THEOLOGICAL COMMONPLACES

On the
CHURCH

JOHANN GERHARD
Translated by Richard J. Dinda
Edited with Annota ons by Benjamin T. G. Mayes

concordia publishing house • saint louis

53-1168
ISBN 13: 978-0-7586-1867-2
ISBN 10: 0-7586-1867-0
Systema c Theology / Historical Theology
English transla on © 2010 Concordia Publishing House
3558 S. Jefferson Ave., St. Louis, Missouri 63118-3968
1-800-325-3040 • www.cph.org

All rights reserved. No part of this publica on may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmi ed in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise, without the prior wri en permission of Concordia Publishing House.
All quota ons from Scripture and other authors in this work are translated from volume 5 of Johann
Gerhard, Loci Theologici, edited by Friedrich Reinhold Eduard Preuss (Berlin: Gustav Schlawitz,
1867).
This work uses the SBL Hebrew Unicode font developed by the Font Founda on, under the
leadership of the Society of Biblical Literature. For further informa on on this font or on becoming a
Font Founda on member, see h p://www.sbl-site.org/educa onal/biblicalfonts.aspx
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publica on Data
Gerhard, Johann, 1582–1637
Theological commonplaces. On the church / Johann Gerhard; translated by Richard J. Dinda;
edited with annota ons by Benjamin T. G. Mayes.
p. cm.
Originally published as vol. 5 of Loci theologici.
Includes bibliographic references and index.
ISBN 978-0-7586-1867-2
1. Church—History of doctrines—17th century. 2. Lutheran Church—Doctrines. 3. Bellarmino,
Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542–1621. I. Dinda, Richard J. II. Mayes, Benjamin T. G. III.
Title. IV. Title: On the church.
BV600.3.G47513 2010
262'.7—dc22
2010025015

Editor’s Preface
Editions of the Theological Commonplaces
COMMONPLACE XXV: On the Church
The Connection to the Preceding Commonplace
Chapter I: On the Etymology of the Word “Church”
What συναγωγή means
Whether the word “synagogue” its only the Israelite church
What ‫ ָק ָהל‬and ‫ ﬠֵ ָדה‬mean
The word ‫ִמ ְק ָרה‬
‫ﬠֲ צָ ָרה‬
Kirche

Chapter II: On the Homonyms of the Word “Church”

 “Church” as the place of assembly
The distinction of ἐκκλησία
In how many ways the church is said to be universal
Why the name “church” is bestowed on the whole multitude of the faithful
The church militant and the church triumphant
The particular distinction of “church”
The synecdochic meaning of “church”
Chapter III: On the Synonyms for the Word or on the Other Terms for
“Church”
The church is the gathering of the saints
In what sense the church is called “the communion of saints”
Metaphoric titles for the church: First, “the Body of Christ”
The comparison of the church to a human body
The comparison of the church to the personal body of Christ
Second, “the Bride of Christ”
Third, “the kingdom of the heavens”
Fourth, “the city of God”
Fifth, “the house of God”
Sixth, “the vineyard of the Lord”
Seventh, in Song of Songs she is called “a lily among brambles,” Christ’s “lover,” “dove,”
“the sister of Christ,” etc.
Types of the church in the Old Testament: First, the Garden of Eden
Second, Noah’s ark
Third, the calling of Abraham
Fourth, the burning bush in the wilderness
Fifth, the houses of the Israelites in Egypt
Sixth, the tabernacle in the wilderness
Seventh, the house of Rahab
Eighth, Jerusalem
Allegories, comparisons, and parables of the New Testament
Titles and praises of the church from the fathers
Adjectives for the church from the Apostles’ Creed: First, “one”
Second, holy
Third, catholic
Fourth, apostolic
Chapter IV: Whether the Church Exists
Whoever will be saved must be a member of the church
Chapter V: On the Principal and Instrumental Ef icient Causes of the
Church
The principal ef icient cause
God is present in the church with His grace
The impulsive cause of God’s calling to the church
The instrumental cause for the gathering of the church
Three kinds of people in the church of Israel
The calling and the manner of calling are to be distinguished
The calling of the nations in the New Testament
The calling is free
The calling is serious
The antithesis of the Calvinists
Chapter VI: On the Material of the Church, That Is, of What Human
Beings the Church Consists
Two kinds of people are gathered in the church
In the external assembly of the church there are some nonsaints
The church is properly the gathering of the saints
Bellarmine’s antithesis
The de inition of the church according to Bellarmine’s opinion
Bellarmine’s de inition omits the true members of the church
Section I: Whether the Unbaptized Belong to the Church
Bellarmine’s antithesis: that all the unbaptized are excluded from the church
Arguments from ecclesiastical writers
Bellarmine’s rational argument against catechumens
Section II: Whether Heretics Belong to the Church
Section III: Whether Schismatics Belong to the Church
Section IV: Whether the Excommunicated Belong to the Church
Section V: Whether the Elect Alone Belong to the Church Catholic
Section VI: Whether the Imperfect Are in the Church
Section VII: Whether Great SInners Are in the Church
Bellarmine’s antithesis
Section VIII: Whether Secret Unbelievers Are Members of the Church
 Section IX: Whether THE Angels Are Members of the Church
Chapter VII: On the Distinction between the Visible and Invisible
Church
The arguments that prove that the church is invisible: First, Jeremiah 31:33: “I will put
My law in their hearts”
Second, Luke 17:20: “The kingdom of God does not come with observation”
Third, John 4:23: “The true worshipers worship in spirit and truth”
Fourth, Hebrews 12:22: “You have come to Mount Zion”
Fifth, 1 Peter 2:5: “As living stones, be built up, a spiritual house”
Sixth, we believe there is the catholic church; therefore we do not see it
More arguments for our position: First, the church properly is the gathering of the
saints
Second, the proper splendor of the church is internal
Third, the members of the true church are known to God alone
Fourth, Christ alone knows His Bride
Fifth, only the Shepherd knows His sheep
Sixth, the mystical Body is invisible
Seventh, the warfare of the church is invisible
The statements of the fathers about the invisible church
The antithesis of the Papists: the church is visible
First, no statement of Scripture can be cited in favor of the invisibility of the church
Second, Scripture teaches that the church is visible. Psalm 19:[4]: “He has pitched His
tabernacle in the sun”
Third, the origin and growth of the church prove the same thing
Fourth, the church is a society of people
Fifth, at the time of Christ the devout practiced fellowship with the church of Israel
Sixth, we are bound to join ourselves to the church
Seventh, the church is the gathering of people who use the sacraments
Eighth, the statements of the fathers
Chapter VIII: Whether the Church Can Cease to Exist
The true state of the question
Arguments that prove that the church can cease to exist: First, our irst parents fell away
from God
Second, the church of Israel fell away from God, Exodus 32
Third, at the time of Elijah the entire visible church had ceased to exist
 Fourth, complaints of the prophets about the corrupt state of the church
Fifth, the visible church shall cease
Sixth, the Council of Basel deposed the Roman pontiff
Seventh, the statements of the fathers
The history of the Old Testament church shows that the church can cease to exist
The history of the New Testament church shows that the church can cease to exist
The antithesis of the Papists: that the church cannot cease to exist
First, passages of Scripture. Matthew 16:18: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against
the church”
Second, other statements of Scripture: Matthew 28:20: “Behold, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world”
Third, parables
Fourth, passages about the kingdom of Christ
Fifth, the statements of the fathers
Sixth, rational arguments
Chapter IX: Whether the Church Can Err
An explanation of the terms
The opinion of the Papists
Judgment on this opinion of the Papists
That the entire church catholic does not err
That the visible church can err
First, at the time of Micah all the prophets were erring (1 Kings 22)
Second, Isaiah 56:10: “His watchmen are all blind”
Third, in their council the chief priests condemned Christ
Other arguments for our position
First, the Old Testament church erred quite often
Second, there are divine prophecies about a great deception
Third, particular churches are warned not to err and not to listen to those who would
mislead them
Fourth, experience bears witness that the New Testament church has erred
Fifth, the knowledge of those who make up the church is not yet perfect
Sixth, the church can sin
Seventh, all pastors of the church can err
Eighth, the statements of the ancients
Ninth, the assent of some Papists
 The arguments by which Bellarmine tries to prove that the church cannot err: 1
Timothy 3:15: “The church is the support and pillar of the truth”
Second, [that] Christ is the Head and Bridegroom of the church and does not allow it to
err
Third, [that] we are obligated to believe the church
Fourth, [that] the holiness of the church requires that only what is holy be taught
therein
Fifth, [that] if the church could err, dogmas of faith would be called into doubt
Sixth, [that] the fathers appeal to the church
Whether the representative church can err
We show that the Roman church can err
First, because it is a particular church
Second, the church is warned to provide no opportunity for errors
Third, it actually does err
Chapter X: On the Marks of the Church in General
Second, Ephesians 5:25: “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her”
Third, Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered,” etc.
Fourth, John 10:35, “Scripture called those ‘gods’ to whom the Word of God came.”
Fifth, John 15:3: “You are clean because of My Word.”
Sixth, Romans 1:16: “The Gospel is the power of God for salvation”
Other foundations for our position omitted by Bellarmine: First, these marks it the
church alone and distinguish it from other assemblies
Second, by the Word of God and the use of the Sacraments, the church is established,
gathered, nourished, and preserved
Third, through the Word and Sacraments God’s people are distinguished from other
assemblies
Fourth, the Word and Sacraments are goods that belong only to the church
Fifth, the church is bound to the Word of God as to the norm of faith and behavior
Sixth, the pure preaching of the Word distinguishes a true church from a false one
Seventh, a love and eagerness for the Word is the mark of a Christian
The statements of the fathers
The confession of our adversaries themselves
The arguments of Bellarmine in opposition to our marks. In general: First, [that]
Luther omitted the marks assigned in the Creed of Constantinople
Second, [that] these marks are not suf icient
Speci ically, against the pure preaching of the Word: First, because this mark is
common to all sects
 Second, that [the pure preaching of the Word] is not better known than the church
Third, that this mark is separable from the church
[Against the legitimate use of the Sacraments]
On the basis of those marks, we deduce that the church of the Lutherans is a true church
On the contrary, the Roman church is not a true church

Chapter XI: On the Marks of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine in

Particular
Section I: On the First Mark of the Church: The Name “Catholic”: Whether the name
“catholic” is a mark of the church
Section II: On the Second Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Antiquity:
Whether antiquity is a mark of the church
Section III: On the Third Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Long Duration:
Whether long duration is a mark of the church
Section IV: On the Fourth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Large Size, or the
Multitude and Variety of Believers: Whether large size is a mark of the church
Section V: On the Fifth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The Succession of
Bishops: Local and personal succession is not a mark of the church
Section VI: On the Sixth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Consensus in
Doctrine with the Ancient Church: Whether consensus with the ancient church is a
mark of the church
Section VII: ON THE SEVENTH MARK OF THE CHURCH ASSIGNED BY BELLARMINE: THE
UNION OF MEMBERS WITH EACH OTHER AND WITH THEIR HEAD: Whether the union
of members with each other and with their head is a mark of the church
Section VIII: On the Eighth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Holiness of
Doctrine: Whether holiness of doctrine is a mark of the church
Section IX: On the Ninth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Ef icacy of
Doctrine: Whether ef icacy of doctrine is a mark of the church
Section X: On the Tenth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Holiness of Life:
Whether holiness of life is a mark of the church
Section XI: On the Eleventh Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The Glory of
Miracles: Whether miracles are true marks of the church
Section XII: On the Twelfth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Prophetic
Light: Whether prophetic light is a mark of the church
Section XIII: On the Thirteenth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The
Confession of Adversaries: Whether the confession of adversaries is a true mark of the
church
Section XIV: On the Fourteenth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The
Calamitous Death of Those Who Attack the Church: Whether the calamitous death of
adversaries is a mark of the church
 Section XV: On the Fifteenth Mark of the Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Temporal
Felicity: Whether temporal felicity is a mark of the church
Chapter XII: On the Final Cause of the Church
Chapter XIII: On the Use of This Commonplace
The de inition of the church
Glossary
For Further Study

Editor’s Preface
The commonplace On the Church first appeared in 1617. The me from
1615 to 1617 saw the publica on of several other important works by
Johann Gerhard: Sacred Aphorisms Containing the Chief Points of Prac cal
Theology Collected from Ecclesias cal Writers (1616); Commentary on the
Harmony of the Gospel History Woven Together from the Four Evangelists,
Concerning the Passion, Crucifixion, Death, and Burial of Christ Our Savior
(1617); and Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospel History Woven
Together from the Four Evangelists, Concerning the Resurrec on and
Ascension of Christ Our Savior (1617). This was a me of change for
Gerhard. In 1615 he had become general superintendent in Coburg, had
wri en a church order (a cons tu on for the churches in the territories of
Coburg-Gotha), and yet had also mourned the death of his unmarried
sister, Margareta Gerhard, who had been living with him and his wife in
Coburg. Johann Gerhard’s famous career as a professor of theology at Jena
began the next year, in 1616, followed by his public inaugura on on August
14, 1617. During the year 1617, Gerhard was also lecturing to his students
on how to study theology, an effort that would come to the presses later, in
1620.
Before Gerhard wrote his Theological Commonplaces, he first wrote
theses and took part in public disputa ons (debates). On February 22,
1610, he presided over a disputa on on the church, and in 1612 one of his
disputa ons had the tle “Is Holy Scripture the Norm and Judge of
Controversies of Faith, or Is the Church the Norm and Judge?” Out of these
disputa ons and lecturing—as well as his short dogma cs consis ng of
aphorisms: Succinct and Select Aphorisms Containing the Heart of All
Theology (1611)—this commonplace On the Church was born.
A few terms from this commonplace deserve a short explana on.
“Catholic” means “universal.” Gerhard uses it not as a synonym for the
Roman Catholic Church, but as its opposite. The Roman church is not
“catholic,” according to him. It is a par cular church, not the universal
church of all mes and places, which includes believers of the Old
Testament, orthodox Chris ans in an quity, believers within various groups
excommunicated by Roman popes, some believers within the Roman
Catholic Church itself, and, of course, believers within the churches of the
Augsburg Confession.
For this edi on we at first a empted to add a level of interpreta on by
capitalizing “church” whenever it refers to the church catholic, the una
sancta of the Apostles’ Creed, the universal church—which, according to
Gerhard, is invisible as such—and to lowercase the term when referring to
a visible, par cular church. This turned out to be an impossible task.
Gerhard himself does not capitalize any of the occurrences of the word,
though he usually (but not always) dis nguishes clearly between the
church in the proper sense and par cular churches in an extended sense.
The task was impossible for two reasons. First, Gerhard insists that the
invisible church can never be found outside of the visible church and he
repeatedly speaks of the invisible and visible church not as two different
churches, but as one thing viewed from different perspec ves. He speaks
of hypocrites within the church as “excrement” within the Body of Christ—
not outside of it, though also not of it. Second, when he speaks of “marks
of the church,” he means that the marks both cons tute the invisible
church (the gathering of true believers) by crea ng and sustaining faith in
Jesus Christ, and at the same me they point out the true visible church.
Therefore, because of Gerhard’s usage of the term, we have not capitalized
“church” anywhere in this volume.
The dis nc on between the visible and invisible church and the rela on
of these two aspects of the church to each other is important for one
reason especially. Holy Scripture, followed by the purer teachers in
an quity, teaches that there is no salva on outside of the church (§§ 21,
36, 304). To the Jesuit Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621), this meant that
salva on required membership in the Roman Catholic Church and
subjec on to the Roman pon ff. For Johann Gerhard, on the other hand,
one had to belong to the church catholic, not the Roman church, and the
Evangelical Lutheran churches of the Augsburg Confession were certainly
part of the church catholic. That is to say, the church catholic, which is
invisible, may overlap the boundaries of the Roman Catholic Church, but it
certainly extends outside those boundaries.
But can one belong to the invisible church without belonging to any
visible church? Some have interpreted Gerhard as saying yes, and in some
places (§§ 84, 94–95, 101) he does seem to say this. But elsewhere,
Gerhard denies this posi on (§§ 127, 130). Rather than moving too quickly
to find an inconsistency in Gerhard’s thought, another possibility presents
itself. Gerhard explains that there are two ways in which the church can be
“invisible.” First, the church catholic is always invisible, even when there is
a large visible church that is pure in its teaching, since believers are mixed
among hypocrites. Second, orthodox par cular churches can also become
so obscure and small that in the world’s eyes they no longer exist, and the
teaching of the large, conspicuous churches can become so deformed that
no large, visible assembly teaches the pure doctrine (§§ 101, 126). In the
first sense, the invisible church is never outside of the visible, since the
faith of believers is created and nourished by preaching and sacraments,
which are communal events. In the second sense, the invisible church can
be outside of the visible (that is, in the eyes of the world), but it cannot
remain if it is cut off from preaching and the sacraments (see §§ 14, 20, 99,
101–2, 201).
If the invisible church exists only within the visible church, then the
defini on of the visible church becomes very important. How can one
determine which assembly is the church of Jesus Christ, the catholic
church? One must look at certain divinely ins tuted marks that point out
the true church. In the year that his commonplace On the Church was
printed, Gerhard had lectured to his students, saying that when taking
notes for use in polemics, it would be sufficient to follow the outline of
Bellarmine’s Controversies, which is exactly the outline he adopted in this
commonplace. In On the Church, Bellarmine is the chief opponent, and
Gerhard devotes the majority of this commonplace to Bellarmine’s fi een
marks of the church.
Gerhard explains that the pure teaching of God’s Word is the central
mark of the church, to which the two sacraments of Bap sm and the Lord’s
Supper are added. The pure teaching of the Word is a “proper and
perpetual mark,” belonging only and always to the church, and it is the
“adequate cause” of the church, since nothing else is required to make the
church what it is (the gathering of believers). Gerhard’s defini on of the
mark of the church excludes a endant circumstances and anything that
would be a sine qua non of the church. Gerhard then uses this defini on of
the mark of the church to exclude the fi een marks that Bellarmine
assigns.
Gerhard put the pure teaching of God’s Word as the central mark of the
church, just as Mar n Luther did in his On the Councils and the Church
(1539). Yet Luther included other marks that were effects of the pure
teaching of the Word or something like a sine qua non. Luther’s method
thus seems on the surface to conflict with Gerhard’s method. It seems that
Gerhard’s methodology could be used just as well against many of Luther’s
“seven holy possessions” of the church.
Gerhard commonly begins his examina on of Bellarmine’s marks of the
church by subdividing the mark into “Bellarmine’s so-called mark with pure
doctrine,” and “Bellarmine’s so-called mark without pure doctrine.” Each
me, Gerhard examines whether Bellarmine’s marks are “proper” and
“perpetual.” Bellarmine, on the other hand, saw the marks as sine qua non,
characteris cs that are always present with the true church, though they
may be with other assemblies too (§ 193). Yet in each of Bellarmine’s
marks Gerhard is aiming to bring the discussion to doctrine. Gerhard’s
opponent had denied that pure teaching of the Word is a mark of the
church. By examining Bellarmine’s marks (for example, episcopal
succession) with and without pure doctrine, Gerhard’s opponent could
easily respond: “But episcopal succession is part of the pure doctrine.” And
by so doing, Bellarmine would have admi ed that pure doctrine is the
central mark of the church. Then the ques on is doctrinal. Does the pure
doctrine really require prac ces such as episcopal succession? The
ques on is not, then, about a perpetual mark or an adequate cause, but
the ques on is about doctrine. And that is where Gerhard wants to take
the discussion.
This commonplace covers much more than just the doctrine of the
church. It deals with mission, miracles, prophecy, the curious case of “Pope
Joan,” and long lists of the sins of the popes. On the other hand, though
this commonplace is one of Gerhard’s longest, it does not cover everything
that might be desired in a doctrine of the church. Gerhard does not deal in
any detail with church government, church membership, fellowship with
heterodox churches (unionism), the church’s rela onship with the state,
nor its poli cal voice. (But this will be handled somewhat in On Poli cal
Magistracy [Commonplace XXVII], §§ 166–214.) This commonplace deals
almost totally with the Roman Catholic view of the church. Gerhard stated
that the doctrine of the church is important in the face of “many other
errors of fana cal people with regard to the church, for instance: that
some boast of their own inspira ons and revela ons, hold the ministry of
the Word and Sacraments in contempt, and glory that they are the true
church of Christ” (§ 2). Although he wrote that the true doctrine of the
church had to be set against the false views of the Anabap sts and other
groups, Gerhard did not deal with the doctrines of the church held by
these groups.
In an age of ecumenism, a ques on on the lips of many is what is
necessary before there can be church fellowship. Gerhard does not deal
with this ques on in detail either, though both he and his main opponent
make it clear that the members of a visible church are bound together by
confessing the same doctrine and using the same sacraments. “The church
is an assembly of humans called and gathered from the world to the
kingdom of God through the preaching of the Word and the administra on
of the Sacraments; in this assembly are the elect according to the
foreknowledge of the Father, that is, those who truly and steadfastly
believe in Christ; with them are mixed the nonsaints who nevertheless
profess the same doctrine” (§ 305).
Benjamin T. G. Mayes

Editions of the Theological Commonplaces

There are four main edi ons of Gerhard’s Theological Commonplaces: the
Jena edi on of 1610 (the edi on printed during Gerhard’s life me), the
Frankfurt/Hamburg edi on of 1657 (edited by Johann Ernst Gerhard, the
author’s son), the Tübingen edi on of 1762 (edited by Johann Friedrich
Co a), and the Berlin/Leipzig edi on of 1863 (edited by Edward Preuss).
Dr. Richard Dinda made his transla on from the Preuss edi on, and I have
edited the text with an eye not only on Preuss but also on the Co a
edi on, which was employed to correct the many typographical errors of
Preuss’s edi on (some of which were carried forward from the
Frankfurt/Hamburg edi on). On the top of each page of the Concordia
edi on, references are given to both the Co a and Preuss edi ons. Thus
“C3:44” means “Co a edi on, volume 3, page 44,” and “P1:143” means
“Preuss edi on, volume 1, page 143.”
In the preface to his edi on, Preuss noted that he was reprin ng the
Jena edi on of 1610. However, instead of including the original
Commonplaces I–VII of the Jena edi on, Preuss subs tuted the four
commonplaces he found at the beginning of the Frankfurt/Hamburg
edi on. These were published in 1625, a er Gerhard had finished his
Theological Commonplaces, with the tle “Exegesis, or a more copious
explana on of certain ar cles of the Chris an religion.” They were not
meant to be a subs tute for the 1610 Commonplaces I–VII but were
intended as a supplement. It is these “Exegesis” Commonplaces that
Preuss included, and it is the same that we have previously presented to
our readers in the volumes covering Exegesis I–IV. These “Exegesis”
Commonplaces have been included with prin ngs of Gerhard’s Theological
Commonplaces since the Frankfurt/Hamburg edi on; therefore they do
belong in this series.
 The enumera on of the commonplaces has also presented difficul es.
Both Preuss and Co a presented different numbering systems than the
seventeenth-century edi ons of the Theological Commonplaces. We have
decided to follow the original enumera on as found in the Jena and
Frankfurt/Hamburg edi ons. A comparison chart is included on p. xvii.
In the Concordia edi on, we refer to the commonplaces included both
in the original Jena edi on and in Preuss’s edi on as, for example,
“Commonplace XI.” We refer to the “Exegesis” Commonplaces included in
Preuss’s edi on as “1625 Exegesis, Commonplace II.” And we refer to the
original Commonplaces I–VII, which were not included in Preuss’s edi on,
as “1610 Loci Theologici, locus 5.” In the indices, reference is given first to
the commonplace number, then to the sec on number. For example:
“E3.34” means “1625 Exegesis, Commonplace III, § 34.” And “8.55” means
“1610 Commonplace VIII, § 55.” This manner of indexing will allow the
reader to refer to any edi on of the Theological Commonplaces from the
seventeenth century to the present.
Preuss’s edi on and this Concordia edi on occasionally surround
sec ons of text with double asterisks (**). These sec ons are Gerhard’s
marginal notes on his Theological Commonplaces that his son included in
the Frankfurt/Hamburg edi on.

