of Christ out of bread? That name of Jesus comforts me, for his mercy and his will to do great things for me are there expressed. That he is the Son, consubstantial with the Father, proves to me his illimitable power. His being conceived of a Virgin, against the course of nature, his not disdaining to lodge within her for our sakes, his being born with penetration of dimension, an act which goes beyond and above the nature of a body—these things assure me both of his will and of his power. His death supports me, for he who died for us, what will he not do for us? His sepulchre cheers me, and his descent into hell, for I shall not doubt his descent into the obscurity of my body, and so on. His resurrection gives me fresh life, for this new penetration of the stone, the agility, subtlety, brightness and impassibility of his body are no longer according to the grosser laws which we conceive of. His ascension makes me rise to this faith, for if his body penetrate matter, raise itself, by his sole will, and place itself, without place, at the right hand of the Father, why shall it not, here below, be where seems good to him and occupy space only as he wills it to do? His being seated at the right hand of the Father shows me that everything is put under him, heaven, earth, distances, places, dimensions. That from thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead urges me to the belief of the illimitability of his glory and [teaches me] therefore that his glory is not attached to place, but that wherever he goes he carries it with him; he is, then, in the most holy Sacrament without quitting his glory or his perfections. That Holy Ghost, by whose operation he was conceived and born of a Virgin, can equally well by his operation effect this admirable work of Transubstantiation. The Church, which is holy and cannot lead us into error, which is Catholic and therefore is not restricted to this miserable world, but is to extend in length from the Apostles, in breadth throughout the world, in depth as far as to Purgatory, in height to heaven, including all nations, all past ages, canonized saints, our forefathers of whom we have hope, prelates, Councils old and recent—[she, through all these her members] sings in every place, Amen, Amen, to this holy belief.

This is the perfect Communion of Saints, for it is the food common to angels and sainted souls in Paradise and ourselves; it is the true bread of which all Christians participate. The forgiveness of sins, the author of forgiveness being there, is confirmed; the seed of our resurrection sown, life everlasting bestowed. Where do you find contradiction in this holy analogy of faith? So much the reverse, that this very belief in the most holy Sacrament, which in truth, reality and substance contains the true and natural body of Our Lord, is actually the abridgment of our faith, according to that of the Psalmist:^[n0287] He hath made a memory [of his wonderful works]. O holy and perfect memorial of the Gospel! O admirable summing up of our faith! He who believes, O Lord, in Your presence in this most holy Sacrament, as Your holy Church proposes it, has gathered and sucked the sweet honey of all the flowers of Your holy Religion. Hardly can he ever fail in faith.

But I return to you, gentlemen, and simply ask what passages you will any longer oppose to me against such clear ones as these—This is my body. That the flesh profiteth nothing?^[n0288]mdash;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 Savior which is ever furnished with the life-giving Spirit and with his Word. I say that it profits unto life eternal all who worthily receive it. What say you? That the words of Our Lord are spirit and life,^[n0289] —who denies it save yourselves when you say they are but tropes and figures? But what sense is there in this consequence—the words of Our Lord are spirit and life, therefore, they are not to be understood of his body? And when he said, The Son of man shall be delivered up to be mocked and scourged, and so on.^[n0290] (I take as examples the first that come), were his words not spirit and life? Say then that he was crucified in figure. When he said, If therefore you see the Son of man ascending where he was before (John vi), does it follow that he only ascended in figure? And still these words are comprised among the rest, of which he said, They are spirit and life. Finally, in the Holy Sacrament, as in the holy words of Our Lord, the spirit is there which vivifies the flesh, otherwise, it would profit nothing but nonetheless is the flesh there with its life and its spirit. What further will you say, that this Sacrament is called bread? So it is, but as Our Lord explains, I am the living bread (Ib.). These are fully sufficient examples. As for you, what can you show like these? I show you an is, show me the is not, which you maintain, or the signifies. I have shown you the body, show me your effectual sign, seek, turn, turn again, make your spirit spin as fast as you like, and you shall never find it. At the very most you will show that when the words are somewhat strained, a few phrases in the Scriptures may be found like those you pretend to find here, but to esse from posse is a lame consequence. I say that you cannot make them fit; I say that if everybody takes them as he likes, the greater number will take them wrongly. But let us just see a piece of this work while it is being done. You produce for your belief, The words which I speak are spirit and life, and this you fasten on, As often as you shall eat this bread; you add, Do this in commemoration of me. You bring up, You shall show forth the death of the Lord until he comes;^[n0291] 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 anomology^[n0292] of your faith and how? Our Lord is seated at the right hand, therefore, he is not here. Show me the thread with which you sew this negative to this affirmative, because a body cannot be in two places. Ah, you said you would join your negative with analogy by the thread of Scripture. Where is this Scripture that a body cannot be in two places? Just observe how you mingle the profane employment of a merely human reason with the Sacred Word? But, say you, Our Lord will come to judge the living and the dead from the right hand of his Father. What does this prove? If it were necessary for him to come, in order to become present in the Holy Sacrament, your analogy would have some speciousness, though not even then any reality, for when he does come to judge nobody says that it will be on earth; the fire will precede. There is your analogy. In good earnest which has worked the better, you or I?