Comparison of Edi ons of Gerhard’s Loci

Title Frankfurt/Hamburg Cotta (1762) Preuss (1863)
(1657)*

On the Nature of E preface E preface Preface

Theology
(Exegesis)

On Holy Scripture E1 E1 1
(Exegesis)

On the Nature of E2 E2 2
God (Exegesis)
On the Most Holy E3 E3 3
Mystery of the
Trinity (Exegesis)

On the Person and E4 E4 4

Office of Christ
(Exegesis)

On Holy Scripture 1 1

On the 2 2
Interpretation of
Scripture

On the Nature of 3 3
God

On the Three 4 4
Elohim

On God the Father 5 4, part 2

and His Eternal Son

On the Holy Spirit 6 5, part 3 [!]

On the Person and 7 5

Office of Christ

On Creation and 8 6 5
Angels

On Providence 9 7 6

On Election and 10 8 7
Reprobation

On the Image of 11 9 8
God in Man before
the Fall

On Original Sin 12 10 9
On Actual Sins 13 11 10

On Free Choice 14 12 11

On the Law of God 15 13 12

On Ceremonial and 16 14 13
Forensic Laws

On the Gospel 17 15 14

On Repentance 18 16 15

On Justification 19 17 16
through Faith

On Good Works 20 18 17

On the Sacraments 21 19 18

On Circumcision 22 20 19
and the Paschal
Lamb

On Holy Baptism 23 21 20

On the Holy Supper 24 22 21

On the Church 25 23 22

On the 26 24 23
Ecclesiastical
Ministry

On Political 27 25 24
Magistracy

On Marriage, 28 26 25
Celibacy, and
Similar Topics
On Death 29 27 26

On the 30 28 27
Resurrection of the
Dead

On the Last 31 29 28
Judgment

On the End of the 32 30 29

World

On Hell, or Eternal 33 31 30
Death

On Eternal Life 34 32 31

COMMONPLACE XXV: On the Church

The Connection to the Preceding Commonplace

§ 1. Out of His boundless goodness, our God the most kind revealed,
from the secret abyss of His divine counsels, the doctrine of the Gospel to
men who had already fallen into sin and eternal destruc on. He also
repeated the doctrine of the Law, s ll known in some way by nature, by His
solemn promulga on on Mount Sinai. These things He has done to this
end: that through the preaching of the Law and Gospel He might gather
the church to Himself out of a ruined human race, des ned to the eternal
fires of hell, that such a church might rightly acknowledge, worship, and
praise Him in this life and in eternal life, and that He might snatch it out of
the jaws of sin, death, devil, and hell and li it up to share in His eternal
happiness and glory. To the Word He has also added the Sacraments to be
the signs of the promises of His grace that He has offered in the Gospel, to
be the means to s r up, increase, and strengthen faith, and to be the
eternal and visible signs of that assembly which He has called out of the
human race into the communion of saints. The commonplace on the
church, therefore, in fi ng order follows the ar cles on the Law, on the
Gospel, and on the Sacraments.

The dignity and necessity of this commonplace

§ 2. A careful treatment of this commonplace is exceedingly necessary.
Of course, the Pho nians argue today that “the ques on of the church,
namely, what and among whom it is, is either nearly useless or at least is
unnecessary,” as is apparent from Faustus Socinus’s Tractatus de ecclesia,
published in Racovia in 1611, and from the Ins tut. Germ. of Ostorodus,
ch. 42, p. 402. Yet the ma er itself reveals that an explana on of this
ques on is not merely useful but also necessary. You see, all ar cles of the
Chris an faith need a very careful explana on on the basis of the Holy
Scriptures. But now, it is an ar cle of the Chris an faith that there is one
holy catholic church, the communion of saints. We tes fy in the Apostles’
Creed that “we believe in the Holy Spirit,” who proceeds from the Father
and the Son, who through the Word gathers from mankind a church in
which believers are given the remission of sins and those who endure in
the faith are given par cipa on in eternal life. Furthermore, because there
is no salva on outside the church and because “he who does not have the
church as his mother on earth does not have God as his Father in heaven,”
therefore we must be sure to which assembly the name and defini on of
the true church apply, so that we may associate ourselves with that church
but separate ourselves from the church of the wicked.
The Papists place a special hope of victory in this commonplace and
usurp for themselves the tle “Catholic Church.” Their disputa ons impose
on us the same necessity of knowing this doctrine very well. You see, they
claim that only the Roman church, which is obedient to the pope as the
vicar of Christ, successor to Peter, and only head of the ministry on earth, is
the church catholic. On the basis of this founda on, they infer that no
ma er what this church and its head, the bishop of Rome, claim, that must
be considered firm and unalterable, whether it has been taken from the
Holy Scriptures or is claimed from outside of them and, in fact, is contrary
to them. With this short phrase, they believe that they can and should
repress and conclude the quarrel that has threatened them in regard to
various corrup ons of heavenly doctrine—and very serious ones—that
crept into the Roman church in earlier centuries, which corrup ons they
s ll defend with great effort.
Furthermore, there are very many other errors of fana cal people with
regard to the church, for instance: that some boast of their own
inspira ons and revela ons, hold the ministry of the Word and Sacraments
in contempt, and glory that they are the true church of Christ; that some
who give thought to the church look around to see where the majority is
and in what direc on the more powerful and learned are inclining, and
then judge that this assembly is the church; that some allow salva on to
heathen who do not belong to the church and who lack the saving
knowledge of Christ; that some imagine the church to be a cesspool of any
and all sects, provided they carry the name “Chris an” before them; that
some join no assembly and care for no church but indulge their own
singular opinions and yet hope for salva on; that some leave the church
because of wicked people mingling with the church in this life; etc. Because
of these and other corrup ons of this commonplace, it is necessary for us
to explain the doctrine of the church carefully from the founda ons of Holy
Scripture. We see with what great zeal the children of this world vie with
one another over the boundaries of fields and over temporal possessions.
Therefore it would be shameful for the children of the church to be
unconcerned about that heavenly possession and the boundaries of the
churchly field.
Chapter I: On the Etymology of the Word
“Church”
§ 3. The word “church” [ecclesia] is Greek, taken from the second
person of the preterit of the passive verb ἐκκαλέω, because from
κέκλησαι comes κλῆσις, “calling”; from that comes ἐκκλησία, which
means “a calling out.” From this it is evident that the word “church”
connotes both a “separa on,” by force of the prefix ἐκ with regard to the
star ng point, and a “collec ng” or “gathering,” by force of the verb
καλεῖσθαι with regard to the ending point.
Danaeus disapproves of a deriva on of ἐκκλησία from ἐκκαλεῖν, “to call
out.” He says: “If ecclesia is taken from ‘calling out,’ it will be an assembly
called outside of God. Yet God, on the contrary, calls it to Himself and does
not banish His church from Himself.” The par cle ἐκ, however, refers to the
star ng point, that is, to the cesspool of mankind from which the children
of the church are called. It does not refer to the ending point, or God, to
whose kingdom they are being called.
The difference between related words must be observed. Συγκλησία is
said about senators, but ἐκκλησία is said about the people to signify
thereby that not only leaders but also the people belong to that
communion of saints. The apostles, consequently, preferred the use of
ἐκκλησία to συγκλησία. Ammonius, De similibus et differen bus vocabulis
(which booklet is in vol. 4 of Henricus Stephanus’s Thesaur. Graec. ling.),
writes: “Ἐκκλησία and κατάκλησις are different. The Athenians used to
call the assembly of the people of each of the ci es an ἐκκλησία, but when
they were assembling also the people of the rural areas for an inspec on
rather than for working sessions, that they called a κατάκλησις.” Dr.
Chemnitz notes that σύγκλησις is used for nobles, important people,
consuls, and their assembly; that διάκλησις is used for a mob of the
common mul tude when people gather together from the fields; but that
ἐκκλησία is used for ci zens when an assembly of ci zens from a city-state
takes place, namely, of people who are bound together by certain laws and
are ci zens of the same commonwealth. The word “church,” then, as
transferred to God’s people, shows that the church is not a mob of the
common mul tude but an assembly of those whom God has called and
who are bound to one another by certain laws. The Athenians had used
two assemblies, ἐκκλησίαι and ἀγοραὶ or ἀγοραῖαι. The former signified
ordered assemblies, when all the ci zens, namely, all those who had the
right of ci zenship, or the σύνοδος πολιτῶν, would be called together in
their correct ranking by the ruler and then would come together. The la er,
on the other hand, meant indiscriminate and unordered mobs, from
ἀγείρεσθαι, “to be gathered, collected,” whenever an indiscriminate
crowd of people would come together in ci es and towns without
observing order—Joachimus Stephani, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 1, from Pollux,
bk. 8; and others.
** Cyril of Alexandria, on Isaiah, bk. 4, orat. 4: “When we say ‘church,’
we are not applying the meaning of this dis nc on to the enclosure of the
walls but mean, rather, the holy mul tude of the devout within it.” Gerson,
De potest. eccles., consid. 13: “We do not take ‘church’ to mean the
material temple that a mason can build be er than a theologian. Instead,
we consider the church as Christ built it on the rock of faith.” **
Therefore in the word “church” [ecclesia] as related to God’s people
there lies the sense of lawfulness and good order such as there is in a civil
aristocracy. A democracy of instability and of disorder is totally contrary to
this. Nonetheless it should be pointed out that this dis nc on is not
perpetual. You see, both words are taken in general for any gathering or
assembly of people. Thus in Acts 19:32 there was “an assembly
[ἐκκλησία] in confusion.” In v. 39: “The ma er will be se led in the regular
assembly [ἐκκλησίᾳ].” Verse [41]: “He dismissed the assembly
[ἐκκλησίαν].”

What συναγωγή means

§ 4. In the Old Testament, the Septuagint translators used the word
συναγωγή. In its first origin, it is a general word that means the act of
assembling or gathering and any assembly. Thucydides (Hist., bk. 2) speaks
of a συναγωγὴ τοῦ πολέμου [“a gathering for war”]. In Gen. 1:9, “the
waters gathered into one gathering [συναγωγήν].” Gen. 28:3: “companies
[συναγωγαί] of peoples.” Job 8:17: “stone heap [συναγωγὴ λίθων].” Isa.
19:16 [LXX]: “A supply [συναγωγή] of water.” Jer. 44:15: “Then all the
men and all the women who stood by, a great assembly [συναγωγή], said
…” Jer. 50:9: “I am s rring up and bringing against Babylon assemblies
[συναγωγαί] of na ons.” Ezek. 38:4 calls the army “a great company
[συναγωγή].”
It is used specifically, however, as a reference to the Israelite church.
Exod. 16:3: “… to kill this whole assembly [συναγωγή].” Lev. 4:13: “If all
the congrega on [συναγωγή] is ignorant,” etc. The evangelists and
apostles in the New Testament use it in the same way for the congrega on,
that is, the Jewish people (Matt. 14:13, etc.). They also use it by metonymy
for the place where the Jews would gather every Sabbath to hear the
reading of the wri ngs of Moses and the prophets. Acts 15:21: “For from
early genera ons Moses has had in every city those who preach him in the
synagogues, where he is read every Sabbath.” In Luke 7:5 the centurion of
Capernaum is said to have “built a synagogue for the Jews.” Acts 18:7:
“The house of Justus was next door to the synagogue [συναγωγῇ].”

Whether the word “synagogue” fits only the Israelite church

§ 5. Bellarmine argues, De eccles. milit., bk. 3, ch. 1: “The people of the
Old Testament are properly called a ‘synagogue,’ that is, a gathering. The
people of the New Testament nowhere are called a synagogue but always
‘church,’ that is, a calling forth. For,” he says, “to be gathered is common to
man and beasts, but to be called forth is proper to human beings.” The
Catechism. Trident., explana on of the Creed, p. 111, asserts much less
modestly: “The people of the Old Testament are called a synagogue
because they looked only toward worldly and transitory goods.”
We respond. (1) In James 2:2 the word “synagogue” is used clearly for a
gathering of Chris ans: “If a man with gold rings comes into your assembly
(συναγωγήν) …” In Heb. 10:25 there is the word ἐπισυναγωγή: “not
neglec ng the gathering [ἐπισυναγωγήν] of yourselves,” which seems to
have been taken from Matt. 23:37: “How o en would I have gathered
(ἐπισυναγωγεῖν) your children together.” There are also some who refer 2
Thess. 2:1 to this, where the word ἐπισυναγωγή is used for the en re
gathering of the devout on Judgment Day. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk. 3, ch.
6, p. 175: “Those who have received the adop on are the church, for this is
God’s synagogue, which God Himself, that is, the Son, has collected
through Himself.”
(2) Both the names ἐκκλησία [“church”] and συναγωγή [“synagogue”]
are a ributed to the people of the Old Testament, because ‫קָ הָ ל‬, which is
used in connec on with the congrega on of the faithful in the Old
Testament, is translated indiscriminately by the Septuagint translators as
συναγωγή in Exod. 16:3; Lev. 4:13; Num. 10:7; etc.—and with ἐκκλησία
in Deut. 31:30; Josh. 8:35; Judg. 20:2; etc. In some places these words are
even conjoined. Lev. 8:4; Num. 20:10: “gathered the synagogue together
[ἐξεκκλησίασε τὴν συναγωγήν]”; Prov. 5:14: “in the midst of the church
and synagogue.” Lest anyone counter that the people of the Old Testament
are nowhere called “church” [ἐκκλησία] in the New Testament, he should
take note of Acts 7:38: “Moses was in the church in the wilderness.”
Turrianus, De ecclesia et ord. minist., bk. 1, ch. 1, writes: “Before Aaron
became priest, the church of the Israelites was not church nor was it called
‘church.’ ” The Hebrew words ‫ קָ הָ ל‬and ‫ﬠֵ דָ ה‬, however, which the Septuagint
translators have rendered as ἐκκλησία, are found to have been used in
reference to the people of Israel even earlier (Exod. 12:3ff.).
(3) Bellarmine, De pon f. Rom., bk. 1, ch. 10, argues that “there is no
difference between ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ in Matt. 16:18 because Christ spoke
in Syriac, and in the Syriac Testament the word ‫ כאפא‬is in both places.” If
Christ spoke those words in Syriac, then He spoke the whole sentence in
Syriac. There, however, for “church” it has the word ‫עדתא‬, which comes
from the Hebrew ‫ﬠֵ דָ ה‬. Bellarmine himself says this means “synagogue.”
Therefore Christ calls His church a “synagogue.”
(4) Words etymologically related to συναγωγή (“gathering,
congrega on”) are a ributed to the Chris an people; therefore one cannot
claim a dis nc on between “being gathered” and “being called out” in
such a way that the former is common to humans and animals, while the
la er is proper to human beings. Matt. 13:2: “Great crowds gathered
[συνήχθησαν] to Him.” Matt. 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered
[συνηγμένοι] in My name …” John 11:52 says that Christ will die “to
gather into one [συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν]” all the children sca ered abroad. John
20:19: “… [the doors being shut] where the disciples were gathered
[συνηγμένοι].” Acts 4:31; 11:26; 14:27; 15:6; 20:7; etc. And
furthermore, the very fathers of Trent call their own assembly a
“congrega on” (Concil., sess. 9 and 10). Are they really saying that they
gathered a er the fashion of ca le?
(5) We should not affirm absolutely that “being called out” belongs only
to human beings. In John 10:3 “the shepherd calls his sheep by name
[καλεῖ κατʼ ὄνομα].” Yet to be called out is nothing other than to be called.
Thus the church is defined as “the assembly of the called,” and the faithful
are said to be “the called saints.” But now, that calling (κλῆσις) is common
to the people of both the Old and the New Testaments.
(6) A dis nc on can be established between ‫ קָ הָ ל‬and ‫ﬠֵ דָ ה‬, as we shall
point out later [§ 7]. But this dis nc on is not such that the former is
common to humans and animals, while the la er belongs only to human
beings. You see, as the examples of Scripture show and as Mercerus
proves, the word ‫ קָ הָ ל‬applies to human beings alone when they have been
assembled for a mee ng. In support of his opinion, Bellarmine cites
Augus ne on Psalm 81, but he also adds a correc on in his exposi on of
Psalm 77. He says: “Although it may properly be called the synagogue of
the Jews and the church of the Chris ans—because ‘gathering’ is more
generally used for ca le and ‘calling together’ more for people—yet we
also find the former called ‘church,’ so it perhaps is more fi ng for us to
say, ‘Save us, O Lord our God, and gather us together from out of the
heathen,’ ” etc. In the same place Augus ne has set forth two reasons for
this word. He says:
The apostles never called it our “synagogue” but always our “church.” This they did either to
mark the difference or because there is some difference between a gathering, whence it has
the name “synagogue,” and a convoca on, whence “church,” namely, because ca le
properly are gathered together, and we properly call them “herds.” But to be “called
together” belongs more to those who have the use of reason.

Therefore Bellarmine ought not to have grasped at one cause, omi ng the
more harmonious one.
(8) No one would have said that the people of the Old Testament were
looking only for worldly and transitory things, unless he wanted to make of
them a herd of pigs. A er all, what will become of the holy patriarchs who,
Christ says, “will recline in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 8:11); who, as
the Epistle to the Hebrews 11:14 describes, “were seeking a heavenly
fatherland”? Nowhere does Augus ne say that the people of the Old
Testament were looking only for worldly and fleshly things; rather, he
proves the opposite in detail (De civ. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 15; on Psalm 77; and
elsewhere in many places).
§ 6. We disapprove of Bellarmine’s reason for that dis nc on because
of which the apostles were unwilling to a ribute to the people of the New
Testament the word “synagogue.” Nevertheless because the name
“church” in the wri ngs of the apostles and evangelists is applied almost
exclusively to Chris ans brought together from the Jews and heathen, and
“synagogue” is applied to the gathering of the Jews, there is no doubt that
such a thing has happened because of some definite reasons.
(1) With that name the apostles wanted to dis nguish the assembly of
the Chris ans from the synagogues and gatherings of the Jews. Because
the Jews went on to resist Christ and the word of the Gospel, and because
they took over the word “synagogue” for themselves as if it belonged to
them alone, it seemed best to the Holy Spirit and to the apostles to assign
the name “church” to the Chris an people.
(2) The apostles seemed to have used the word “church” even among
other peoples to refer to convoca ons of ci zens summoned by the voice
of the town crier and to refer to ordered assemblies. Examples in Aristotle,
Demosthenes, and Thucydides reflect this. Therefore they wanted to
endow that tle used among the heathen with the right of Chris an
ci zenship.
(3) In the Old Testament, the church was enclosed in the narrow
boundaries of Judea. Those who wished to learn the true worship of God
and the way to a ain eternal salva on had to approach the people of
Judea and join them. In the New Testament, on the other hand, when the
word of the Gospel sounded everywhere from every tongue and every
na on, a catholic or universal church was gathered to Christ. In the Old
Testament, na ons that had been called into the fellowship of the holy
people had to gather together at the tabernacle and temple. In the New,
however, the kingdom of Christ was propagated and spread to all na ons
through the universal preaching of the Gospel.
(4) Therefore the name “church” [ecclesia] is also more significant and
more illustrious because it includes both the beginning point and the
ending point and includes the κλῆσις or “calling” by which, as with a
heavenly trumpet, people are called out from the world into the fellowship
of the church. The word “synagogue” embraces only the ending point and
signifies a gathering together.
(5) The very word “church,” or “calling forth,” reminds us of the
boundless goodness of God. By that goodness, without the intercession of
any merits, people are called forth through the preaching of the Word from
the condemned human race to the fellowship of the church, in which, as in
Noah’s ark, they are preserved from a flood of divine wrath. Just as some
are called out of a house that is about to collapse or burn, lest they perish
with the rest, so also God calls forth the faithful from the human race that
has been ruined and condemned because of sin, lest they, along with the
idolatrous and wicked, remain subject to eternal destruc on. Types of this
calling forth are Noah and his household, who were ordered to enter the
ark he had built by divine mandate (Gen. 6:[18]), and Abraham, who was
commanded to leave his own land, his family, and his father’s house (Gen.
12:1, etc.).

What ‫ ָק ָהל‬and ‫ ﬠֵ ָדה‬mean

§ 7. The Hebrews have two words in par cular that they use to denote
the assembly of the church: ‫ קָ הָ ל‬and ‫ﬠֵ דָ ה‬. The word ‫ קָ הָ ל‬and, by
transposi on, ‫( לַהֲ קָ ה‬see 1 Sam. 19:20) is a congrega on, assembly, and
gathering of people, from the root ‫קָ הָ ל‬, “he gathered, he collected.” The
Septuagint translators have rendered it indiscriminately with συναγωγή
[“synagogue”] and ἐκκλησία [“church”], but more o en with ἐκκλησία. In
Exod. 12:6 and 2 Chron. 31:18 they translate it τὸ πλῆθος [“the
mul tude”] and in Prov. 26:26 with συνέδριον [“council”]. ‫ ﬠֵ דָ ה‬signifies an
assembly generally gathered at established mes and places. It comes from
the root ‫יָﬠַ ד‬, “he established a special me and place for assembling.” The
Septuagint translators rendered it very o en as συναγωγή (Exod. 12:3
and in many other places). In Num. 16:46 they translated it as παρεμβολή
[“company”]. In Num. 16:40 they translated it as ἐπισύστασις,
“gathering.” Therefore between ‫ קָ הָ ל‬and ‫ ﬠֵ דָ ה‬we can establish the following
dis nc on: ‫ ﬠֵ דָ ה‬is a more specific word, for it means an assembly of people
who come together at a definite place and me indicated by solemn rite
and public authority to transact a certain point of business. ‫ קָ הָ ל‬is a more
general word, for it means a gathering of people that has neither a definite
 me nor an appointed place. From this founda on it becomes clear why
the word συναγωγή, which corresponds to the Hebrew ‫ﬠֵ דָ ה‬, was
a ributed par cularly to the people of Israel. It is because they had
received from God special laws about feast days, holy places, and other
Levi cal ceremonies, and because the worship of God in the Old Testament
was restricted by divine authority to certain places and mes. That is
something which no longer has a place in the New Testament, which is
catholic, that is, which is spread throughout the world, according to
Augus ne’s interpreta on (Letter 170).

The word ‫ִמ ְק ָרה‬

The Hebrews also use the word ‫מ ְק ָרה‬,
ִ “convoca on, assembly,” to refer
to the church (Exod. 12:16; Lev. 23:2). It comes from the root ‫קָ ָרה‬, “he
called, called together.” In the Septuagint they translate it with the
substan ve κλητή [“convoca on”]. This name looks to the calling by which
God gathers the church to Himself in this world, because the calling is the
first benefit that God by His divine grace confers on the children of the
church.

‫ﬠֲ צָ ָרה‬
Joel 2:15 uses the word ‫ﬠֲצָ ָרה‬, “assembly, gathering.” In the same place
the Septuagint translators render it θεραπεία [“service, a endance”];
Symmachus translates it σύνοδος [“assembly, mee ng”]; Aquila, ἡμέρα
συλλογῆς [“day of assembly”]. Elsewhere they render it as πανήγυρις
[“general assembly”] (Amos 5:21). It comes from the root ‫ﬠָ צַ ר‬, “he
prevailed, he kept back.” ‫ﬠֲצָ ָרה‬, therefore, signifies a gathering of people
into one place where they are kept for some me. It is more proper for
regular and par cular assemblies than for the gathering of the en re
church. In 2 Kings 10:20 the Septuagint translators render it as ἱερεία, to
which corresponds the word πρεσβυτήριον, “a college of elders, an
ecclesias cal senate” (1 Tim. 4:14). The word ἐκκλησία [“church”] seems
to be used in this sense in Matt. 18:17: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell
it to the church.” The word ‫קָ הָ ל‬, however, is a general one, meaning the
en re gathering of the en re mul tude without a determina on of me,
place, and persons.
Kirche
The German word Kirche [“church”] seems to come down from the
Greek word κυριακή. You see, because the church is said to be κυρίου [“of
the Lord”] and κυριακή [“belonging to the Lord”]—as we shall see later—
the Germans consequently seem to have taken their word from the Greek
one.
Chapter II: On the Homonyms of the Word
“Church”
§ 8. “Church” [ecclesia] in general means an assembly and gathering,
and for this reason it is a ributed to poli cal and secular assemblies:
Aristophanes: “not making an assembly [ἐκκλησία] with the Thracians”;
Thucydides: “gathering an assembly [ἐκκλησία].” It is also used in this
sense in Ezek. 32:3: “with a host [ἐκκλησία] of many people”; and Acts
19:32: “for the assembly was in confusion”; v. 41: “He dismissed the
assembly.” Therefore, that we may dis nguish the sacred assembly of the
church from secular assemblies, it is called: “the church of God” (ἡ
ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ) in Neh. 13:1; Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 1:2; [10]:32; 11:16
and 22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5
and 15. Also “church in God” [ἐκκλησία ἐν θεῷ] in 1 Thess. 1:1, etc.
“Church of the Lord” [ἐκκλησία τοῦ Κυρίου] in Deut. 23:1f.; 1 Chron.
28:8; Mic. 2:5. Because here cs boast about the church, too, for the sake
of difference and of honor the true church is called “the church of the
saints” (ἡ ἐκκλησία τῶν ἁγίων) in Ps. 89:[5]; 149:1; 1 Cor. 14:33. This is
contrasted with “the church of the evildoers” (ἡ ἐκκλησία
πονηρευομένων) in Ps. 26:5, [that is,] ‫קהַ ל ְמ ֵר ִﬠים‬,ְ as if to say, “the
congrega on of those who embi er” (because disobedience and false
worship embi er God, that is, aggravate Him—Ps. 106:33; 1 Kings 13:26;
Ezek. 2:8); and this is called the “synagogue or congrega on of Satan”
(Rev. 2:9; 3:9). Finally, because the church of the Old and New Testaments
is called “the church of God” and “the church of the Lord,” therefore, to
dis nguish it, the church of the New Testament is called “the church of
Christ” (Matt. 16:18; Rom. 16:16; Col. 1:24). It believes in Christ as He is
revealed in the flesh and confesses faith in Him. Yet if we wish to look at
the ma er itself, the church of the Old Testament, too, can be called
Chris an.

“Church” as the place of assembly

§ 9. As the La ns use con o for an actual assembly as well as for the
place for the assembly, so also “church” [ecclesia] is used in both ways: for
a called assembly and also for the place in which that assembly is gathered.
Demosthenes, Pro coron.: “The presiding officers used to call the council
into the council chambers, but you would go into the assembly hall
[ἐκκλησία].” Lucian, Dial. Merc. et Maiae: “One must sweep the party
room and straighten up the hall [ἐκκλησία],” etc.
** The name “church” is used for a structure or building in which people
gather to celebrate sacred rites in [Corpus Iuris Civilis,] . Cod. de
sacrosanc s ecclesiis, de iis qui ad ecclesiam confugiunt, etc., in the Novell.
cons t. of Jus nian. **
In Holy Writ, this meaning of “church” as the place of gathering does
not generally occur.
** Judith 6:[21]: “A erward all the people were summoned, and
throughout the night inside the church they prayed, asking the help of the
God of Israel.” Here the word “church” is used for that place in which the
people gathered. This meaning, however, is quite rare in Holy Writ. See
Alfonsus de Castro, Adv. haereses, bk. 6, on the word ecclesia. **
As me passed, however, it happened that ecclesias cal writers finally
took it in two ways, as a temple in French is called an église and in German,
Kirche; that is, they took it both for the actual gathering of the faithful as
well as for the place of the gathering. The Ius canonicum, in the Decretal.,
bk. 3, tle 40, speaks about the “consecra on of a church”; tle 48, about
“building and repairing churches.” There it is clear that the word “church”
is being taken for the sacred building in which a par cular church meets to
hear the Word and to conduct divine worship. The Hebrews call this ‫בֵּ ית‬
‫ ִׁמ ְד ָרש‬, “house of preaching.”
This meaning of the word “church” also occurs among the ancient
writers. Eusebius, De vita Const., bk. 3, ch. 47, from the edi on of
Christophorus: “Emperor Constan ne constructed new churches in all the
provinces and made them much more dis nguished than the earlier ones.”
Augustine, Letter 157, around the middle: “Just as we call a basilica a
‘church’ in which are held the people who are truly called the church—so
that with the word ‘church,’ that is, people who are contained, we mean
the place that contains them—so also because souls are contained in
bodies, the bodies of children can be understood through naming their
souls.” De civ. Dei, bk. 2, ch. 28: “The people flock to the churches in a
chaste mul tude, with an honorable separa on of both sexes,” etc.
 But anyone can see that this name is improper and not literal. Isidore of
Pelusium, the disciple of Chrysostom, who was a contemporary of
Augus ne and became famous for his wri ngs a li le a er the death of
Augus ne, inten onally refuted the meaning of this word in bk. 2, Le er
246, p. 210 (Ri ersh. edi on). He says:
Eusebius, the overseer of the Pelusians, should learn what the church is. It is posi vely
absurd and very serious that even without this knowledge he is convinced that he is a
bishop. Those who have tasted wisdom are agreed that the church is the assembly of the
saints gathered on the basis of right faith and the best manner of life. He, however, is
ignorant of this and is overturning that which is truly the church. To many he provides a
source of offense in building a temple, in driving out good men by despoiling them to
decorate and adorn it with expensive blocks of marble. Everyone knows these things. If he
were to know for certain, however, that the church is one thing and the temple another (for
the former consists of unspo ed souls, while the la er is built of stone and mber), I
believe he would stop upse ng the church and decora ng the temple at greater cost than
necessary. You see, the heavenly King comes here not for the building but for the souls. If he
pretends that he does not know what I am saying, even if this were as clear and obvious as
possible to even the dullest, I shall a empt to clarify it with examples. Just as a sacrifice is
one thing and an altar another, as the place for the incense is one thing and the incense
another, as the senate chamber is one thing and the senate another (for the former signifies
the place where they meet, while the la er means those men who take counsel and to
whom belong our peril and safety), so also we must think the same way about temple and
church. If he should, however, say that he has not even understood that, then let him learn
from me that at the me of the apostles, when the church abounded with spiritual gi s and
was rich in the splendor of life, there were no temples. But now our temples are more
ornate than is right, and the church—lest I say something too serious—is abused with comic
jeering. If I were given the op on, I would prefer to have lived in those days when temples
were not so ornate but the church was completely girt and crowned with divine and
heavenly graces, instead of these days of ours when temples have been honored with every
kind of marble but the church has been stripped and emp ed of those spiritual gi s.

Those are the words of Isidore of Pelusium. These words are rightly set
against the Papists, who s ll today stand in the footsteps of Eusebius.
There is a statement of Cyril of Alexandria (on Isaiah, bk. 4, orat. 4) that
agrees with that disputa on of Isidore: “When we say ‘church,’ we are not
applying the meaning of this word to the circumference of walls, but rather
we mean the holy mul tude of the devout in them.” Accordingly, Gerson
writes, De potest. eccles., consid. 13: “We do not take ‘church’ for the
material temple that a mason can build be er than a theologian. Rather,
we consider it to be church as it was established by Christ upon the rock of
faith.”
 Bellarmine (De cultu sanct., bk. 3, ch. 4, § Secundo) tries to prove that
“at the me of the apostles Chris ans had temples dis nct from private
dwellings and that those were called ‘churches.’ ” To this end he cites 1
Cor. 11:18: “When you assemble into the church”; and 14:[34]: “Let the
women be silent in the churches.” The ma er itself, however, shows that in
both places the word “church” should be taken to mean not the temple
building but the actual gathering or assembly of Chris an people. As is
evident from the Acts of the Apostles, from the ancient writers, and even
from Isidore’s tes mony just cited, the Chris ans at the me of the
apostles did not yet have public temples but met in private homes. In Rom.
16:23 the apostle calls Gaius “host to me and to the whole church,”
undoubtedly because the faithful met in the house of this Gaius. To prove
that “ ‘church’ some mes means the place in which the faithful gather,”
Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 1) quotes another passage from Judith 6:
[21]: “All the people were called together, and they prayed throughout the
night inside the church.” The Greek text, however, reads otherwise: “Osias
took him ἐκ τῆς ἐκκλησίας” (“out of the assembly of the people”) “into
his house and gave a banquet for the elders, and throughout that night
they called upon the God of Israel for help.”

The distinction of ἐκκλησία

§ 10. Furthermore, in Scripture the word “church” is taken as an
a ribute of the people who have been called together in the name of the
true religion. (1) It is taken in a universal, proper, and principal way for the
en re assembly of the truly faithful or elect, who from the beginning of the
world to its end are called, gathered, enlightened, and sanc fied from all
peoples, na ons, and tongues by the Holy Spirit through the Word. In
Matt. 16:18 Christ says, “On this rock I shall build My church.” (The future
tense of the verb shows that Christ is speaking properly and preeminently
about that part of the church that s ll remained to be built in the New
Testament. Nevertheless because the church in both the Old and New
Testaments has one and the same founda on, we can correctly take the
word “church” as being used universally.) Eph. 1:22–23: “He has made
Him” (Christ) “the Head over all things for the church, which is His Body,
the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (This glory and dignity of Christ being
established as the Head of the church according to His human nature is the
consequence of His exalta on to the right hand of God; and in that respect,
this passage seems to apply par cularly to the church of the New
Testament. Nevertheless Christ was the only Mediator and Head of the
church no less in the Old than in the New Testament. Therefore we can
suitably understand the word “church” to have been used universally also
in this passage.) Eph. 5:23–26: “Christ is the Head of the church and is
Himself her Savior.… The church is subject to Christ … Christ loved the
church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanc fy her, cleansing her
by the washing of water in the Word.” 1 Tim. 3:15: “… that you may know
how you ought to be in the household of God, which is the church of the
living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” The words of the Apostles’
Creed also belong here: “I believe there is one holy catholic church, the
communion of saints.”
As in the human body there are not only living members but also
useless, excremental humors, and as “in a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, and some for honor
and some for dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20), so also in the assembly of the saints
and elect, who are the true and living members of the church and vessels
of divine grace for honor, there have been mixed in this life some who are
not saints. They are joined to the church with regard to external
associa on, namely, by the profession of faith and by the use of the
Sacraments. As a consequence, the word “church” is taken generically and
less carefully for the en re assembly of the called, in which some indeed
are saints but some are not, lacking inner renewal. Acts 20:28: “God
ransomed the church with His own blood.” 1 Cor. 12:28: “God has
appointed some in the church, first, apostles; second, prophets; third,
teachers,” etc. 1 Cor. 14:4: “He who prophesies edifies the church of God.”
Verse 23: “If the whole church comes together into one place,” etc.
Augus ne (De doctrina Christ., bk. 3, ch. 32) recites the rule of Tyconius
about the “two-part Body of the Lord,” but warns that it should not have
been called this. He says:
That which will not be with Him in eternity is not actually the Body of the Lord. Rather, we
should speak about the true and mixed body of the Lord, or the true and the counterfeit, or
something else. Not only in eternity but also now we should not say that hypocrites are with
Him, even though they appear to be in His church. Consequently, this rule could have been
 named in such a way as to be speaking about “the mixed church.” This rule demands a
careful reader when Scripture, though it is now speaking to others, seems to be speaking to
the same people it was addressing earlier, or seems to be speaking of them when it is now
speaking of others, as if both were one body because of the temporal mixing together and
communion of the Sacraments.

Furthermore, because human eyes do not easily see who in the

assembly of the called are the truly believing, holy, and elect, a division of
the church into visible and invisible has developed. The visible church is
made up of the called; the invisible church is made up of the saints and
elect. We shall discuss this division in greater detail later [§§ 47–53, 70].

In how many ways the church is said to be universal

§ 11. From the descrip on of the church universal, one can conclude
that the church is said to be universal in two ways, namely, with regard to
place and with regard to me, where the universality of me includes the
universality of place but not the contrary. With regard to place, all those
are said to be the church universal who, by the Word, are at one me
called together out of diverse peoples throughout the world to the
fellowship of the church and to par cipa on in the benefits of Christ.
Augustine, Contra lit. Petil., bk. 2, ch. 103: “The church of the living God is
the pillar and support of the truth. It has been spread throughout the
world because of the Gospel that is preached, just as the apostle says, ‘to
every creature that is under heaven.’ ” Sermon 99 de temp.:
We are the holy church, but I am not saying “we” as if to say: “Look! Here we are! Here you
are who are listening to me now!” Rather, we are the church, as many of us as there are
faithful Chris ans in this church, that is, however many of us as are in this city, in that
region, however many are across the sea, however many are in the whole world—because
“from the rising of the sun to its se ng the name of the Lord is praised.” That is how our
mother, the catholic church, is.

With regard to me, all those are said to be the church universal who,
throughout the whole world, at various mes from the beginning of the
world to its end have been called together, are now being called together,
and will be called together by the Word to the fellowship of the church and
to par cipa on in the benefits of Christ. Augustine, on Psalm 56: “His
Body is the church. It is not this church or that one, but the church spread
throughout the world. It is not the church that is now among people who
are living this present life, but those also belong to it who came before us
and unto the end of the age.” On Psalm 62: “Not only the faithful who
now are but also those who have been before us and those who will be
a er us un l the end of the age—all these belong to His Body. The very
one who ascended into heaven is the Head of that Body.” On Psalm 92:
“The Body of this Head is the church, not the church that is in this place,
but the church that is in this place and throughout the world; not the
church that is of this me, but the church that is from Abel to those who
will be born unto the end and will believe in Christ. It is the en re
popula on of the saints who belong to one city, which is the Body of Christ
and whose Head is Christ.” Augus ne’s books De civitate Dei belong here,
in which he describes the church as the city of God to which belong all the
faithful at whatever me of the world they have lived, do live, or will live.
From that city he dis nguishes the city of the world, to which all the
reprobate belong. He located the beginning of these two ci es in Abel and
Cain.

Why the name “church” is bestowed on the whole multitude

of the faithful
§ 12. Because the great mul tude of the faithful are assembled neither
in one place nor at one me, one would be right to ask why the name
“church” is a ributed to that assembly. We respond. This is done because
of the spiritual unity that exists in this life among all the members of the
church. We shall explain a bit later in what that unity consists [§ 34]. It
further happens that, just as a par cular church gathers together on earth
to learn from God’s Word and to be able to have me for divine worship,
so also a er this life the en re mul tude of the elect will one day be
gathered in heaven to praise God with eternal praises and enjoy
everlas ng bliss. In this life the en re mul tude of the faithful is “one
church by the bond of faith and love, and a er this life it will be one
fellowship of eternity,” as Augus ne says (Enchir. ad Laur., ch. 56).

The church militant and the church triumphant

In fact, because some members of the church universal are already
enjoying that heavenly glory and bliss, it has happened that the church
universal is divided into militant and triumphant. (Bellarmine and other
Papists add a third, namely, the church laboring, which must be purged in
places under the earth.) We call that the church militant which in this life
s ll ba les under Christ’s banner against Satan, the world, and the flesh.
(Note here that this descrip on befits only the church of the elect. If,
however, one must apply it to the assembly of the called, we shall have to
add that the church militant has been called and cons tuted for this
purpose: to fight manfully against those opposing powers. This is common
to all people who have been called to the church.)
** Augustine, tractate 123 on John: “The church knows two lives that
have been divinely preached and commended. One of these is in faith, the
other in hope; the one is in a me of pilgrimage, the other in an eternity of
dwelling; the one is in labor, the other in rest; the one is on the journey,
the other is in the fatherland; the one is in the work of ac on, the other is
in the reward of contempla on; the one ba les with an enemy, the other
triumphs without an enemy; etc. The one discerns good things and evil;
the other sees only the things that are good. The one is good but s ll
wretched; the other is be er and blessed.” **
The explana on for this name is taken especially from the following
passages of Scripture. Eph. 6:10–12: “My brothers, be strong in the Lord
and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God that you
may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not
contending against flesh and blood but against princes and powers,” etc. 1
Pet. 5:8–9: “Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion,
seeking someone to devour. Resist him, strong in the faith.” 1 John 5:4:
“This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith.” Rom. 7:23:
“I see in my members another law figh ng against the law of my mind.”
Job 7:1: “Man’s life on earth is an endless soldiering.”
That is called the church triumphant which has been transferred from
the labor of figh ng to the heavenly rest, and has been freed from the
danger of succumbing and triumphs in heaven against all opposing powers.
Eph. 5:27: “to present her to Himself as a glorious church, not having spot
or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without
blemish.” (Jerome, on Jeremiah 31, and Augus ne, De perfect. jus t. and
elsewhere, take this correctly to mean the church triumphing in heaven.)
Heb. 12:22–23: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem; to the gathering of many angels and to the
church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven; and to God, the judge
of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.” Here the church militant
on earth and the church triumphant in heaven are described as one
assembly and one gathering.
The explana on for this name is taken from the following passages. Rev.
2:10: “Be faithful unto death, and I shall give you the crown of life.” Rev.
2:26–27: “He who conquers and keeps My works un l the end, I shall give
him power over the na ons, and he will rule them with a rod of iron.” Rev.
4:4: “golden crowns upon their heads.” Rev. 7:9: “palm branches in their
hands.” (Those are signs of victory.) Some draw the division of the church
into church militant and triumphant from Eph. 1:[9–]10: “God has set
forth to restore, to bring back all things under one Head in Christ, things in
heaven and things on earth.” And from Col. 1:[19–]20: “It pleased God
through Christ to reconcile to Himself all things, whether on earth or in
heaven, making peace by the blood of His cross.” However, “the things in
heaven” seems to mean the angels (as Chrysostom and Theophylactus
explain it), rather than the souls of the blessed in heaven (as Beza and
Piscator explain it). At first, God created both angels and humans to be one
fellowship, one Body, one church. By the trickery of the devil, however, the
human race has been torn from that Body through sin. Christ therefore
reconciled the human race by His suffering and made peace with the
heavenly Father, brought back angels and humans under one Head, etc.
Although Christ is not the mediator for the angels, properly speaking (as
some of the Calvinists claim and try to prove from those passages),
nevertheless from the reconcilia on of the human race with God through
Christ, this advantage has overflowed to us: there has been a renewal of
the original fellowship, without which the angels would have shunned our
presence.
Some claim that the church militant is becoming [in fieri] according to
genera on and progress and that the church triumphant has become [in
facto] according to its perfect establishment. This can be understood
fi ngly, namely, with regard to growth, which s ll applies to the church
militant in respect to gi s and persons but will no longer apply to the
church triumphant a er Judgment Day.
 The Pho nians reject the division of the church into church militant and
church triumphant, for Schmaltzius writes (Refutat. thesium D. Frantzii,
disp. 8, de ecclesia, p. 273) as follows: “It is an error when Frantzius divides
the invisible church into the church triumphant and the church militant.
You see, at this me there is actually no triumphing church. It will exist
when Jesus Christ comes to render to each person according to his works.”
This flows from the Anabap st hypothesis that the souls of the devout
sleep un l the Day of Judgment.