If we let you interpret the Descent of Our Lord into hell as of the Sepulchre, or as of a fear of hell and of the pains of the damned, the sanctity of the Church as the sanctity of an invisible and unknown Church, its universality as that of a secret and hidden Church, the Communion of Saints as simply a general benevolence, the remission of sins as only a nonimputation; 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.^[n0293] 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 understood of an imaginary descent; somebody else refers it to the sepulchre. Is not this to treat the rule as a Lesbian one and to make the level bend to the stone instead of cutting the stone by the level? Indeed, as S. Clement^[n0294] and S. Augustine^[n0295] call it rule, so S. Ambrose^[n0296] calls it key. But if another key be required to open this key where shall we find it? Is it to be the fancy of your ministers or what? Will it be the Holy Spirit? But everybody will boast that he has a 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. Augustine^[n0297] and the great Vincent of Lerins^[n0298] also call the sense of the Church (sentiment Ecclesiastique) rule of our faith. The Creed alone says nothing openly of the Consubstantiality, of the Sacraments, or of other articles of faith, but comprehends the whole faith in its root and foundation, particularly 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.^[n0299]

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 .^[n0300]

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 recognize what advantages and excellences the Catholic doctrine has beyond your opinions? The Catholic doctrine makes more glorious and magnificent the goodness and mercy of God, your opinions lower them. For example, is there not more mercy in establishing the reality of his body for our food than in only giving the figure and commemoration thereof and the eating by faith alone? All seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ’s (Phil. ii. 21). Is it not more honorable to concede to the might of Jesus Christ the power to make the Blessed Sacrament, as the Church believes it, and to his goodness the will to do so, than the contrary? Without doubt it is more glorious to Our Lord. Yet because our mind cannot comprehend it, in order to uphold our own mind, all seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ’s. Is it not more, in justifying man, to embellish his soul with grace, than without embellishing it to justify him by a simple toleration (connivence) or nonimputation? Is it not a greater favor 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 honor of praying for us, in making himself ready to accept their intercession, in having glorified them as soon as they died, than in making them wait and keeping them in suspense, according to Calvin’s words, until the judgment, in making them deaf to our prayers and remaining himself inexorable to theirs. This will be seen more clearly in our treatment of particular points. Our doctrine [then] makes more admirable the power of God in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in justification and inherent justice, in miracles, in the infallible preservation of the Church, in the glory of the Saints.

The Catholic doctrine cannot have its source in any passion, because nobody follows it save on this condition, of captivating his intelligence, under the authority of the pastors. It is not proud, since it teaches not to believe self but the Church. What shall I say further? Distinguish the voice of the dove from that of the crow. Do you not see this spouse, who has naught but honey and milk under her tongue, who breathes only the greater glory of her beloved, his honor 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.

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, and so on.

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.