The particular distinction of “church”

§ 13. The name “church” is taken as par cular both with regard to me
and to place. With regard to me, the church of the Old Testament is one
church; that of the New, another. All the faithful without excep on,
whether they lived in the Old or in the New Testament, belong to the one
Body of the church catholic. Nevertheless because the Old Testament
faithful believed in the promised Messiah and those of the New in the
revealed Messiah, the tle “church,” taken specifically, is consequently
a ributed: (1) To the people of the Old Testament before Christ was
revealed. Num. 20:4: “You have brought the church of the Lord into the
wilderness.” Deut. 23:1: “They shall not enter into the church of the Lord.”
Acts 7:38: “Moses was in the church in the wilderness.” This is called “the
church of Israel” (1 Kings 8:14, 22, etc.). (2) To the people of the New
Testament a er Christ was revealed. Acts 5:11: “And great fear came upon
the whole church.” Acts 8:1: “A great persecu on arose in the church,” etc.
This is called “the church of Christ” (Rom. 16:16; Col. 1:24). It is divided
into the early church, which the apostles and their disciples established,
and the successive church, which followed the early church.
With regard to place, the large church or church of great numbers is
one; the small church, another. The large church or church of great
numbers is that which is gathered to God in some na on, province, or city.
Thus they are called “the churches of the Gen les” in Rom. 16:4, which
were gathered to Christ from the Gen les or from the territories of the
Gen les; “the churches of Asia” (1 Cor. 16:19); “the churches of
Macedonia” (2 Cor. 8:1); “the churches of Gala a” (Gal. 1:2); “the church
throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria” (Acts 9:31); “the church in
Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1; 11:22); “the church in An och” (Acts 13:1); “the
church of God in Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2); “the church of the Thessalonians” (1
Thess. 1:1); “the church in Ephesus” (Rev. 2:1); “the church in Smyrna”
(Rev. 2:8); “the church in Pergamum” (Rev. 2:12); “the church in Thya ra”
(Rev. 2:18); “the church in Sardis” (Rev. 3:1); “the church in Philadelphia”
(Rev. 3:7); “the church in Laodicea” (Rev. 3:14; Col. 4:16); etc.
The small church is the domes c one that gathers in individual houses;
you can call it an ecclesiola [“li le church”]. Rom. 16:5: “Greet also the
church in their” (Aquila’s and Priscilla’s) “house [τὴν κατʼ οἶκον αὐτῶν
ἐκκλησίαν].” 1 Cor. 16:19: “Aquila and Priscilla send gree ngs, together
with the church in their house [σὺν τῇ κατʼ οἶκον αὐτῶν ἐκκλησίᾳ].” Col.
4:15: “Give my gree ngs to Nympha and to the church that is in her
house.” Philemon 2: “To Archippus, our fellow soldier, and the church in
your house [τῇ κατʼ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ].” We must note here that the
word “church” taken as par cular is used for the number of the mul tude
because there surely are many par cular churches that, when taken all
together, cons tute one catholic or universal church. But because it is only
one, the word “church” when applied to it is always used in the singular.
In the notes to Eusebius (bk. 1, ch. 1) we find this admoni on: “Eusebius
uses the words παροικία [“parish”] and ἐκκλησία [“church”]
indiscriminately. Although παροικία properly means a par cular church,
some translate it as ‘province.’ ” Rufinus, however, has followed the
custom of the ecclesias cal writers and has preferred to translate it as
“church.” By the meaning of the word, παροικία is the domes c church.

The synecdochic meaning of “church”

§ 14. By synecdoche the word “church” is taken for a part of it.
According to Cyprian, Le er ad Florent. Pupianum, bk. 4, le er 9, the
assembly of the church is divided into “flock and shepherd.” (He says: “The
church is the people united with their priest, the flock staying close by its
shepherd. From this, you should know that the bishop is in the church and
the church is in the bishop.”) It therefore happens that the name “church,”
through the figure of speech we call “synecdoche,” is a ributed: (1) To the
presbytery or senate of the church. Matt. 18:17: “If he does not listen to
them, tell it to the church.” (However, it would not be an absurdity to
understand the word “church” in this passage as the en re gathering of the
faithful. Paul also seems to explain it that way in 1 Tim. 5:20: “Them that
sin rebuke before all, that the others also may fear.” Surely this la er
meaning is to be preferred to the former because of the tricks of the
Papists, who give to the prelates the authority to establish anything at all
on the basis of this passage and who usurp the tle “church” for
themselves alone, which they call “the representa ve church,” just as
Aristotle, Ethic., bk. 9, ch. 9, says, “The state is especially that which is
principal in it.”)
(2) To the flock, that is, to the sheep or hearers. Acts 20:28: “The Holy
Spirit has made you bishops [episcopi] to lead the church of God.” Peter
explains this: “Feed the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight
[ἐπισκοποῦντες]” (1 Pet. 5:2). 1 Cor. 6:4: “Those who are least esteemed
in the church, them you are establishing as judges.” Rev. 2:1: “To the angel
of the church in Ephesus write,” etc.
Nowhere, however, does “church” denote one single person, as the
Papists take the word “church” to mean only the pope of Rome. We proved
this in our trea se On the Interpreta on of Scripture [1610 Loci Theologici,
locus 2], since the word “church” is a collec ve noun, which cannot be
a ributed to one person. Jus n, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 202: “Both people and
church are called with one word, just as many mortals may become one
thing.” Bellarmine himself says, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 17, toward the end:
“One person cannot be called ‘church’ because the church is the people
and kingdom of God.”
Chapter III: On the Synonyms for the Word or
on the Other Terms for “Church”
The church is the gathering of the saints
§ 15. In this trea se we are taking the word “church” properly and
carefully to mean the gathering of the saints or the truly faithful, as the
Augsburg Confession defines it, art. VII: “The church is the gathering of
saints in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly
administered.” Here one should observe that the Confession preferred to
use the word “saints” and “believers” instead of “elect” and “predes ned.”
It does not want anyone to take the word “elect” in an alien sense, as if to
understand that those are included under this tle whom God has chosen
by some absolute decree. All those who are true believers are true and
living members of the church because by faith they are united with Christ
and become members of His mys cal Body, which is the church. Some of
these believers persevere in the faith and obtain the end of their faith,
namely, the salva on of their souls. These are called “elect,” properly
speaking. Some, however, relax the reins and yield control to the lusts of
the flesh and to sin. These again fall from grace and cease to be true and
living members of Christ and dwelling places of the Holy Spirit. Unless they
are converted again, they suffer shipwreck of eternal salva on. The name
“saints” or “believers,” therefore, is broader than “elect.” Hence, since the
church catholic includes within her limits not only the elect, in the proper
and careful sense, but also saints and believers who later fall again, it is
more sa sfactory to define the church as the gathering of saints and true
believers than as the gathering of the elect. Nevertheless the use of the
word “elect” in a sound sense, namely, in a general and ecclesias cal
expression, ought to offend no one.
Furthermore, those who are not saints and, in fact, those who lack an
inner rebirth and renewal have been connected to the saints and true
believers in the church, yet it is by external fellowship (which consists of
the profession of faith and the use of the Sacraments) that they are
connected to the assembly of the saints in this life. Hence it happens that
“church” at mes is taken popularly for the en re assembly of the called,
to which those honorable commenda ons, which Scripture assigns to the
church, belong only through synecdoche, a figure of speech used in
Scripture. Of course, Scripture uses those praises because of the elect who
are in this assembly, just as if someone a ributes outstanding
commenda ons to the state because of its civilized and honest ci zens,
though the wicked and perverse are mixed among them; or as if someone
were using beau ful adjec ves to extol a field because of its grain, though
in that grain were mixed weeds, to which are related the Savior’s parables
in Matthew 13; Mark 4, and Luke 8. Regarding this synecdoche, Augus ne
(Letter 59 ad Paulinum) writes: “It is the custom of Scripture to speak
about a part as if about a whole, just as the apostle praises the Corinthians
in the first parts of his Epistle as if all of them were like that, though only
some of them deserved praise, and later in several parts of that Epistle he
rebukes them as if they all were culpable because of some who indeed
were culpable. Everyone no ces carefully that such a custom of the Holy
Scriptures is used very commonly throughout all the corpus of its wri ngs.
This explains many points in them which seem to be inconsistent.”

In what sense the church is called “the communion of saints”

§ 16. Some tles for the church are proper and some metaphoric, to
which belongs also the typological [typicae] tles. It is a proper tle when
in the Apostles’ Creed the church is called “the communion of saints”
(κοινωνία τῶν ἁγίων). There are some who try to separate this ar cle
about the communion of saints from the one immediately preceding about
the catholic church so that by “communion τῶν ἁγίων” in the neuter
gender, a sharing in the same Sacraments would be understood. You see, it
seems jarring to them for no men on of an ar cle on the Sacraments to be
made in the Creed. To be sure, that explana on does not conflict with the
analogy of faith. It does seem, however, much more pleasing to take that
phrase about the communion of saints as explanatory, that the holy
catholic church, which we believe exists, is the communion of saints. With
this interpreta on we by no means exclude from those words the doctrine
of the Sacraments. Instead, we are including it, for that communion of
saints is double: external and internal. The external consists of the
profession of the same faith and the use of the same Sacraments. This
communion exists not only among the saints but also among the nonsaints
or hypocrites who are s ll mingled with the saints in this life. The internal
spiritual communion is in true faith and consists in love and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit; it exists only among the saints. In Scripture, the word
“saints” does not mean only those who are endowed with true faith and
do ba le on earth against Satan while they are s ll under the cross. It also
and especially means those who have endured the hardship of soldiering
and are now blessed, triumphing gloriously in heaven. Examples of both
meanings are found in many places throughout the Scriptures. The former
is found in Ps. 16:3; Acts 9:32; Rom. 1:7; etc. The la er is found in Matt.
27:52; Luke 1:70; 1 Cor. 6:2; etc. In Eph. 1:18 both meanings are joined:
“That you may know what are the riches of His glorious inheritance in the
saints.” That is, that you may know how glorious an inheritance the Lord
has prepared and will bestow upon the saints partly in this life and partly in
eternal life. Eph. 2:19: “You are ci zens with the saints and members of
the household of God.” 2 Thess. 1:10: “When Christ comes to be glorified
in His saints.” Therefore when the church is called “the communion of
saints,” we must take this to mean not only the true and living members of
the church that is s ll militant in this life but also of the church triumphant
in heaven. You see, both assemblies cons tute the one church. Heb.
12:22[–23]: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living
God, the heavenly Jerusalem; and to the mul tude of many thousands of
angels and to the church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven; and
to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.”
Here we should men on that Jerusalem is set forth in the Scriptures as
a type of the church: some mes militant, some mes triumphant. It is very
comfor ng to know that the saints and true believers not only share the
same blessings in this life but also belong to the same fellowship of those
saints who are already glorious in heaven. Acts 26:[17–]18: “I am sending
you to open the eyes of the Gen les that they may turn from darkness to
light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive
forgiveness of sins and the inheritance of salva on and of eternal life
among those who are sanc fied by faith in Me.” Eph. 2:6: “He has made us
sit with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Col. 1:12: “We give
thanks to God who has made us worthy to share in the inheritance of the
saints in light.” The descrip on of the church in the Apostles’ Creed has
been taken from these passages, that it is “the communion of saints,” just
as in Ps. 89:[5] and 1 Cor. 14:33 she is also called “the church of the
saints” and in Ps. 149:1: ‫קָ הָ ל חֲ ִס ִידים‬, “the church and assembly of the
devout.”

Metaphoric titles for the church: First, “the Body of Christ”

§ 17. Several metaphoric tles for the church occur in the Scriptures.
She is called: [I] “the Body of Christ” (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 6:15; 10:17;
12:13, 27; Eph. 1:23; 5:23, 30; Col. 1:18, 24; 3:15). We should take
par cular note of two tes monies in Scripture in regard to this name. Eph.
4:11–16: “Christ gave some, apostles; some, prophets; some, evangelists;
some, pastors and teachers, for the fi ng together of the saints, for the
work of the ministry for building up the Body of Christ, un l we all go forth
to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a
mature man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (εἰς
μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ); so that we may no
longer be children … But conduc ng ourselves sincerely in love, let us grow
up into Him who is the Head, even Christ, from whom the whole Body,
joined and fit together by all the joints supplied from the power ac ng
within, according to the measure of each part, receives growth, joining
with the Body for the upbuilding of itself in love.” Col. 2:19: “Not holding
fast to the Head, from whom the whole Body, supplied and fit together by
its joints and ligaments, grows into the growth of God.”

The comparison of the church to a human body

Two explana ons for this name can be established. The church can be
compared either with a human body in general or with the personal body
of Christ in par cular. The first comparison includes the various parts that
the apostle men ons in various passages, especially in the en re chapter
of 1 Corinthians 12. As there is only one head for any rightly formed body,
so Christ is the only Head of the church. The church does not need the sort
of vicarious head that the Papists claim. Christ alone, not absent but
present, by the power of His Spirit communicates spiritual life, vigor, sense,
and mo on to His members. He alone causes the binding (καταρτισμός)
and joining together of the members with the head and with one another,
and He alone presides, has mastery, and is eminent in the church, just as in
the body all these things belong to the head.
Christ is the Head of the church: (1) By reason of condi on or His
superiority and preeminence (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18). (2) By reason of
communica on, because He gives life, sense, and mo on to His mys cal
Body. (3) By reason of rule and governance, because the power of a
monarch befits Him alone. (4) By reason of connec on, because He is
a ached to His members with an inseparable bond. (5) By reason of
defense, because He looks out for the safety and health of His Body.
As one body has many members, so, though there are many believers,
they nevertheless cons tute one Body in Christ. Rom. 12:5: “So we,
though many, are one Body in Christ and individually members one of
another.” 1 Cor. 12:12: “For just as the body is one and has many
members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so
also is Christ.” Just as the members have various and diverse func ons—
and just as one member, though it is less noble, does not envy another nor,
though it is superior, does not despise another—so also in the mys cal
Body of Christ the faithful have various gi s, and one does not envy
another nor does one despise another. 1 Cor. 12:15–16: “If the foot should
say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ would that
make it not a part of the body? And if the ear should say, ‘Because I am not
an eye, I do not belong to the body,’ would that make it not a part of the
body?” etc. As all the members are animated, ruled, and given life by one
spirit, so also all the truly devout share in the Holy Spirit, who rules them,
gives them life, and makes them members of the mys cal Body. 1 Cor.
12:13: “In one Spirit we were all bap zed into one Body.” Eph. 4:4: “one
Body and one Spirit.” As the members suffer together and offer each other
mutual aid, so also the true and living members of the church, joined
together by the bond of love, ought to suffer together, rejoice together,
and help one another. 1 Cor. 12:25–26: “The members have the same care
for one another. If one member suffers, all members suffer together; if one
member is honored, all rejoice together.”
Just as ro ng and dead limbs that have lost their life-giving spirit are
cut off from the body, so also when believers no longer permit the Holy
Spirit to rule them but yield the kingship to sin, they cease being true and
living members of this mys cal Body. Just as in the human body there are
not only true and living members but also useless, excremental humors
that weigh down the body, so also mixed in with the assembly of true
believers and saints in this life there are hypocrites who lack true faith and
holiness. Augus ne (Brevicul., coll. 3) applies this part of the comparison a
bit differently, yet in the same sense: “The church is a living body in which
there is both soul and body.” He says that “the soul” means “the internal
gi s of the Holy Spirit: faith, hope, and love,” while “the body” means “the
external profession of faith and the communion of the Sacraments.”

The comparison of the church to the personal body of Christ

The second comparison of the church, to the personal body of Christ,
also includes various parts. As Christ assumed His personal body from the
Virgin, so also the church, as the spiritual mother of the faithful, is likewise
a virgin. 2 Cor. 11:2: “I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a
chaste virgin to Christ.” Augustine, De s. virgin., ch. 2: “The church is both
virgin and mother. Whose integrity are we taking care of if she is not a
virgin? Whose offspring do we speak to if she is not a mother? Mary
physically gave birth to the Head of this Body; the church spiritually gives
birth to the members of that Head. In both instances virginity does not
hinder frui ulness; in both instances frui ulness does not take away
virginity.” Sermon 50 de verb. Dom.: “To His church Christ has conceded in
the Spirit that his mother have in her body the capability of being both
mother and virgin.” He explains this as follows in Sermon 16 de temp.:
“She is mother in the depths of her love, virgin in the integrity of her faith.”
The Son of God did not bring His body down from heaven nor fashion it
from the stars but assumed it from the substance of the Virgin Mary. He
did this in such a way that the Holy Spirit first cleansed and sanc fied that
lump of human blood in Mary out of which that holy body was formed. In
the same way, He did not choose the angels for His mys cal Body but made
members of His mys cal Body those of the human race who are cleansed
by the Holy Spirit through the washing of water in the Word.
The personal body of Christ grew in stature un l it reached the perfect
age, that is, the age of manhood. Luke 2:52: “Jesus increased in age
[ἡλικίᾳ].” So also the mys cal Body of Christ daily receives spiritual growth.
Eph. 4:12–13: “For building up the Body of Christ, un l we all go forth to
the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature
man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (εἰς μέτρον
ἡλικίας).”
The personal body of Christ was subjected to various afflic ons and
sufferings in this life. In the same way, the church—the mys cal Body of
Christ—is forced to labor under the cross. Col. 1:24: “In my flesh I
complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflic ons for the sake of His Body,
which is the church.”
However, Christ called forth His personal body from death and the grave
to life and finally raised it to the highest height of heavenly glory. So also
He will finally free the members of His Body from all adversi es, li them
from the dust of the ground, and transfer them into the fellowship of
heavenly brightness and glory. Phil. 3:21: “He will transform our lowly
body to be like (σύμμορφον) His glorious body.”
Here we should men on the comparison of the years of Christ’s life and
ministry that He spent on earth with the jubilee years of the church of the
New Testament. We discussed this comparison in greater detail in its own
place.
In Christ’s personal body “the whole fullness of the deity dwells
personally (σωματικῶς)” (Col. 2:9). So also in Christ’s mys cal Body and in
all its true and living members the en re Trinity dwells mys cally and
spiritually (John 14:23; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16). The church, therefore, is
called “the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fulfills all in all” [Eph.
1:23].
Christ’s personal body at the me of His Passion had an outward
appearance that was contemp ble. Isa. 53:2: “He had no form nor
comeliness; we saw Him, and there was no appearance that we should
desire Him.” In the same way, the mys cal Body of Christ, the church, has
in this life an outwardly contemp ble and abject appearance. Ps. 45:[13]:
“All glorious is the daughter of the king”—but “within.” Song 1:5: “I am
very dark but beau ful”—very dark on the outside in the eyes of men but
beau ful on the inside in the eyes of God.
Some mes were more gentle to Christ’s body, and some mes were
more cruel. So also the church at some mes is more tranquil, and at some
mes less tranquil, etc.
Second, “the Bride of Christ”
§ 18. (II) The Bride of Christ. This name is given to the church of the
devout that is s ll militant on earth as well as to the church of the blessed,
triumphant in heaven. We have examples of the first meaning in Isa.
61:10; John 3:29; and Rev. 22:17. Psalm 45 also belongs here, which is
the wedding song for those spiritual nup als. The en re Song of Songs
belongs here, too, concerning which Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 17, ch. 20)
writes correctly: “It is a spiritual pleasure of holy minds in the marriage of
the King and the queen-city, that is, Christ and the church. The pleasure,
however, is wrapped in allegorical veils so that the Groom may be desired
more ardently and be seen more joyfully.” Even the more sensible Jews say
this about it: “By no means! By no means is the Song of Songs about
obscene ma ers! Rather, it is a metaphor, for if it did not have great
dignity, it would not have been wri en in the catalog of the Holy
Scriptures.” Here, Christ’s parables in Matt. 9:15; 22:2; and 25:1ff. should
also be men oned.
We have an example of the second meaning in Rev. 21:2: “I saw the
holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared
like a bride adorned for her husband.” However, because the church, both
militant and triumphant, is one fellowship and communion of saints, in
most passages of Scripture the word “bride” means both churches. One
and the same virgin is first betrothed to her groom and later is taken home
by him to be his wife. So also one and the same church is first betrothed to
Christ in this life. 2 Cor. 11:2: “I betrothed you to one husband, to present
you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” And the same church later is taken by Him
into the joys of a heavenly marriage and into the celes al tabernacles. Rev.
19:7: “Let us rejoice and exult and give Him the glory, for the marriage of
the Lamb has come, and His Bride has made herself ready.” All the
statements of Scripture belong here in which Christ is called the
bridegroom and husband of the church, and the church is called His bride
and wife. In Ps. 68:[12] the church is called ‫נְ וַת בַּ יִת‬, “the glory of the
house,” which Luther renders as die Hausehre. Isa. 54:5: “Your Maker is
your husband, the Lord of hosts is His name.” Isa. 62:5: “As the bridegroom
rejoices over the bride, so will your God rejoice over you.” Jer. 3:4: “You are
the guide of my youth.” Hosea 2:7: “She will say, ‘I will go and return to my
first husband.’ ” Hosea 2:16: “On that day she will call Me ‘my husband.’ ”
One can set up various parts of this comparison, and we shall list the
more important ones. Just as the betrothal precedes the wedding, so the
spiritual betrothal that occurs through faith precedes the celes al marriage
in which Christ’s Bride is taken to her heavenly home (Rev. 19:[7]). Hosea
2:19–20: “I shall betroth you to Me forever. I shall betroth you to Me in
righteousness and jus ce, and in mercy and pity, and you will know the
Lord.”
Through his agents, a groom takes care that his bride’s favor is won and
that she is brought to him. So also Christ betroths the souls of human
beings to Himself through the ministers of the church. 2 Cor. 11:2: “I
betrothed you to one husband.”
Both par es give guarantees [arrhae] in the betrothal. Likewise, the
church gives to Christ the human nature as the guarantee, which He has
assumed from human beings. In turn, the church receives from Christ the
Holy Spirit as His guarantee. 2 Cor. 1:22: “He has given us the guarantee
[ἀῤῥαβῶνα] of the Spirit in our hearts.” Eph. 1:14: “The Holy Spirit is the
guarantee [ἀῤῥαβὼν] of our inheritance.” Tertullian (De resurr. carn., p.
80): “Just as He le us the guarantee of the Spirit, so also He received from
us a guarantee of the flesh and carried into heaven the pledge of the en re
amount that will have to be paid back at some me.”
As the guarantee confirms the bride as to the fact that her bridegroom
will soon claim her and take her home, so the Holy Spirit confirms the
hearts of the devout with regard to being brought to the heavenly
wedding. Augus ne has a beau ful observa on on Ephesians 1: that the
Holy Spirit is given “not as a pledge but as a guarantee,” because when the
money that has been borrowed is given back, the pledge is also returned.
But the guarantee, once the full price has been paid, is not returned,
because it is part of the price that is not going to be removed but will be
paid in full. So also the grace and gi s of the Holy Spirit will not be taken
away from the devout in eternal life but will be increased and repaid in
greater amounts.
A bridegroom ardently loves his bride, and a husband ardently loves his
wife and adorns, clothes, and defends her and supplies her with all
necessi es, etc. So also Christ does all these things for His church. Isa.
61:10: “I shall greatly rejoice in the Lord; my soul will exult in my God, for
He has clothed me with the garments of salva on; He has covered me with
the robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom in priestly a re and as a bride
adorned with her necklaces.” Isa. 62:5: “As the bridegroom rejoices over
the bride, so will your God rejoice over you.” Ezek. 16:10: “I clothed you in
many colors and shod you with violet; I covered you with silk,” etc. Eph.
5:25: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church.” Eph. 5:29:
“For no man ever hated his own flesh but nourishes and cherishes it, as
Christ does the church.”
As a bride becomes a sharer in the name, honor, dignity, and goods of
her bridegroom, so also we are called Chris ans from Christ and are taken
by Him into the fellowship of righteousness and of all the good treasures of
heaven.
This comparison also can provide useful admoni ons. As a faithful bride
cleaves to her one husband, remains faithful to him, loves him sincerely,
and obeys him promptly, so also the church owes all this to Christ, her
heavenly bridegroom. In fact, Christ spends more on us and loves us more
deeply than a bridegroom can spend on a bride or can love her. Christ does
not discover His beloved Bride but creates her, because He died for us
when we were s ll enemies. He did not find her beau ful, He makes her
beau ful; He does not find her rich, He makes her rich; etc. Just as Samson
looked for a wife for himself from the Philis nes who were given up to
destruc on (Judg. 14:1), so Christ chose for Himself a Bride from the
human race, which was condemned because of sin. All these things can be
drawn out and explained in great detail, but it is enough that we have
merely pointed out the sources of the comparison.
One can observe here that: (1) The church is compared not to a bride
alone, not to a wife alone, but to both bride and wife—to a bride because
of the greatness of love, because brides are generally loved more ardently
than wives; to a wife, on the other hand, because of the indissoluble bond
of union that nevertheless can again be broken by spiritual adultery (just as
in marriage).
(2) According to Dr. Chemnitz, the wedding in the parable in Matt. 22:2
should be understood as a personal one between the Son of God and the
human nature that He assumed, rather than a spiritual one between Christ
and the church. This is because later the wedding feast is dis nguished
from the wedding, and that feast is understood properly to mean the
benefits that God distributes in the church and that Christ has earned for
the faithful by the personal wedding.
(3) At mes a spiritual betrothal is dis nguished from a spiritual
marriage in such a way that the former refers to this life, but the la er, to
the life to come (Rev. 19:7). At mes, however, both the spiritual betrothal
and the spiritual wedding are referred to this life. This is why the church
even in this life is called both the bride and the wife of Christ.
Here we should men on that the church is called “the mother of the
faithful” (Gal. 4:26). Because the church is Christ’s bride and wife who
bears spiritual children for Him and feeds and nourishes them through the
Word, the church is therefore called “the mother of the faithful.” Ambrose,
commentary on Galatians 4: “In the church we are born again to the
freedom of the children of God.” Augustine, Sermon 109 de temp.: “Just
as two parents, Adam and Eve, produced us for death, so also two parents,
Christ and the church, produce us for life.”
** Cyprian, De simpl. praelator., p. 164: “We are born of her offspring,
nourished with her milk, animated with her Spirit. The Bride of Christ
cannot commit adultery, for she is chaste and unspoiled. She knows one
home, and with her chaste decency she protects the sanc ty of one bed.
She preserves us for God; she gives the children she has borne over to His
rule, etc. He cannot have God as his Father who does not have the church
as his mother.” **
The two breasts with which the church nurses the faithful are the two
Testaments.
Gal. 4:19: “My li le children with whom I am again in travail un l Christ
be formed in you!”

Third, “the kingdom of the heavens”

§ 19. (III) The kingdom of the heavens. This tle is given especially to the
church of the New Testament that had started to be gathered a er the full
revela on of Christ in the Gospel.
** The church is compared to heaven: (1) With regard to her dignity. (2)
With regard to her unity. (3) With regard to her purity. (4) With regard to
her strength. (5) With regard to her large size. **
 In Matt. 3:2 the sum of the preaching of John the Bap st is described in
this way: “Repent, for the kingdom of the heavens is at hand,” which Christ
later repeats in Matt. 4:17. The New Testament church is especially called
“the kingdom of the heavens” not because the faithful in the Old
Testament were promised only earthly blessings (as the Anabap sts claim,
who fabricate a worldly poli cal state out of that most holy assembly of
the patriarchs, prophets, and the other faithful of the Old Testament), but
rather: (1) With respect to the Old Testament prophecies about the
kingdom of the Messiah. 2 Sam. 7:12–13: “I shall establish His kingdom.
He will build a house for My name, and I shall establish the throne of His
kingdom forever.” This promise is repeated in 1 Chron. 17:11[–12]; 22:10;
28:7; 2 Chron. 7:18; Ps. 89:[29]. The following prophecies also belong to
this: Ps. 2:6: “I have set My King on Zion.” Ps. 45:[3]: “Gird Your sword
upon Your thigh, O mighty one!” Ps. 45:6: “The scepter of Your kingdom is
a scepter of uprightness.” Ps. 72:1: “Give the king Your judgment, O God,
and Your righteousness to the king’s Son.” Ps. 110:2: “The Lord will send
forth the scepter of Your strength from Zion.” Dan. 2:44: “The God of
heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed,” etc.
(2) It is called “the kingdom of the heavens” because it is the kingdom
of grace that Christ gathers to Himself through the preaching of the
Gospel. He rules the ci zens of this kingdom of His through the Word and
Holy Spirit and protects them against all opposing powers. The subjects of
this realm owe Him, as a king, their compliance and obedience. This is why
the Gospel is called “the Gospel of the kingdom” (Matt. 9:[35]) and the
scepter or “rod of the kingdom” (Ps. 45:[6]). The faithful are called “the
children of the kingdom” (Matt. 13:38) and “a royal priesthood” (1 Pet.
2:9). The power to forgive sins is called “the Keys of the kingdom” (Matt.
16:19). The tle “kingdom of the heavens,” therefore, includes all of
Christ’s benefits that He distributes in the church. The explana on of the
tle is found in Luke 11:20, namely, that the kingdom of God comes to us
when Christ, with the finger of God, drives out Satan and destroys his
kingdom. The devil, you see, is strong, well armed, and bolstered by the
divine Law itself. Because of our sins, he holds us cap ve in his kingdom.
No created thing can free us from this kingdom by its own powers. Christ,
however, with the merit and efficacy of His suffering and death, has
destroyed the kingdom of Satan and has distributed these benefits of His in
the Word and Sacraments. Through these He works repentance and faith in
our hearts by the effec ve agency of the Holy Spirit. Thus, by His power
and grace, He transfers us from the kingdom of darkness into “the kingdom
of light,” from the kingdom of Satan into His own kingdom, from the
kingdom of wrath into the kingdom of grace (Col. 1:13).
(3) It is also called “the kingdom of the heavens” because it is not a
temporal, worldly, and poli cal realm; it is not administered as are worldly
kingdoms; and it provides not earthly but spiritual and celes al goods.
Luke 17:20: “The kingdom of God does not come with observa on.” Luke
17:21: “Behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.” John 18:36:
“My kingdom is not of this world.” This tle, therefore, destroys the idea of
the Papists that the church of Christ is “an assembly of people as visible
and palpable as is the assembly of the Roman people or the kingdom of
Gaul or the republic of Venice,” as Bellarmine says, De ecclesia, bk. 3, ch. 2,
§ Atque hoc.
(4) Finally, it is called “the kingdom of the heavens” because entrance to
the kingdom of heavenly glory lies open to no one except from the
kingdom of grace. The benefits of this la er kingdom will be distributed
fully and completely to the faithful only when they have been transferred
into the heavenly kingdom. For this reason the name “kingdom of the
heavens” is given not only to the kingdom of grace in this life but also to
the kingdom of glory in eternal life (Matt. 5:20; 8:11; 18:3; etc.). The
heavenly kingdom is called “an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ” (Eph.
5:5), and the elect are called “heirs of the kingdom that God has promised
to those who love Him” (James 2:5).

Fourth, “the city of God”

§ 20. (IV) City of God. This tle almost corresponds to the prior
appella on. On the one hand, it is a ributed to the church militant. Song
3:2: “I shall rise now and go about the city,” etc. Rev. 11:2: “They will
trample over the holy city for forty-two months.” Rev. 20:9: “They
surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city.” (In connec on
with this, the true members of Christ’s church are called “fellow ci zens
with the saints,” Eph. 2:19.) It is also a ributed to the church triumphant.
Heb. 11:10: “By faith, Abraham looked forward to the city that has
founda ons, whose builder and maker is God.” Heb. 11:16: “God is not
ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city.” Heb.
12:22: “You have come to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem.” Heb. 13:14: “For here we have no las ng city, but we seek the
city that is to come.” Rev. 3:12: “He who conquers, I shall write on him the
name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem
that comes down out of heaven,” etc. In Rev. 21:2ff., this city is described
graphically as to what sort of walls, gates, founda ons, and temple it has.
The explana on for the name is drawn: (1) From Jerusalem, the capital
city of Judea, which is called “the city of God” (Ps. 46:[4]; 48:[1]; 87:3),
“the city of the great King” (Ps. [48:2]; Matt. 5:35); in which city were “the
Lord’s fire and His furnace” (Isa. 31:9). All this is obviously because God
dwelt in the temple above the ark of the mercy seat between the two
cherubim and had established the remembrance of His name in that place
(Exod. 20:24). But now, Jerusalem was a type of the church, as we shall
explain later [§ 31].
(2) From a comparison to a city. Just as a city is a community of many
people bound together by certain laws and subject to a certain magistracy,
so also the church is the gathering of the faithful bound together by certain
laws both to Christ their King and to one another. As the ci zens of one
and the same city rejoice in common goods and privileges, so also the
saints share in the same spiritual and heavenly goods. “As a city does not
consist of physician and physician or of peasant and peasant but of
physician and peasant,” as Aristotle says in his Ethic., so also the church
does not consist of pastor and pastor or of hearer and hearer but of
teachers and learners. Also, among the hearers there are various estates
and ranks. As a city is for fied against the assaults of the enemy with walls
and ramparts, so also around His church God is “a wall of fire” (Zech. 2:5).
“He watches over” this city (Ps. 127:1). Just as the city remains one, even
though different ci zens succeed each other as if in an order, so also the
church remains one, though different people come to it or leave it.

Fifth, “the house of God”

§ 21. (V) The house of God. Ps. 27:4: “One thing have I asked of the
Lord, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord.” Ps. 55:[14]: “Within God’s
house we walked in company.” Ps. 84:[4]: “Blessed are those who dwell in
Your house, O Lord,” etc. 1 Tim. 3:15: “That you may know how one ought
to behave in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the
pillar and support of the truth.” Heb. 3:1–6: “Christ, the high priest of our
confession, was faithful to Him who appointed Him, just as Moses also was
faithful in all His house. Yet Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory
than Moses, as much as the builder of the house has more honor than the
house.… Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant … but
Christ, in His house as the Son. And we are His house if we hold firm to the
end our confidence and our boas ng in our hope.” Heb. 10:21: “Christ is a
great priest over the house of God.” 1 Pet. 2:5: “Like living stones be
yourselves built into a spiritual house.”
(Chemnitz, Loci, part 3, p. 305, says: “This is a beau ful and pleasant
picture. The blessed city of Jerusalem in heaven is built of living stones. By
nature those stones are unpolished. They are polished, however, by various
poundings and pressures and crosses in this world. Then each is fi ed and
arranged into its individual place by the hands of the cra sman. The
cornerstone and founda on is Christ Himself, whom the heavenly Father
has sent, so that the stones, which would die by themselves, are placed
upon Him and receive life and breath, and so that He stands as a firm
founda on for the church against the very gates of hell. Also, because He is
the cornerstone, He joins the walls together firmly by His embrace so that
the building can never fall apart nor develop cracks.”)
1 Pet. 4:17: “The me has come for judgment to begin from the house
of God.” In connec on with this, the ci zens of the church are called
οἰκεῖοι, “members of the household of God” (Eph. 2:19).
The explana on for this tle is drawn: (1) From Moses’ tabernacle in the
wilderness and Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem, both of which are called
“the house of God” (Exod. 23:19; 34:26; Deut. 23:18, etc.; and 1 Kings
2:36; 3:1, etc.). But now, both were types of the church.
(2) [It is called “the house of God”] because the patriarch Jacob called
the place where God came forth from His secret light and revealed Himself
to him in a night vision “the house of God and the gate of heaven.” Gen.
28:17: “This is none other than the house of God, and this is the gate of
heaven.” Consequently, he calls the name of that place “Bethel,” which is
“the house of God.” But now, in the church God reveals Himself to people
through the Word. He shows them the door and way to heaven; in fact, He
opens the doors of heaven to all who believe. Therefore it is right for the
church to be called “the house of God.” (Cf. Augus ne, q. 83 on Genesis.)
(3) [It is called “the house of God”] because heaven, where God
manifests Himself in His full light to the elect and to the holy angels, is
called “the house of God.” John 14:2: “In My Father’s house are many
rooms.” 2 Cor. 5:1: “If our earthly house of this tent is destroyed, we have
a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens.” But now, entrance into the house of God in heaven lies open for
no one except from the house of God on earth, that is, from the church.
(4) Just as a house provides a habita on to the father of the house,
whom one rightly seeks in his house, so also God dwells in this present
church of His grace, and in it we are to seek Him (Lev. 26:[11–]12). 2 Cor.
6:16: “I shall live in them and walk among them.” Augustine, Enchir. ad
Laurent., ch. 56: “The correct order of the confession demanded that the
church be subjected to the Trinity as a house is subject to him who dwells
therein, as the temple is subject to God, as a city is subject to its founder.”
In connec on with this, the church is called “the face of God.” Gen.
4:16: “Then Cain went away from the face of the Lord,” that is, from the
companionship of the church where God showed Himself to be heard in
His Word and seen in the burning of the sacrifices. Ps. 42:[2]: “When shall
I come and appear before the face of God?” That is, when shall I be able to
come to the temple of God where God in a special way reveals His
presence in the gathering of the church? Jon. 1:3: “Jonah fled from the
face of the Lord,” that is, away from the church, to the gathering of the
heathen, where there are no divine revela ons. Some traces of God appear
in His creatures, but in the church we glimpse the friendly face of God
because He shows His grace in the Gospel and strengthens us with His
Sacraments as with visible signs of His grace. Accordingly, the word fanum
[“sanctuary”] is taken from ‫“[ פָּ נִ ים‬face”], because the face of God is visible
in the church.
(5) “In a great house there are not only vessels of gold but also of wood
and clay, and some for honor, some for dishonor” (2 Tim. 2:20). So also in
the visible assembly of the church the reprobate are mingled with the
elect, and the evil with the good. John 8:35: “The slave does not con nue
in the house forever.” Thus the “slaves of sin” finally are thrown out of the
house of the Lord. The “stewards” in this house are the ministers of the
church (1 Cor. 4:1, etc.).

Sixth, “the vineyard of the Lord”

§ 22. (VI) The vineyard of the Lord. Matt. 20:1: “For the kingdom of
heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to
hire laborers for his vineyard.” Matt. 21:33: “There was a master of a
house who planted a vineyard and set a hedge around it and dug a
winepress in it and built a tower and leased it to tenants,” etc. This
parabolic tle is taken from the Old Testament. Ps. 80:8–9: “You brought a
vine out of Egypt. You drove out the na ons and planted it. You cleared the
ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land.” Isa. 3:14: “It is you who
have devoured My vineyard.” Isa. 5:1–2: “My beloved had a vineyard in a
very frui ul place. He fenced it and with stones constructed it and planted
it with the most noble vines. He built a watchtower in the midst of it and
built a winepress in it; and he looked for it to yield grapes,” etc. Isa. 5:7:
“The vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel, and the man of
Judah is His pleasant plan ng.” Jer. 2:21: “I planted you to be a choice vine;
how, then, have you turned into a degenerate plant unto Me?” In Song of
Songs, the word “vineyard” is used several mes to mean the church: 2:13;
6:[11]; 7:12; 8:11. Gregory, Homily 19 de evang.: “Our Creator has a
universal vineyard, that is, the church, which has sprouted as many
branches as there are saints, from righteous Abel un l the last elect person
who will be born at the end of the world.”
Various parts of the comparison can be established. By nature we are
wild and degenerate vines (Deut. 32:32; Jer. 2:21). We are useless, except
to be fuel for the fires of hell (Ezek. 15:4). God, however, transplants us
into His vineyard, that is, into the church. He gra s us as shoots onto
Christ, the true vine (John 15:1). He does this so that we may draw the sap
and spirit of life from Him and produce sweet fruits. Whoever does not
remain on this vine will dry up and be thrown into eternal fire. Augustine,
tractate 81 on John: “One of the two, either the vine or the fire, is proper
for the shoot.” Among all the trees and shrubs, the vine is the most noble
plant of the earth; so also the church is the most noble and God-pleasing
assembly, in which God is well pleased, just as of wine it is said that “it
gladdens the heart of man” (Ps. 104:15). Cato says (De re rust.): “There is
no possession more precious than a vineyard. Nothing requires more work
and effort; nothing provides finer fruit.”
All of this can be applied very beau fully to the church. In the winter
the vineyard has no external beauty, for that lies covered by the frost and
snow. In the summer, however, it flowers at last. So also in this life the
children of the church are abject and contemp ble, but when the
“summer” of eternal glory approaches (Luke 21:30), then their “life” and
glory “will appear” (Col. 3:4). The most noble sap of the vine comes forth
from the heat of the sun and the richness of the soil. So also the
frui ulness of the faithful in good works comes down from above. One
must exert effort in tending the vines for nearly the en re year. So also
ministers of the church must always perspire as they labor in the Lord’s
vineyard. The me of persecu on and tribula on is called “the me of
pruning” (Song 2:12). The ro ng members of the church that merely revel
in a foliage of words but produce no fruit must be cut out with the pruning
hook. The vines are ed to stakes. So also the “rod and staff” of the devout
is God’s Word (Ps. 23:4). Useless shoots, extraneous foliage, and dried
twigs are cut off from the branches so that the fruit may be able to mature.
So also “the heavenly Father removes every branch that bears no fruit in
Christ, and every branch that does bear fruit He purges that it may produce
more fruit” (John 15:2). One must li up the shoots, lest they lie on the
ground; otherwise the grapes rot. So also the children of the church should
turn their hearts from worldly things and should “seek those things that
are above” (Col. 3:1), lest they become ro en in the defilements of the
world. God plants this vineyard through His calling; He puts a hedge and
wall around it through guardian angels. He erects a tower in it, through
which is indicated the eye of divine providence, which always keeps watch
over this vineyard (Ps. 121:4). He digs a winepress in it, and this signifies
the pressure of the cross to which the truly devout are subject in this life.
Here we should men on that Noah is said to have planted a vineyard
(Gen. 9:20). So also Christ is the true Noah and Comforter who plants a
spiritual vineyard. Naboth was killed because of his vineyard (1 Kings 21).
So also Christ allowed Himself to be killed for the sake of the vineyard of
the church. “Solomon had a vineyard,” according to Song 8:11. This
heavenly Solomon, the owner and Lord of the vineyard, is Christ (Matt.
21:40). Foxes and wild boars are especially troublesome to vineyards: the
former spoil them (Song 2:15); the la er devastate them (Ps. 80:[13]).
Foxes are understood to mean here cs, and wild boars mean persecu ng
tyrants.
It is easy to think of more points of comparison, but it is enough to have
shown the beginnings. Ambrose, on Luke 9, p. 145:
It is right to call Christ’s people His vineyard, either because the sign of the cross adorns
their forehead, or because their fruits are picked at the last season of the year, or because in
God’s church equal space is given to all as to the rows in vineyards, to poor and rich, humble
and powerful, slaves and masters alike. There is no difference. As the branch is gra ed to
the tree, so the body is joined to the soul and the soul to the body. As the vine is li ed up
when it is ed back, and is not diminished but increased when it is cut back, so also the holy
people are made free when they are bound, they are raised up when they are humbled,
they are crowned when they are cut down, etc.

(See also Irenaeus, bk. 4, ch. 70; Athanasius, Q. 491, etc.)

** In Exod. 7:4 the church is called “the army of God”: (1) Because of
the dignity of this assembly with which the army of no emperor can be
compared. (2) Because of the condi on of the church militant under
Christ’s banner. (3) Because of the very noble victories it obtains under the
leadership of Christ (Psalm 84; 2 Corinthians 10). (4) To s r up the faithful
to remember their sta on and their perils. (5) To frighten persecutors, that
they might remember that their fight is not with men but with God’s
unconquered army (Acts 9). **

Seventh, in Song of Songs she is called “a lily among

brambles,” Christ’s “lover,” “dove,” “the sister of Christ,” etc.
§ 23. (VII) In Song of Songs the church is honored with various tles: (1)
She is called “a lily among brambles” (2:2), because as far as a lily is from
brambles, so far is the church from the conven cles of the wicked. Just as
brambles prick a lily, so also the church suffers persecu on from the
congrega on of the reprobate. Hosea 14:[5]: “Israel will blossom as the
lily.”
(2) She is called Christ’s “lover” (Song 1:15; 2:13; etc.), not only
because of His love for her but also by reason of His rela onship with her, a
rela onship that, by virtue of the human nature personally united with the
Son of God, exists between Him and the church.
 (3) She is called a “dove” (Song 2:14), because she “has the eyes of
doves” (1:15), that is, she has a dovelike innocence [simplicitas] of mind
(Matt. 10:16) and the judgment of the Holy Spirit, who appeared in the
form of a dove (Matt. 3:16). This is the single [simplex] eye with which our
en re body, all our affec ons and works, become full of light (Luke 11:34).
** She is called a dove “because love and innocence are designated by
this name,” according to Fulgen us, De passion. Domini ad Thrasim., bk. 3,
p. 421. **
That dove lives “in the cle s of the rock, in the holes of the wall” (Song
2:14), because the church has a safe refuge in the wounds of Christ, who is
the Rock of our salva on (1 Cor. 10:4). These lines about the dove fit her:
It coos with no bi erness; it does no harm with its beak;
It has harmless talons and pecks only grain.

(4) She is called Christ’s “sister” (Song 4:9–10). Because the church is
God’s daughter, she is also Christ’s sister. She is His sister because of His
blood; she is His lover because He has reconciled her through His death.
Bernard, on Song of Songs, sermon 8: “She is Christ’s sister because they
are of the same Father; she is Christ’s Bride because they are in the same
Spirit.”
(5) She is called “a garden enclosed” (Song 4:12), because the garden in
Paradise was a type of the church. As we see many fruit-bearing trees in a
garden, so the devout in the church are good and frui ul trees (Ps. 1:3;
92:13ff.; Matt. 7:17). In this garden there are “beds of spices” (Song 6:2),
that is, the divisions of gi s, graces, and endowments of the Holy Spirit.
When the north wind of tribula on blows through the garden, then those
spices pour out and sca er their pleasant fragrance (Song 4:16). She is “a
garden of nuts” (6:11), because her sweet fruits lie hidden under the hard
shells of adversi es. She is called “a garden enclosed” because Christ
protects her with a wall of angelic defense. Just as no one sees the
pleasant beauty of an enclosed garden if he is outside it, so also no one
sees the ornate interior of the church unless he is a ci zen and member of
the true church.
(6) She is called “a fountain sealed” [Song 4:12]. In the church “Israel’s
fountains” flow (Ps. 68:[26]), “the rivers of living water” (John 7:38), that
is, the consola ons of the Word, the gi s of the Spirit, etc., which Ps. 46:
[4] says are “the streams that make glad the city of God.” This fountain,
however, is sealed to all unbelievers, for believers draw and drink from it;
and in them there is “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John
4:14). Cyprian, Le er 6, bk. 1, p. 25: “If the garden is enclosed, Christ’s
Bride, which is the church, cannot lie open. She is a thing closed to
strangers and the profane. And if the fountain is sealed, whoever is outside
and has no access to the fountain can neither drink from it nor be cer fied
to drink from it.” Augus ne, Contra Crescon., bk. 2, ch. 21: “May it never be
that they” (the wicked) “should be able to enter the gates of the enclosed
garden, whose guard is He who cannot be deceived. Nevertheless, if they
confess and are corrected, then they enter, then they are washed, then
they are counted among the trees of the garden enclosed, then they are
numbered among the members of the one Dove.” Gregory, commentary
on Song of Songs 4: “The holy church is a garden because she produces
many people in faith just as good ground sends forth beau ful flowers.
Nevertheless she is called ‘a garden enclosed’ because she is protected all
around by a rampart of love, lest some reprobate person enter into the
number of the elect.”
(7) She is said to be “terrible as an army set in array” (Song 6:[4]),
because in this life the church is engaged in constant warfare against Satan
and his serpent-scales. She is not a disorganized mul tude and disordered
[ἄτακτος] mob; rather, certain ranks have been established in her.
(8) “She looks like the dawn, beau ful as the moon, excellent as the
sun” (Song 6:10). She is “dawn” because she does not yet have the fullness
of her light that she will have at last in eternal life (2 Pet. 1:19).
She is compared to the moon because Christ, the Sun of righteousness,
illumines her, because the Light of the world illumines people’s dark hearts
just as the moon dispels the darkness of night, and because she has her
wanings and waxings as the moon goes through its phases.
** See Augustine, Letter 119 ad Januar., ch. 5; Arnobius, on Psalm
135. Gregory (Moral., bk. 17, ch. 10) applies Job 25:5 to this and says:
“Behold, even the moon is not bright and the stars are not clean in His
sight. This is because the holy church does not shine forth with so many
miracles by virtue of her own power unless the gi s of prevenient grace
pour over her, and the minds of all who live well are not cleansed from the
stains of sin if they are judged without considera on of their piety.” Jerome
says (commentary on Isaiah 66): “The church is called ‘the moon’ in Song
6:[10] because it waxes and wanes with peace and persecu ons. Although
oppressed by the darkness of tempta ons, she again takes up her original
light and has her brightness from the Sun of righteousness.” **
Ambrose, Hexaëmer., bk. 4, about the middle of ch. 8:
The moon has a type of the beloved church, and the prophet signifies this type when he
says, “In His days righteousness and abundance of peace will arise, ll the moon is taken
away” [Ps. 72:7]. Also in Song [6:10] the Lord says about His Bride: “Who is this that looks
out like the dawn, beau ful as the moon, excellent as the sun?” The church is, rightly,
beau ful as the moon that shines over all the world and says as she illumines the darkness
of this age: “The night has gone; the day is at hand” [Rom. 13:12]. He says beau fully “looks
out,” as if she is watching over her own from on high, just as you have it: “The Lord looked
out from heaven upon the children of men” [Ps. 102:19]. The church, therefore, looks out.
Also like the moon, she has her frequent wanings and waxings; however, she grows out of
her wanings and grows larger from them, while she is diminished by persecu ons and is
crowned with the martyrdoms of confessors. She is the true moon who borrows for herself
the light of immortality and grace from the perpetual light of her Brother. You see, the
church shines not with her own light but with Christ’s, and she obtains her brightness from
the Sun of righteousness, etc.

Later he refutes the fic on of the poets that one can bring down the
moon with magic songs, and he adds: “Many test the church, but songs of
magic art cannot harm her. Enchanters can accomplish nothing; Christ’s
song is sung every day.” Bishop Philo Carpathius, on Song of Songs: “The
church is compared to the moon because whatever divine light she has,
she received from that immovable and divine Sun of righteousness.”
She is compared to the sun because of the brightness of the truth
shining in her. Isa. 60:19–20: “The sun will be no more your light by day,
nor will the brightness of the moon give light to you; but the Lord will be
your everlas ng light, and your God will be your glory. Your sun will no
more go down, nor your moon withdraw itself, for the Lord will be your
everlas ng light.” Rev. 21:23: “And the city has no need for sun nor moon
to shine upon it, for the glory of God will lighten it, and its lamp is the
Lamb.” Rev. 22:5: “And night will be no more; they will not need the light
of lamp nor the light of the sun, for the Lord God will lighten them.”
(9) She is called a “Shulammite” (‫( )שׁוּל ִַמּית‬Song 6:[13]), as if you would
say that she is “Solomonic.” A er all, she is the Bride of the heavenly
Solomon. She is peaceful a er the example of her peaceful King and
Bridegroom. 1 Cor. 11:16: “If anyone seems to be conten ous, we have no
such prac ce nor do the churches of God.” Some explain “Shulammite” as
“Jerusalemic,” she who lives in Jerusalem. This, too, can be applied to the
ci zens of the church, the spiritual Jerusalem.
(10) She is called a “prince’s daughter” (Song 7:1), because she has
been born of God through the Word (John 1:13) and also because she will
be the heiress of the kingdom of heaven (Rom. 8:17, etc.).

Types of the church in the Old Testament: First, the Garden

of Eden
§ 24. Among the metaphorical names there belong also the types of the
Old Testament and the parables of the New Testament. These describe
very beau fully the condi on and status of the church. The types are many
and varied: (I) She is called “the Garden of Eden” [or “Paradise”] (Gen. 2:8).
Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 13, ch. 21: “These things in the church can be
understood so that we take them to be prophe c indica ons that precede
the future as, for instance, that the Garden of Eden is the church; the four
rivers of Eden are the four Gospels; the fruit-bearing trees are the saints
and the fruits are their works; the tree of life is the Holy of Holies, that is,
Christ; the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is one’s choice of the
will.” As Adam once had lived in an earthly paradise and later would have
been taken into a heavenly one had he remained in his state of
incorrup on, so also the elect are transferred from the fellowship of the
church militant to the fellowship of the church triumphant. Just as Adam in
Eden could hear God speaking, so God speaks to us in the church through
His Word. Just as Eden was “the repository for all joy and pleasure, even
exceeding the understanding of every sensible delight,” according to the
defini on of Damascenus (De orth. id., bk. 2, ch. 11), so also in the church
the souls of the devout are imbued with spiritual sweetness, and “their
soul will be like a watered garden” (Jer. 31:12). In the Garden of Eden was
the tree of life, a medicine to prevent weakness and death, a symbol of
eternal blessedness and immortality. So also in the church, Christ, that
most blessed “tree of life” (Rev. 22:2), feeds us unto eternal life, etc. In the
spiritual Eden of the church there is also the “tree of the knowledge of
good and evil,” that is, one’s own will, the flesh with its fruits (Gal. 5:19[–
21]). Whoever eats of this tree transgresses God’s commandment and is
condemned to eternal death.
The four rivers rising from a single source are understood to mean the
wri ngs of Moses, the prophets, the evangelists, and the apostles, wri ngs
that rise from the fount of eternal truth and bring us to the one Christ. Ps.
36:9: “With You is the fountain of life.” Isa. 12:3: “With joy you will draw
water from the fountains of salva on.” Jerome, Le er ad Euseb., vol. 6: “As
Eden had one river that was divided into four parts, so the one teaching of
the Gospel of Christ has been distributed by four ministers to irrigate the
garden of the church and make it frui ul.” This is how we sing of them in
the church:
These four streams, through Eden flowing,
Moisture, verdure, s ll bestowing,
Make the flowers and fruit there growing
In rich plenty laugh and sing:
Christ the source, these streams forth sending;
High the source, these downward trending;
That they thus a taste transcending
Of life’s fount to Saints may bring.
At their stream inebriated,
Be our love’s thirst aggravated,
More completely to be sated
At a holier love’s full fount!
May the doctrine they provide us
Draw us from sin’s slough beside us,
And to things divine thus guide us,
As from earth we upward mount!

Second, Noah’s ark

§ 25. (II) Noah’s ark (Gen. 6:14ff.). In many places throughout their
wri ngs, the fathers teach that this was a type of the church. Augustine,
De civ. Dei, bk. 15, ch. 26: Noah’s ark “is, without doubt, a figure of the city
of God on a pilgrimage in this world; that is, it is a figure of the church,
which is saved by the wood on which hung the Mediator of God and men,
the man Christ Jesus.”
** Jerome, Le er ad Damas., compares the Roman church to Noah’s
ark. But in Adv. Jovin., bk. 1, he says more correctly that the ark signifies
the church catholic. (Cf. Gregory, Homily 16 on Ezekiel, and Ferus, on
Genesis 6.) Cyprian, De simpl. praelat., p. 164: “If anyone who was outside
of Noah’s ark could escape, only then would it be possible for someone
outside the church to escape.” **
Various parts of this comparison can be established: (1) As all people
who stayed outside the ark perished in the flood, and only those who had
entered the ark by divine command were saved, so also only in the church
can we be preserved against the flood of divine wrath, and outside the
church is nothing but death and destruc on. Nazianzen’s sweet li le verse
pertains to this, Ad Episc.: “I am searching for Noah’s ark to escape a
terrible fate.”
(2) As God Himself summoned Noah and his family into the ark and
prescribed to him the shape and material of the ark, so God is the “builder
and maker” of His house, which is the church (Heb. 11:10). We must pass
judgment on the church on the basis of His Word, not on the basis of our
reason. Ministers of the church, as the spiritual architects of this ark,
should follow the norm of the Word divinely prescribed to them.
(3) As Noah’s ark was imperiled and afflicted on all sides and from every
direc on—by the rains above, the floods below, and the winds at its sides
—so the church in this life is assaulted by the floods of persecu ons (Matt.
7:27).
(4) God Himself was the great pilot who directed Noah’s ark in the midst
of the floods. “The hope of the world took refuge on a boat and, governed
by Your hand, le to the world a genera ng seed” (Wisdom 14:6). So also
God directs, protects, and preserves the church in the great floods of
persecu on.
(5) The higher the water rose, the higher the ark was li ed up (Gen.
[7:17]). So also in persecu ons the church is not only preserved, but it also
grows (Ps. 93:4).
(6) The ark used neither oars nor sails, nor was it steered with a rudder,
yet it escaped unharmed. In the same way the church relies on no human
protec on, wisdom, power, wealth, etc., yet by God’s governing and
defense it escapes safely to the harbor of salva on.
(7) Before the flood, the building of the ark was a source of laughter and
jeers for wicked people. So also the church in this life is rejected and
despised.
(8) As the ark had various rooms fit for each living creature, and these
rooms marvelously adorned the ark, so there are various estates in the
church, and individuals in the church have their own gi s, diverse and
various endowments of the one Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4). Also, in the church
triumphant there are various rooms (John 14:2).
(9) As clean and unclean animals were taken into the ark, so Jews and
Gen les are taken into the church militant, just as this is indicated in
Peter’s vision by the animals of every kind (Acts 10:12). The unclean
animals can also be understood as hypocrites who mingle in with the
external assembly of the visible church.
(10) Just as Noah and his family were kept unharmed by a divine miracle
in the midst of lions, bears, gers, wolves, and other fierce beasts, so also
the poor flock of the Lord remains safe in the midst of the army of tyrants
and here cs (Isa. 11:6).
(11) Just as the ark had a door in the middle of its side, so Christ is the
door of the church (John 10:7) through which we enter the church militant
and triumphant. We go in by this door when we are incorporated into the
church through the sacrament of Bap sm. Augustine, Contra Faustum, bk.
12, ch. 16: “No one goes into the church except through the Sacrament of
the remission of sins. This flowed from Christ’s opened side.”
(12) As the ark had some light with which, nevertheless, much darkness
was mixed and, in fact, had only one window, so in this life “we see in a
mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12). We must therefore concentrate on the Word
“as on a lamp shining in a dark place, un l the day dawns” (2 Pet. 1:19).
(13) As there was on the ark food by which people were preserved un l
they would enter the new world, so in the church we are nourished
through the Word and Sacraments un l the new heaven and new earth
appear (2 Pet. 3:13).
(14) As the ark was smeared inside and out with pitch, so our hearts are
for fied internally by faith and externally by love. Augus ne, 65 QQ., q. 52:
“The pitch signifies love, through which the saints yield neither to those
offenses that people inside do nor to those that people outside do.”
Epiphanius, Contra Alogos, explains the pitch as “the power of the church
that she has against serpen ne, deadly doctrines,” for, as he says, burning
pitch forces snakes to flee. Augus ne (Contra Faustum Manich., bk. 12, ch.
14; and 65 QQ., q. 51) says that the “squared” [τετράγωνα] mbers of the
ark (that is the way the Septuagint translators whom he followed explain
the Hebrew word gofer [Gen. 6:14]) should be understood as “the holy
ci zens of the church.” He says: “The ark was made of squared mbers,
just as the church is constructed of saints who have been equipped for
every good work. You see, wherever you make something square, it always
stands firm. The saints remain stable in all tempta ons; they yield neither
to adversity nor to prosperity.”
(15) The builders of the ark who contracted with Noah to build it but did
not themselves go into it are types of those hirelings who show others the
way to salva on but who themselves are unwilling to walk on that way. The
rest of the co-workers from his household who did enter the ark represent
faithful and devout ministers of the church. The raven that gaped at the
corpses and forgot to return to the ark is understood as [those] apostates
who are seduced by the carnal delights of this world and leave the church.
Thomas Aquinas, commentary on 1 Peter 3: “Just as the ark was made of
chopped and sanded mbers, so the church is made of saints afflicted with
difficul es and trials. Just as the ark was made of wood that would not rot,
so the church consists of uncorrupted people. Then, on the ark, a few
souls, only eight, were saved, and this indicates that few are going to be
saved. Finally, as the ark increased and was elevated by the waters, so the
church grows through tribula ons.” (See Origen, Isidore, and others on
Genesis.)
** As the ark was constructed into one vessel out of the fi ng and
joining together of many mbers, so the church is gathered into one body
from many people of various na ons and ranks. **

Third, the calling of Abraham

§ 26. (III) The calling of Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldeans provides a
beau ful type of the church. Gen. 12:1: “The Lord said to Abram: ‘Go out
from your country and your kindred and your father’s house and come into
the land that I will show you.’ ” As the land that Abraham was ordered to
leave was filled with idolatries, a land of darkness and shadows, so also
before our calling into the church we “walk in darkness … and dwell in the
land of the shadow of death” (Isa. 9:2), “we are darkness” (Eph. 5:8).
Just as Abraham’s calling was a totally gratuitous benefit because he,
too, “served other gods” (Josh. 24:2), so also it is a work of pure grace, by
no means owed to preceding merits, that we are called out of darkness
into the light and into the inheritance of the saints in light, namely, to the
saving knowledge of Christ and to the blessed fellowship of the church. 2
Tim. 1:9: “God has called us with a holy calling, not because of our works
but because of His own purpose and the grace that He gave us in Christ
Jesus before the mes of the world.”
Abraham promptly followed God when He called him; he did not confer
with flesh and blood nor dispute it with God. He le his fatherland, house,
estates, fields, kin, etc.—than which nothing can be dearer in this life. In
the same way, when we are called into the fellowship of the church, let us
follow without any refusing. Jus n, Dial. cum Tryphone, p. 272:
What did God here grant to Abraham by grace that is more than He grants to others? With a
similar word of calling He called Abraham and commanded him to leave the land where he
was dwelling. But God has also called all of us with that voice, and we have now le that
way of life in which we lived. Our behavior had been common to that of the other
inhabitants of the land, and we were living our life badly. Now, along with Abraham, we shall
by hereditary right receive a holy land, keeping that inheritance forever and ever. That is,
this will happen to us who are the children of Abraham because of an equal faith. You see, in
the very way that he believed God’s voice and it was counted to him for righteousness, in
the same way we, too, now believe God’s voice, which Christ’s apostles again published and
which the prophets earlier had announced to us, and we have renounced all the things of
this world un l we die.

Fourth, the burning bush in the wilderness

§ 27. (IV) The burning bush in the wilderness that nevertheless was not
consumed in the fire (Exod. 3:2) was a type of the church. It undoubtedly
signified that the church of the Israelites indeed was being burned by the
fire of tribula on in Egypt but was not going to be consumed. Theodoret,
q. 6 on Exodus: “I think it means that Israel, though assaulted by the
treachery of the Egyp ans, was not going to be subjugated but would be
superior to her adversaries.” A bramble bush is a wild and lowly shrub
[frutex]. So also the church in this life is a humble shrub [myrica] in the
eyes of this world and of human reason. The bramble is a prickly, thorny
shrub that, as the Hebrews say, a bird cannot enter without being plucked
clean. So also those who a ack the church harm themselves more than
they harm her.
Philo writes the following about that bramble bush of Moses in his book
De vita Moysis: “The bramble was a thorny and very frail plant. Although
no one put fire to it, it suddenly was seen to be completely aflame.
Although the fire was burning at its roots and covered all the branches and
even the top with its great flame, despite that it remained just as
unharmed as if a fountain had showered down upon it from above and
quenched the fire. It was as if its wood was inflammable, not feeding the
fire; on the contrary, it was being fed by the fire.” Thus the church is not
consumed by the fire of divine wrath against her sins because she is
protected by the shade of grace set above us in the Son of God, for it was
He who spoke to Moses from the bush, as we are taught from Deut. 23:16
by Jus n (Dial. cum Tryph.), Augus ne (De Trinit., bk. 2, ch. 3), and Hilary
(De Trinit., bk. 4). The fire that kindled but did not consume the bush can
also be taken to mean the fire of tribula ons and persecu ons that does
not consume the church but merely purges and tempers her. Augustine,
tractate 3 on John, explains this spectacle as the Jewish synagogue
resis ng the many admoni ons of God and rebelling against the prophets;
the word of the prophets is like a bright fire shining in a dark place (2 Pet.
1:19) and was read daily in the synagogues (Acts 15:21).

Fifth, the houses of the Israelites in Egypt

§ 28. (V) The houses of the Israelites in Egypt were a type of the church.
Although a terrible and palpable darkness covered all of Egypt, in the
houses of the Israelites dwelling in the land of Goshen there was light
(Exod. 10:23). Wisdom 18:1: “Your holy ones enjoyed a very great light
and glorified You because they had not suffered the same thing.” Thus the
whole world lies in the darkness of ignorance, errors, sins, and
condemna on. In God’s church, however, there is the light of divine
knowledge, grace, and salva on. Isa. 60:1–3: “Arise, shine, Jerusalem, for
your light has come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon you. For
behold, darkness will cover the earth, and thick darkness the peoples; but
the Lord will arise upon you, and His glory will be seen in you. And the
na ons will walk in your light, and kings in the brightness of your rising.”
Eph. 5:8: “Once you were darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.” In
Phil. 2:15 believers are described as “lights shining in the world … in the
midst of a crooked and perverse genera on.” Also, the Israelites put the
blood of the Passover lamb on the two doorposts and on the lintel of their
houses (Exod. 12:7), because of which they were safe, though the killing
angel struck down all the firstborn of Egypt (v. 13). So also the blood of
Christ keeps the children of the church free from eternal destruc on if they
receive the shedding thereof by true faith. Indeed: “Statues of the king,
though they are inanimate, usually save the people that flee to them. This
happens not because they are statues, but because they represent the
king. Similarly, the blood of that lamb was supposed to keep people safe,
not because it was blood but because it referred to the blood of Christ.”
This is Chrysostom’s comparison. “This blood of Christ is put on both
doorposts when it is drunk not only by the mouth of the body but also by
the mouth of the soul” (Gregory, Homily 22 in evang.).
The destruc on of the firstborn of Egypt signified that people could not
endure the judgment and wrath of God, not even those who are the most
illustrious in the world, for the firstborn is called “might and the beginning
of strength” (Gen. 49:3). The firstborn of the Israelites were unharmed not
because of their excellence but by grace because of Christ, the only
Mediator, the Lamb of God, a type of which was the Passover lamb (1 Cor.
5:7). In memory of this kindness, all the firstborn of Israel had to be
consecrated to God, and they were redeemed with the price of five shekels
(Num. 18:15[–16]). But in order to signify a different ransom and a
different redemp on than the five shekels, the Lord said that, instead of
the firstborn of sons, He would take the Levites, and that the firstborn of
men could be redeemed because the Levites were consecrated to the Lord
in their place (Num. 3:12). But now, it is completely evident on the basis of
the Epistle to the Hebrews that the Levi cal priesthood was a figure of
Christ. Therefore this means that the most illustrious people in the world
are punishable by the wrath and judgment of God and that Christ
“sanc fied Himself for us” (John 17:19) and “gave His life as a ransom for
many” (Matt. 20:28). Those kindnesses are distributed in the church, and
the houses of the Israelites, smeared with the blood of the Passover lamb,
were types of her. From her we must not separate ourselves, just as the
Israelites were forbidden strictly to leave their house, lest they be struck
down by the destroying angel (Exod. 12:22). The Passover lamb was eaten
only in the houses of the Israelites (Exod. 12:7). So also, only in the church,
which is God’s house, do we find the “fruit of His Passion” (Cyprian, bk. 1,
Le er 6).
Sixth, the tabernacle in the wilderness
§ 29. (VI) Moses’ tabernacle in the wilderness, described in Exod.
26:1ff., was another type of the church. Isa. 33:20[–21]: “Look upon Zion,
the city of our assembly! Your eyes will see Jerusalem, a secure habita on,
a tabernacle that can never be removed, whose stakes will never be
plucked up, nor will any of its cords be broken, because there our Lord is
magnificent.” The church is founded and established so firmly that no
power of Satan and his agents can overthrow it, Matt. 16:18.
Isa. 54:1–2: “Give praise, O barren one who do not bear, etc. For the
children of the abandoned one will be more than the children of her who
had a husband, says the Lord. Enlarge the place of your tent, and stretch
out the curtains of your tabernacles; lengthen your cords and strengthen
your stakes.” The church, which in the New Testament is gathered to Christ
through the preaching of the Gospel, is very abundant and much more
frui ul than the synagogue of the Old Testament.
Jer. 30:18: “Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I shall change the cap vity of
the tabernacles of Jacob and have compassion on his dwellings; the city
will be rebuilt upon its height, and the temple will be founded according to
its order.” Here we have a prophecy not only about the restora on of the
city and of the temple at Jerusalem under Cyrus but also and especially
about the gathering, strength, and large size of the New Testament church
through the preaching of the Gospel.
Ezek. 37:26–27: “I shall make a covenant of peace with them. It will be
an everlas ng covenant of peace with them; and I shall establish them and
mul ply them and shall set My sanctuary in the midst of them forever. My
tabernacle will be in them; and I shall be their God and they will be My
people.” These things are transferred to the New Testament church in 2
Cor. 6:16.
In Ezek. 41:1[ff.], in the prophet’s descrip on of the new city and new
temple there is also men on of “the tabernacle.” Amos 9:11: “In that day I
shall raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen and repair the breaches
of its walls.” This passage refers to the kingdom of Christ in the New
Testament (Acts 15:16).
Zech. 12:7: “The Lord will save the tabernacles of Judah as in the
beginning.” Rev. 13:6–7: “The beast opened its mouth to u er
blasphemies against God, blaspheming His name and His tabernacle.…
Also, it was allowed to make war on the saints.”
How Moses’ tabernacle was a type of the church militant and
triumphant (to which the tle “tabernacle” is also given: Luke 16:9; Heb.
8:2; 9:11; Rev. 21:3) is explained in detail by Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 7,
ch. 32), Rupert (bk. 4, ch. 12), Gregory (Moral., bk. 28, ch. 9), Bede (De
tabernac., 2, chs. 6–7), Rabanus, Isidore, and others on Exodus. In the
tabernacle there was the ark of the covenant, the tables of the Law, and
the mercy seat [propi atorium] from which the Lord, between the two
cherubim, would give His oracles. So also the Law and the Gospel are
taught in the church; Christ, the one mercy seat, with His grace is present
in her; and God speaks with us through His Word.
As sacrifices were offered in the tabernacle, so spiritual sacrifices are
offered to God in the church. As the fire that came down from heaven to
consume the sacrifices was preserved in the tabernacle, so the heavenly
fire of the Holy Spirit is given in the church, through which the spiritual
sacrifices of the devout are made pleasing to God. The fourfold covering of
the tabernacle signifies the miraculous protec on of the church against
storms of every kind. Isa. 4:6: “The Lord will be a tabernacle for a shade by
day from the heat and for a refuge and shelter from the storm and rain.”
The li le loops and handles and clasps of gold with which the curtains
were held together signify the unity of the church through spiritual union
and total concord. Eph. 4:[15–]16: “From Christ the Head the whole Body
is joined and knit together by what every joint supplies.” The many
curtains, hangings, and coverings of which the tabernacle was constructed
signify the various members of the church, their different estates and ranks
from which the church is gathered and joined together through the unity
of faith and love. Augus ne applies their number, ten, to the
Commandments of the Decalogue; Bede, to the love of God and one’s
neighbor, which love is comprehended in the Ten Commandments.
Just as the tabernacle was movable, so the church in the wilderness of
this world moves about. The boards and pillars signify the truly devout,
who are pillars in the temple of God (Rev. 3:12). They rest upon a firm
faith; with their confession they light the way for others. As a result, the
church herself is called “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
The bases of silver denote Christ, the one founda on of the church upon
whom her en re structure is based (Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11). Arias
Montanus observes that the cedar posts that cover the sides of the
tabernacle represented the stature of a man wearing a long robe; the
hinges, the legs or bones of the legs; the bases, the feet of the human
body. (In connec on with this, the Vulgate version says that the plates in
the temple of Solomon “were made to resemble a man standing,” 1 Kings
7:36.) Thus as soon as the Israelites saw it, they are said to have been
admonished that those pillars were shadows and effigies of living pillars.
The poles denote the ministers of the church by whose effort the
tabernacle of the church is carried from one place to another. God ordered
that the tabernacle should be erected not according to the determina on
of human choice but according to the ideal and figure divinely revealed on
the mountain. So also the building of the church must be accommodated
to the prescrip on of the heavenly Architect and to the norm of His Word,
and not to the determina ons and contrivances of man. The Holy of Holies,
dis nguished from the holy place by a veil, presents a type of the church
militant, dis nguished from the church triumphant by the veil of the flesh
(Heb. 9:8). The square shape of the sanctuary is applied to the firmness,
solidity, and perfec on of the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:16). The
psalmist explains that the lamps which illuminate the tabernacle signify the
light of the Word, Ps. 119:105: “Your Word is a lamp to my feet.” The
decora ons on the columns and curtains denote the various gi s of the
Holy Spirit with which the devout and especially the ministers of the
church are equipped to edify others. The area of the court denotes the
large size of the church, for it is made up of many thousands of souls, etc.
All of these points can be applied with only a few changes to the
comparison of the church with the temple that Solomon built and that is
described in detail in 1 Kings 8, which also was a type of the church. In
fact, that is also why the name “temple” is given to the church. Zech.
6:12–13: “Behold, the Man whose name is the Sprout, and under Him
there will be growth, and He will build the temple of the Lord. It is He who
will build the temple of the Lord and will wear adornment and will sit and
rule upon His throne.” (Just as Solomon built the temple for the Lord, so
Christ, the Prince of Peace, builds a spiritual temple for God.) 1 Cor. 3:16:
“Do you not know that you are God’s temple?” 2 Cor. 6:16: “You are the
temple of God.” 2 Thess. 2:4: The An christ “will take his seat in the
temple of God,” that is, he will have dominion in the church.

Seventh, the house of Rahab

§ 30. (VII) The house of Rahab is a type of the church (Josh. 2:18; 6:23).
You see, just as all the ci zens of Jericho were struck down with the edge
of the sword, and only those who had been taken into Rahab’s house were
saved, so the Jericho of this world is subject to eternal destruc on, but
those who come into the church will be saved from that destruc on. The
rope of scarlet threads that Rahab ed to her window denotes the blood of
Christ, which keeps the house of the church safe from destruc on. Jus n,
Dial. cum Tryph., p. 265: “The symbol of the scarlet cord presents a sign of
the blood of Christ through which the old fornicators and wicked men of all
na ons are saved, receiving the forgiveness of their sins and sinning no
more. ‘If anyone goes out of the doors of your house,’ ” the scouts say to
Rahab, Josh. 2:19, “ ‘his blood will be upon his head, and we shall be
guiltless.’ ” So also those who leave the church are the causes of their own
destruc on. Cyprian, bk. 1, Le er 6, not far from the beginning: “Rahab
carried a type of the church. She was commanded and told: ‘Gather your
father and mother and brothers and the en re household of your father to
yourself into your house, and if anyone goes out of your house into the
street, he will be guilty to himself.’ This mystery declares that those who
will be victorious and escape the destruc on of the world must be
gathered into just one house, that is, into the church. But if anyone goes
out of doors from the mee ng, that is, if anyone who has a ained favor in
the church should leave and go away from the church, he will be guilty to
himself, that is, his perishing will be ascribed to himself.” Jerome, Le er ad
Nepo anum de vita cleric., not far from the beginning: “The whore Rahab,
as a type of the church, let down the rope that contained the mystery of
the blood, in order that her household might be saved, though Jericho was
being destroyed.” Gloss. ordin., on this passage:
She places a scarlet cloth on her house, and through this scarlet cloth her household is
saved from the destruc on of the city. That is, scarlet was the color of blood. She knew that
no one would be saved except in the blood of Christ. If anyone wishes to be saved, let him
come into this house in which the blood of Christ is the sign of redemp on. No one,
therefore, is saved outside the church. Whoever goes outside her doors is guilty of his own
 death. That is what blood signifies, because this is the sanc fica on that occurs by blood. I
think that this sign hanging in the window indicates the following: A window provides light
to a house. Through it we take as much light as is sufficient for our eyes and for seeing. The
incarna on of the Savior does not provide us with the complete sight of the Deity. Rather,
He makes us see the light of the Deity through His incarna on as through a window. It
seems to me, therefore, that the window is giving us a sign of salva on by which all those in
the house are saved.

Eighth, Jerusalem
§ 31. (VIII) Jerusalem is another type of the church. Under this name the
prophets in many places prophesied about the New Testament church (Isa.
41:27; 60:1; Zech. 8:3; etc.). Also, the church triumphant in heaven is
called the heavenly and new Jerusalem. Gal. 4:26: “But the Jerusalem
above is free, and she is the mother of us all.” Heb. 12:22: “You have come
to the heavenly Jerusalem and to the assembly of many thousands of
angels.” Rev. 3:12: “I shall write on him the name of the new Jerusalem
that comes down from My God out of heaven.” Rev. 21:2: “I saw the holy
city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband.”
In Hebrew, the word “Jerusalem” has the dual form ‫ְרוּשׁ ַליִם‬ ָ ‫ י‬because of
the two parts of the city. One was the city ‫שׁלֵם‬, ָ located on Mount Zion; the
other, ‫י ְִראֶ ת‬, Mount Moriah, was later joined to the city and enclosed within
it. The apostle gives the mys cal interpreta on of this very thing in Gal.
4:26, namely, that it signifies a dual Jerusalem: one that is “above,” ‫מַ ְﬠלָה‬
‫ְרוּשׁלַם‬
ָ ‫;שׁל י‬ֶ the other that is “below,” ‫ְרוּשׁלַם‬ ָ ‫מַ טָּ ה ֶשׁל י‬. As the earthly
Jerusalem was the mother city of Pales ne, and thus the mother of the
Israelites according to the flesh, so the church is the spiritual mother of all
believing Israelites according to the Spirit (Gal. 4:26). All the Israelites
would come together three mes each year to Jerusalem (Exod. 23:14,
17; Deut. 16:16). Ps. 122:3–4: “Jerusalem is built as a city; there the tribes
go up, the tribes of the Lord, the tes mony of Israel, to give thanks to the
name of the Lord.” So also the church is the gathering of all the saints. As
Jerusalem was the seat of the kingdom and priesthood, so also, in the
church, Christ administers the kingship and priesthood. In fact, He makes
ci zens of the church “kings and priests” (Rev. 1:6). Jerusalem was situated
in the mountains (Ps. 87:1) and in the middle of the inhabited world, as
Rabbi Aben Ezra notes, so that the fragrance of heavenly doctrine could be
spread from her to the neighboring peoples. So also the church is the city
of God, placed on a mountaintop (Matt. 5:14) so that all may have access
to her. As God picked Jerusalem out of all the ci es of the Israelites to
dwell there and to be worshiped there with sacrifices, so also the true
knowledge, worship, and sacrifices of God are in the church alone. Ps.
87:1–3: “Her founda ons are in the holy mountains; the Lord loves the
gates of Zion more than all the tabernacles of Jacob. Glorious things are
spoken in you, O city of God.” Just as Isaiah says (31:9) of Jerusalem that
“God’s fire and furnace are in her,” so also God dwells in the church with
His gracious presence.
Other figures of the Old Testament can also be cited here, such as the
candelabrum in the tabernacle and temple (Exod. 25:31; Zech. 4:2) and
the myrtle trees (Zech. 1:8), etc. Dr. Balduin explains the parts of these
comparisons in his commentary on Zechariah, etc.

Allegories, comparisons, and parables of the New Testament

§ 32. In connec on with the Old Testament types we should add the
allegories, comparisons, and parables of the New Testament. (I) The
mountain on which Christ explained the moral law at the beginning of His
ministry (Matt. 5:1) allegorically signifies the church. Indeed, in that same
sermon Christ compares the church to “a city set on a mountain” (Matt.
5:14). This figure shows, therefore, that the teaching of the Law should
sound forth in the church. As a high mountain is both high and firm, so the
church is prominent with her virtues and is firm in the stability of her faith.
As a mountain extends up over the hills, so the church reaches for the
heights and looks down on lower places. No doubt Christ, too, looked back
at the prophecies of the Old Testament in which the church is designated
with the tle “mountain” (Ps. 2:6; 15:1; 68:[16]; etc.). The ancients claim
that Christ delivered that sermon on Mount Tabor, which is the first thing
people see when they turn aside from the Sea of Galilee and which is
counted among the highest mountains of Galilee (Ps. 89:[12]; Jer. 46:18).
Because on the same mountain people later heard the voice of the
heavenly Father say about Christ, “Listen to Him” (Matt. 17:5), we
conclude from this that the church is bound to the voice of her
Bridegroom, that is, to Christ’s teaching.
 This is also a deligh ul picture. In the Old Testament, the giving of the
Law was so terrible that people could not climb Mount Sinai but kept
shou ng: “We cannot bear to listen to that voice” (Exod. 20:19). That is,
when the Law alone sounds in the church, then nothing else but terrors of
conscience rise from it in human hearts. But when Christ the Mediator
explains on the mountain the Law and adds His fulfillment—that is, when
the teaching of the Gospel is added to the ministry of the Law in the
church—that is when the crowds come and are amazed at the power of His
teaching (Matt. 7:28). It is the same as when Christ was present on Mount
Tabor and the apostles not only could bear to see His face but even wanted
to remain there (Matt. 17:[4]), though the children of Israel were unable
to gaze upon the face of Moses (2 Cor. 3:13).
(II) The boat that carried Christ (Matt. 8:23; Mark 4:36; Luke 8:22),
which the storms of wind and wave assaulted, also provides a picture of
the church. Chrysostom says, on Ma hew: “The church sails, equipped
with the rudder of faith, on her happy course through the sea of this world
with God as her pilot and the angels as her oarsmen. She carries a crew of
all the saints. Amidships stands the saving mast of the cross on which are
rigged the sails of evangelical faith. As the Holy Spirit blows, she is sailed to
the harbor of paradise and to the security of eternal rest.” Just as Christ
gathers His apostles and the other disciples into this boat, leaving behind
the ungrateful people of Capernaum, so also the church is the assembly of
the faithful who follow Christ through the sea of this world. Just as this ship
is assaulted by storms of wind and by the waves of the sea that have been
s rred up by Satan’s promp ng (Job 41:[31]), so Satan s ll s rs up various
storms and floods of persecu ons against the church. To do this he finds
ready help in the wicked, who are “like the tossing sea, which cannot rest”
(Isa. 57:20).
Because the ship of the church carries Christ, however, no power of
storms, no whirlwinds, no assaults of waves can sink her. Ps. 46:3: “Its
waters roar and foam.” Verse 5: “God is in the midst of her; she will not be
moved.” Christ seems to sleep for a short me. That is, He does not rage
and take revenge upon the enemies of the church; but His “heart is awake”
(Song 5:2), and “He who keeps Israel will neither slumber nor sleep” (Ps.
121:4). It is our part to rouse Him with our devout prayers when the floods
of persecu on threaten, so that He may respond to us, according to Jer.
31:26: “At this I awoke from sleep and looked, and My sleep was pleasant
to Me.” (Cf. Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 72, art. 8.)
In Haeres. 61, bk. 2, vol. 1, p. 422, against the Apostolics, Epiphanius
applies this comparison to the different estates in the church. He says:
“The holy church is like a boat. A boat is made not of one kind of wood but
of different kinds. It has a keel of one wood, but not of the same measure.
It has anchors of a different material. The masts and decks and parts of the
stern, the walls and thwarts, the sails and oars and rudders, and all the
other things—this en re structure that it has is made of various kinds of
wood.”
(III) In John 10 the church is compared to a sheepfold. Just as sheep that
wander outside the fold fall prey to the wolves, so also destruc on is
prepared for us if we are not joined to the church. Just as a sheepfold is not
for fied strongly like a citadel but is guarded only by the watchfulness of a
shepherd, so also the church in this life very o en lacks human guards but
is preserved by the protec on of Christ the Chief Shepherd. Just as a
sheepfold has no solemn splendor outside, so the church in this world is
despised. Just as a sheepfold holds all the sheep—young and old, healthy
and sick—so the church is the gathering of Chris ans, among whom some
are strong in the faith, some weak, some innocent in faith and life, others
stained with sin and error. Just as wolves and other ravenous animals
surround and lay siege to the sheepfold, so the church lives in the midst of
wolves—tyrants, here cs, etc.
(IV) The house in which the assembled apostles received the Holy Spirit
(Acts 2:2) denotes the church. As the apostles gathered unanimously in
that house, so it is proper for us to be in harmony with one another in the
church. As the apostles received the Holy Spirit in it, so the gi s of the Holy
Spirit are in the church.
(V) In the sermon that Christ preached from a small boat to the crowds
near the sea, He told by various parables the lot of the church in this world
(Matthew 13; Mark 4; Luke 8): He compares the kingdom of heaven, or
the gathering of the church through the preaching of the Word, to seed
falling on four different kinds of ground, to a plan ng growing of itself into
a great harvest, to a field in which grow wheat and tares, to a mustard seed
that grows into a great tree, to leaven that leavens the whole lump of
dough, to a treasure hidden in a field, to a pearl of great price preferred by
a merchant over all his property, to a net that gathers fish of every kind.
The chief intent of these parables is to teach us that in the church are
mixed the bad with the good, hypocrites are joined with the saints, but
that on the Last Day there will be a separa on. A careful explana on of
these parables can be found in Dr. Chemnitz’s Harm. evang., chs. 61 and
62.
** Rev. 1:20: “The seven gold lampstands are the seven churches.” The
church is compared to a lampstand: (1) Because of her visibility, for the
church is visible and conspicuous by virtue of her great splendor (Matthew
5). (2) Because of her brightness, for, like a lampstand, she carries her light
before the world; the lamp is Christ Himself placed on the lampstand (John
8:12). (3) Because of her firmness. Richard of St. Victor: “As a great
lampstand is supported by three legs, so the church is built and founded on
faith in the Holy Trinity, a faith that works by love.”
It is compared to golden lampstands. (1) As gold is tried in the fire,
stretched out with hammering, drawn into the shape of a lampstand, and
created as an instrument for a lamp, so the church is tried by tempta ons,
stretched out with the hammerings of persecu ons. She burns with the
fire of heavenly wisdom and shines with the work of love (1 Pet. 1:7). (2)
She is compared to golden lampstands because of her love that, because of
its outstanding excellence, is compared to gold, the most precious of all
metals, which loses nothing in the fire of tribula on. **
(VI) In Rev. 12:1ff. we have a beau ful picture of the church: “A great
sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun.” (By faith she was
clothed with Christ, the Sun of righteousness, Mal. 4:2, and will one day
gleam like the sun in heavenly glory, Matt. 13:43.) “With the moon under
her feet.” (All earthly things are changeable like the moon; these she
treads on and despises, for she is constant in true doctrine and treads on
the moon, that is heresies, which change and vary like the moon.) “And on
her head a crown of twelve stars” (gleaming with the radiance of prophe c
and apostolic doctrine). “She was with child, and she cried out in the pangs
of her birth, in anguish for delivery.” (The church is the spiritual mother of
the devout, with whom she is in labor with the greatest pain and anguish
during persecu ons un l Christ be formed in them, Gal. 4:19.) “A great red
dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child that he
might devour her Son when she brought Him forth.” (That ancient serpent,
which is called the devil, v. 9, tries to ex nguish Christ in the hearts of
believers by destroying their faith in Him and their confession of Him.)
“The woman brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all na ons with
a rod of iron” (that is, Christ; the prophecy of Ps. 2:9 speaks about Him
uniquely). “And her child was caught up to God and to His throne.” (When
Christ had finished His ministry on earth and had been conceived by faith
in the hearts of the devout, He ascended into heaven and sat on His throne
at the right hand of His Father.) “The woman fled into the wilderness,
where she had a place prepared by God.” (Satan cannot harm Christ nor
overthrow the church, though he assaults her with terrible floods of
persecu ons and wishes to sweep her away with a flood, v. 15.)
(VII) The picture of the heavenly Jerusalem (Revelation 21–22) properly
expresses the condi on of the church triumphant. Meanwhile, because the
church militant has a fellowship with the church triumphant, we can
therefore apply certain parts of that picture to the church militant. She is
called “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven”
(because her Head is Christ the Lord from heaven, 1 Cor. 15:48; she, too, is
born from above [ἄνωθεν], John 3:7, and is placed with Christ in the
heavens, Eph. 2:6). She is Christ’s “Bride.” She is “the tabernacle of God in
which God dwells by His grace. She has the brightness of God, shining in
the Word. She is protected by a guard of angels and built upon the
founda on of the apostles’ doctrine. She is a stable and large city, adorned
with precious gi s, etc.” These gi s, however, will be much finer, much
more boun ful in the life to come, for at that me all parts of this
apocalyp c vision and picture will be perfectly fulfilled.

Titles and praises of the church from the fathers

§ 33. There are various tles, periphrases, and praises for the church in
the wri ngs of the ancients. Jus n (Dialog. cum Tryph., p. 223) calls her
“God’s daughter, Christ’s Bride and spouse.”
Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 6, p. 175: “the synagogue of God.” In the same
book, ch. 4, p. 172: “A rich depository into which the apostles put all things
that are of the truth so that anyone at all may take from her the drink of
life.” In the same book, ch. 4: “Our mother, by whose breasts we are
nursed unto life.” Book 5, ch. 17, p. 341: “She is a shining, seven-branched
lamp, carrying the light of Christ. To her the light of God has been
entrusted, and through this light, the wisdom of God.”
Clement of Alexandria, Stromat., bk. 7, calls her “the gathering of the
saints.”
Tertullian, De coron. milit.: “the court of Christ.”
Cyprian, bk. 2, Le er 3: “the assembly of those who believe in Christ, to
which they are connected and unified through faith.”
Lactantius, bk. 4, toward the end of ch. 13: “the true temple of God,
which is not in a building but in the heart and faith of people who believe
in Him and who are called the faithful.” Toward the end of ch. 30: “the
fount of truth, the habita on of faith, and the temple of God, which, if one
does not enter it or if one departs from it, he will be a stranger to the hope
of life and of eternal salva on.”
Ambrose, bk. 2, on Luke 3: “the mother of the living that God built on
the great cornerstone, Christ Jesus, in whom all the structure is fi ed
together and grows into God’s temple.”
Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 17, ch. 12: “the house of God and the temple
of God made of people, not of stones, where the people live with God and
in their God forever, and God with and in His people,” etc. Chapter 16: “the
city of the great king, called ‘Zion,’ spiritually speaking. To the La ns, this
name is ‘spying out’ because it spies the great good of a coming age, for its
striving is directed there, to the spiritual Jerusalem.”
Chrysostom, sermon 10 on Ephesians 4: “a house built out of our souls.”
Smaragdus, on 1 Peter 2: “The church is the spiritual home of the
righteous, built of living stones and the souls of the saints.”
Bede, on Levi cus: “the Body of Christ, gathered from many members
as from many grains, ground by the millstone of the Law and the Gospel,
moistened with the water of Bap sm, fastened together by the Holy
Spirit.”
The Emperors Leo and Anthemius call her “the everlas ng mother of
faith and religion” (Codex, bk. 1, tle [2], l. 14).
Bernard, Sermon 53 de mod. bene viv., col. 1726: “Jacob’s ladder,
because the church universal s ll in part is doing ba le on earth and in
part now rules in heaven.”
Eucherius calls her “God’s li le nest,” etc.
 Luther, vol. 1, La n, p. 36: “the daughter of God, bego en by the Word
of God,” etc. We can also call the church the workshop, office, and school
of the Holy Spirit, etc.

Adjectives for the church from the Apostles’ Creed: First,

“one”
§ 34. In the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the church of the New
Testament is especially called (1) one, (2) holy, (3) catholic, and (4)
apostolic. She is called “one” from Song 6:[9] because of her spiritual
unity, which the apostle explains with empha c words in Eph. 4:3–6: “Be
eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one
Body and one Spirit—just as you were called in the one hope of your
calling—one Lord, one faith, one Bap sm, one God and Father of us all.”
Therefore she is called “one” because one Lord has, through one Bap sm,
put her into one mys cal Body under one Head; because one Holy Spirit
rules her and binds her together with the unity of faith, hope, and love;
because she confesses one faith and is called by one call to one heavenly
inheritance. That unity of faith relies on one founda on of prophe c and
apostolic doctrine. Because of this she is said to be “built upon the
founda on of the prophets and apostles” (Eph. 2:20).
Irenaeus writes very beau fully about this unity of the church, bk. 1, ch.
3, p. 39: “Although the church is sca ered throughout the world, she keeps
careful watch over this faith,” of which he had just recited a brief summary
from the Apostles’ Creed, “as though she inhabited one house. She also
believes these things as though having one mind and the same heart. She
proclaims, preaches, and transmits these things harmoniously, as if she
possessed one mouth.”
Just as one soul gives life to the diverse parts of a body, so one Spirit
animates and invigorates the whole church. Just as in the pomegranate
many seeds set apart in capsules are unified by a single rind, so the unity of
faith holds countless people together in the church. Just as one cord es
together a small bundle, so one and the same faith, hope, and love bind
together the assembly of the saints, and one bulwark of divine protec on
surrounds it.
** Cyprian, De simpl. praelatorum, trea se 3, at the beginning, p. 164:
 The church is one, and she is broadened into a great mul tude by an increase in her
frui ulness. The sun has many rays but one moon. A tree has many branches but one trunk
founded on a steadfast root. When many streams run from one spring, though their large
number seems to have been poured forth by the generosity of the supply gushing forth,
their unity nevertheless is preserved in their source. Take a ray of sun away from the body;
the unity of light does not allow division. Break a branch from a tree, and the broken branch
cannot sprout. Cut off a stream from its spring; what you have cut off will dry up. So also the
church, suffused with the light of the Lord, spreads her rays throughout the world; yet there
is only one light that is spread everywhere, and the unity of the Body is not divided. The
abundance of her richness extends her branches over all the lands; she pours out her
streams boun fully and broadly. Yet there is but one head, one source, one mother,
abundant in the offspring of her frui ulness. **

Bellarmine, De ecclesia, bk. 3, toward the middle of ch. 5, philosophizes

learnedly about the unity of the church:
Many kinds of unity are found in the church. The first is a unity with regard to the same
origin, that is, of God who calls her. The second is a unity with regard to the same ul mate
end, namely, eternal salva on. The third is a unity with regard to the same means, that is, of
faith, of the sacraments, and of laws. The fourth is a unity with regard to the same Holy
Spirit, who governs the en re church like an external and separate ruler. The fi h is a unity
with regard to the same Head, namely Christ, as an internal and conjoined ruler.

(In addi on to Him, Bellarmine adds a vicarious head, the pope at Rome.)
The sixth is a unity with regard to the rela onship of the members to one another and
especially to their Head. Among these uni es, those that properly make the church one are
the last two. You see, by the first the church is not so much one as from One; by the second,
she is not so much one as through One; by the third, she is not so much one as under One;
by the fourth, she is not so much one as for One. By the fi h and sixth, she is properly one:
that is, one Body, one people, one fellowship.

Second, holy
The church is called “holy” on the basis of 1 Cor. 14:33 and Rev. 11:2.
She is called “holy” because Christ is her holy Head (Heb. 7:26), and He
makes the church a sharer in His holiness (John 17:19). She is called “holy”
because she “is called with a holy calling” and is separated from the world
(2 Tim. 1:9). In Scripture, whatever is separated from a common and
secular quality and is consecrated for the use and honor of God is called
“holy” (Lev. 10:10). She is called “holy” because “the holy Word of God
was entrusted to her” (Rom. 3:2). She is called “holy” because the Holy
Spirit sanc fies the believers in this assembly by applying to them through
faith the holiness of Christ, by working an inner renewal and holiness in
their hearts, and by s rring up in them a desire for perfect holiness. John
17:17: “Father, sanc fy them in the truth.” Rom. 1:7: “called saints.” 1 Cor.
3:17: “God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.” Just as Christ, who is
the Head of the church, was conceived by the Holy Spirit, so the holy
church, which is His Body, is filled with the same Holy Spirit that she may
have life. Therefore by this praise [“holy”], the church is separated not only
from the conven cles of the wicked and of here cs, which are called “the
synagogue of Satan” (Rev. 2:9; 3:9), but also from hypocrites who are
mingled with the external assembly of the church.

Third, catholic
The church is called “catholic”: (1) With respect to the church of the Old
Testament. In the Old Testament the church had been ed ordinarily to one
na on, namely, the Israelites, and to a certain place, the tabernacle and
the temple, so that whoever wished to be members of the church had to
unite themselves with that assembly (Ps. 76:1; 147:19; Isa. 31:9; Rom.
3:2; [9]:4; etc.). In the New Testament, however, the church is gathered
together without a dis nc on of peoples, places, and persons through the
universal preaching of the Gospel among all na ons. And it is gathered
from all na ons and tongues of mankind (Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15; Luke
24:47; Acts 1:8; Col. 1:6; etc.). Chrysostom, on Isaiah 2: “The church
receives within her expanded boundaries and suppor ng hands all the
na ons of the earth from all direc ons.”
(2) She is called “catholic” with respect to par cular churches, of which
there are very many in all the world. From these, as members, the one
church is cons tuted, which is called “catholic” [καθολική]. Thus because
the Epistles of Peter, John, and James are not addressed to certain
par cular churches, and because the name of no area nor city is added to
which they are specifically directed, they are called “catholic” or
“universal” Epistles. Augustine, Letter 170: “The church is called ‘catholic’
because it is spread over all the world.”
(3) The church is called “catholic” with respect to the catholic faith,
which is to be evaluated on the basis of the common consensus of all the
devout and faithful who have lived, live now, or will live at any me and in
any place. Now, that consensus must be based solely upon the catholic
wri ngs of the prophets and apostles, which are the only founda on of the
church (Eph. 2:20). Vincent of Lérins (Adv. haeres., ch. 3) says, “The
catholic faith consists in universality, an quity, consent.”
(4) She is called “catholic” with respect to here cs who depart wickedly
from the catholic unanimity of the catholic faith founded on the Scriptures
and who separate themselves from the true catholic church. Tertullian,
Adv. Marc., bk. 4: “As wasps build nests, Marcionites build churches.”
The Papists lash Luther “as if he had deleted that word” (“catholic”)
“from the German Creed—and had done so for the purpose of being able
to give the name ‘church’ to his own group.” Chemnitz points out, however,
that in very old books even before the me of Luther it is found that
people recited that ar cle like this: Ich glaube eine heilige christliche Kirche
[“I believe there is one holy Chris an church”]. The word “Chris an” means
the same thing as “catholic” because the name “Chris an” was spread
throughout the world. Therefore they falsely accuse Luther of dele ng the
word “catholic” with evil cunning. In its own place [§§ 158–60] we shall
make clear to which church, ours or the Papists’, the word “catholic” truly
belongs.

Fourth, apostolic
The church is called “apostolic” not only because the apostles planted
and established her in the New Testament through the preaching of the
Gospel but also because she faithfully preserves apostolic doctrine (which
is one and the same with prophe c doctrine as far as their substance is
concerned), and through it she is s ll being extended today and will be
preserved forever. In this sense we are said to be “built upon the
founda on of the prophets and apostles” (Eph. 2:20). The wall of the new
Jerusalem is said to “have twelve founda ons, and on them the names of
the twelve apostles of the Lamb” [Rev. 21:14]. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk.
3, at the beginning of ch. 1: “We have learned the plan of our salva on
through none others than the apostles through whom the Gospel has
come to us. In fact, what they then preached, they later by the will of God
handed down to us in Scripture to be the founda on and pillar of our
faith.” Tertullian, De praescript.: “Although those churches men on none of
the apostles or their disciples as their founders (since they are much later
and are s ll being built today), nevertheless as they express as with one
breath the same faith, they are considered no less apostolic because of a
consanguinity of doctrine.” Later [§§ 126–270], we shall say more about
this ma er, as also about the unity, sanc ty, and universality of the church.
** Otherwise, churches are called “apostolic” in two ways: (1) those
that the apostles themselves founded by preaching both orally and
through le ers, and (2) those that, though they men on none of the
apostles or their disciples as their founders, since they are much later, are
nevertheless united in the same faith and are called “apostolic” no less
than the former because of their kinship in doctrine. (See Tertullian, De
praescript., ch. 32.) In neither way can the Roman church usurp this name
for herself alone: not in the former, because the apostles founded others
too; nor in the la er, because the orthodox churches have that kinship of
doctrine more than she does. To the extent that the Roman church obeys
the pope, she is not apostolic but apostate. As is apparent from the
wri ngs of Augus ne and Vincent of Lérins, as me passed, around the
fourth century in the East, this name was given only to the Roman church
as a pronoun by reason of preeminence. Nevertheless that tle of
preeminence was merely one of rank and renown, and not of monarchical
power. In fact, in the East this tle remained with the rest of the churches,
because Synesius (Le er 56) a ributed it to the see of Alexandria. Also, at
the beginning of the acta of the Council of Nicaea, 11, where the legates
of the patriarchs’ churches are listed, there are named not only those
represen ng Archbishop Hadrian of the apostolic see at Rome, but also
later the presbyters John and Thomas are named under the same tle as
representa ves of the apostolic sees of the eastern province. **
Chapter IV: Whether the Church Exists
§ 35. According to Augus ne (De haeresibus ad Quodvultd., heresy 69),
the Dona sts claimed: “The church of Christ has perished from all the
world and survived in Africa in the fac on of Donatus. It was wiped out in
all other lands as if by the contagion of their fellowship.” Therefore they
deny that part of the Creed: “I believe there is the catholic church.”
However, there is a true church of God, it has even existed from the
beginning of the world, and it will endure forever. This is proved: (I) By the
clear tes monies of Scripture that contain divine promises of the gathering
and everlas ng preserva on of the church. 1 Sam. 2:10: “The Lord will
judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to His king and exalt the
horn of His Christ.” Ps. 45:[6]: “Your throne, O God, endures forever and
ever. The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness.” Ps. 46:[4]:
“There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy
habita ons of the Most High.” Ps. 72:15: “They will pray before Him
con nually; they will bless Him all the day.” Ps. 72:17: “His name will
endure forever.” Ps. 89:[35–36]: “Once I have sworn by My holiness; I shall
not lie to David. His throne will be confirmed forever.” Ps. 94:14: “The Lord
will not forsake His people; He will not abandon His heritage.” Isa. 59:21:
“This is My covenant with them, says the Lord: My Spirit that is upon you,
and My words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your
mouth nor out of the mouth of your seed, says the Lord, from this me
forth and forevermore.” Jer. 31:36–37 and 40: “If those laws” (of the sun
and moon) “depart from before Me, says the Lord, then will the seed of
Israel cease from being a na on before Me forever. Thus says the Lord, If
the heavens above can be measured and the founda ons of the earth
below can be explored, then I shall cast off all the seed of Israel for all that
they have done, says the Lord.… The holy place of God will not be uprooted
or overthrown anymore forever.” Joel 2:32; Obad. 17: “On Mount Zion
there will be salva on.”
In the New Testament there are also some clear tes monies. Matt.
16:18: “On this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.” Matt. 28:20: “Lo, I am with you always, to the end of the
world.” John 10:16: “My sheep hear My voice, un l there will be one
shepherd and one flock.” John 10:28: “No one will snatch them out of My
hand.” 1 Cor. 11:26: “For as o en as you eat this bread and drink of this
cup, you will be proclaiming the Lord’s death un l He comes.”
(II) By the effectual prayer of Christ. John 17:11: “Holy Father, keep in
Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one even as
We are one.” John 17:20: “I do not pray for these only but also for those
who are to believe in Me through their word.” In addi on to these prayers,
there is Christ’s daily intercession for the church as He is seated at the right
hand of the Father, an intercession that belongs to His eternal priesthood
(Ps. 110:4; Rom. 8:34; 1 John 2:1). But now, it cannot be true that the
heavenly Father would not listen to those prayers. John 11:42: “I know
that You always hear Me.” Heb. 5:7: “In the days of His flesh, He offered up
prayers and supplica ons to His Father, and He was heard because of His
reverence.”
(III) By the κλῆσις or calling of the church in general and of each person
in par cular, for from that it is called ἐκκλησία. Isa. 65:2: “I spread out My
hands all the day.” Rom. 8:30: “Those whom He predes ned He also
called.” Consequently, the ci zens of the church are said to be “called
saints” (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2). This calling through the Word never returns
void and empty but finds a place in the hearts of some people. Isa. 55:10–
11: “For as the rain and snow come down from heaven and do not return
there but water the earth, so shall My word be that goes out from My
mouth; it shall not return to Me empty.” Therefore from the calling through
the Word, a calling that endures perpetually, it is right to conclude a
perpetual gathering and preserva on of the church.
(IV) By the mutual rela onship between Christ and the church. Christ is
the eternal King and Lord (Ps. 2:6; 72:19; Dan. 7:14; Luke 1:[33]).
Therefore He also has subjects and slaves who serve Him and offer Him
due obedience in this kingdom. Christ is the eternal Priest (Ps. 110:4). His
is an eternal (ἀπαράβατον) priesthood (Heb. 7:24). Therefore He also
always has a people for whom He may intercede. Christ is the eternal
Bridegroom of the church (Hosea 2:19). Therefore He always has a Bride
on earth. John 3:29: “He who has the bride is the bridegroom.”
(V) Finally, the words of the Apostles’ Creed, accepted by the en re
church with unanimous agreement, are clear: “I believe there is the
catholic church.”

Whoever will be saved must be a member of the church

§ 36. This doctrine also belongs here: It is necessary for everyone who
will be saved to be a living member and true ci zen of the catholic and
apostolic church, and those who are outside the church are strangers to
God, Christ, the benefits of the heavenly kingdom, and the hope of eternal
salva on. Because of this, it is commonly said, “Outside the church there is
no salva on” [Extra ecclesiam non est salus]. This is proved: (I) By the
express tes monies of Scripture. Eph. 2:12–13: “When you were outside
the church, you were at that me without Christ, alienated from the
commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenant of promise, having no
hope and without God in the world. But now, in Christ Jesus you who once
were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ.” Eph. 2:19: “So,
then, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow
ci zens with the saints and members of the household of God,” etc. Eph.
4:[15–]16: “Christ is the Head, from whom the whole Body, joined and
held together by what every joint supplies, according to the working in the
measure of every part, makes increase of the Body so that it builds itself up
in love.” Eph. 5:8: “Once you were darkness, but now you are light in the
Lord.” Also, in regard to those who are outside the church, Paul says, “It is
because of these” (sins) “that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of
disobedience” (Eph. 5:[6]). 1 Pet. 2:9–10: “You are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy na on, a people of possession, that you may proclaim
the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His
marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s
people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received
mercy.” Rev. 22:15: “Outside” (that is, outside of the holy church) “are the
dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and idolaters and everyone who loves
and prac ces falsehood.” Rev. 21:8: “As for the cowardly, the faithless, the
cursed, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their
lot shall be in the lake that brims with fire and sulfur.”
(II) By the types and pictures of the church. Just as no one escaped the
flood except those who were in Noah’s ark [Genesis 7], so the flood of
divine wrath overwhelms all who are outside the church. Just as the sacred
vessels of the portable tabernacle were transferred to the temple at
Jerusalem [1 Kings 8:4], so also only from the church militant, wandering
and traveling in this world, is there access to the church triumphant. Just as
all the ci zens of Jericho who were outside of Rahab’s house perished by
fire and sword [Joshua 6], so those who are outside the church remain
exposed to eternal destruc on. Just as all the firstborn in Egypt who were
outside of the dwellings of the Israelites were killed [Exodus 12], so those
who are not “fellow ci zens with the saints,” namely, with the spiritual
Israelites, “and members of the household of God” [Eph. 2:19], that is,
who are not in God’s house, which is the church, are struck down by the
destroying angel. If those who are passengers on a ship leap from it into
the sea, they must perish. So also those who desert the ship of the church
perish in the sea of this world.
(III) By the church’s own benefits, such as regenera on, renewal,
illumina on, sanc fica on, remission of sins, the gran ng of the Holy
Spirit, the promise of an eternal inheritance, etc. Because these benefits
are impossible outside the church, or outside the assembly of those called
through the Word and Sacraments, there can also be no salva on outside
the church. “These are joined together and most closely connected,” says
Chemnitz in his Enchirid., “God, the Word, faith, the church, salva on, and
eternal life.”
(IV) Here we should cite the statements of the ancients. Irenaeus, bk. 3,
ch. 40, p. 266:
All those who do not run together to the church are not partakers in the work of the Spirit.
Instead, they deprive themselves of life by their bad thinking and evil behavior. For where
the church is, there is also the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is also the
church and all grace, and the Spirit is truth. Therefore those who do not partake of the Spirit
are not being nursed into life by the breasts of their mother and are not taking the bright
fountain flowing down from the Body of Christ, but are instead digging stagnant pools for
themselves, drinking foul water from the ditches and sewers of this world. They are running
away from the faith of the church, lest they be handed over. They are rejec ng the Spirit,
lest they be taught.

In the same place Irenaeus describes the preaching of the church in such a
way that, “standing firm on all sides and persevering in like fashion, it has
tes mony from the prophets and apostles and all the disciples.”
Lactantius, Instit., bk. 4, ch. 30: “The church is the domicile of faith and
the temple of God. If anyone does not enter her or if anyone leaves her, he
becomes alienated from the hope of life and eternal salva on.”
Augus ne, De symb. ad catech., bk. 4, ch. 10, from Cyprian’s book De
unit. eccles.: “Whoever does not have the church as his mother does not
have God as his father.” He repeats this in Sermon 109 de temp.
Augustine, Letter 50: “The Holy Spirit gives life to no one outside this
Body of Christ” (the church). Letter 152: “Whoever has become separated
from the church, no ma er how laudably he may think he lives, will not
have life because of this one sin: that he has been divided from the unity of
Christ. Rather, the wrath of God will always be upon him.” (See also
Sermon 181 de temp.)
Hugh of St. Victor, De sacram., bk. 2, ch. 2: “Whoever does not have the
Spirit of Christ is not His member. There is one Spirit in one Body. Nothing
in that Body is dead; nothing outside that Body is alive.”
That is why all the truly devout desire very much to be ci zens of the
church and members of the household of God. Ps. 26:8: “O Lord, I love the
habita on of Your house and the place where Your glory dwells.” Ps. 27:4:
“One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek a er: that I may dwell
in the house of the Lord all the days of my life.” Ps. 42:2: “My soul has
thirsted for God, for the living God. When shall I appear before the face of
God?” Ps. 84:[1–2 and 4]: “How lovely are Your tabernacles, O Lord of
hosts! My soul longs, yes, faints for the courts of the Lord.… Blessed are
those who dwell in Your house, O Lord; they shall praise You forever and
ever.” Therefore they also pour forth those persistent exhorta ons by
which we are admonished to gather ourselves to the church: Ps. 122:6:
“Pray for the peace of Jerusalem!” Matt. 6:33: “Seek first the kingdom of
God.” Heb. 10:25: “not neglec ng your gathering together.”
Chapter V: On the Principal and Instrumental
Efficient Causes of the Church
The principal efficient cause
§ 37. The principal efficient cause of the church is God or the en re Holy
Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because the gathering of the church is
an external work of the Trinity, it therefore belongs to all three persons,
preserving, however, the order and dis nc on of the persons. The Father,
along with His Son and the Holy Spirit, made an eternal decree about
gathering the church to Himself from the human race. This decree is
carried out in me through the ecclesias cal ministry that God has
ins tuted and preserved. That is, it is carried out through the preaching of
the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments. The Son, immediately
a er the fall, revealed to the first people the Gospel promise of a mediator
and even the secret counsel of God about the salva on of mankind. Then,
in the fullness of me He united human nature with Himself personally,
and in that human nature He completed the work of redemp on and
ordered that repentance and forgiveness of sins be preached in His name
among all na ons that He might gather to Himself a church from all
mankind. The Holy Spirit, through the Word, is effectual in the hearts of
people for their illumina on, sanc fica on, regenera on, and renewal to
eternal life.
These benefits of the en re Holy Trinity are summarized beau fully in
the following passages. John 3:5: “Unless one is born of water and the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” John 3:16: “For God so loved
the world that He gave His only-bego en Son, that whoever believes in
Him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:34: “He whom God
has sent u ers the words of God.” John 10:2–4: “He who enters by the
door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the gatekeeper opens; the sheep
hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.…
He goes ahead of them, and the sheep follow him.” Verse 7: “I am the door
of the sheep.” Verse 11: “I am the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd
lays down His life for His sheep.” Verses 16–17: “I have other sheep that
are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they shall hear My voice.
So there shall be one flock, one shepherd. For this reason the Father loves
Me, because I lay down My life.” Verses 27–29: “My sheep hear My voice,
and I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will
never perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who
has given them to Me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch
them out of the Father’s hand.” Rom. 8:28–30: “For those who love God,
all things work together for good, for those who are called saints according
to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew He also predes ned to be
conformed to the image of His Son.… And those whom He predes ned He
also called, and those whom He called He also jus fied, and those whom
He jus fied He also glorified.” Eph. 1:3–7: “Blessed be the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in
the heavenly places in Christ, even as He chose us in Him before the
founda on of the world, that we should be holy and spotless in His sight.
He predes ned us for the adop on of children of God through Jesus Christ
unto Himself, according to the purpose of His will, to the praise of His
glorious grace in which He considered us pleasing and beloved in the
Beloved. In Him we have redemp on through His blood, the remission of
sins,” etc. 2 Tim. 1:9–11: “God has delivered us and called us with a holy
calling, not according to our works but according to His own purpose and
the grace that was given to us in Christ Jesus before the mes of the world
and was made manifest through the illumina on of our Savior, Christ Jesus,
who destroyed death and brought life and immortality to light through the
Gospel. In this Gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” In these
and similar passages those very extensive and unspeakable benefits are
joined together, benefits that the en re Holy Trinity expends on the church
and that are distributed in the church, namely, elec on, redemp on,
calling, regenera on, illumina on, jus fica on, sanc fica on, glorifica on,
etc.
Now, though the gathering of the church is common to the three
persons of the Godhead because it is an external work, nevertheless, as in
other outside works, so also in this we see the dis nc on and order of
persons as regards their dis nct way of working. The Father brings the
church as a Bride to His Son and prepares a wedding for her. This is how
some people understand the word “bride” in Matt. 22:2. The Son is the
Bridegroom to whom the church is betrothed (2 Cor. 11:2). Through the
ministry of the Word and Sacraments, the Holy Spirit cleanses the church
and dresses her as a bride for her husband (Eph. 5:[26–]27; Rev. 21:2).
The Spirit is the earnest money that the heavenly Bridegroom gives to the
church as His Bride (Eph. 1:14, etc.). The Son is the founda on of the
church (Eph. 2:20). The Holy Spirit is the architect (1 Cor. 3:9).

God is present in the church with His grace

§ 38. Not only does God build for Himself the house of the church, He
also dwells in it by His grace. That is the chief dignity of the church, for
which reason it is called “the house of God” (οἶκος θεοῦ, from οἰκέω, “I
dwell”). (Cf. 1 Tim. 3:15.) Its name is ‫אַ בָּ אֵ ל‬, “God is in you only” (Isa.
45:14), and ‫יְהֹ וָה ָשׁמָּ ה‬, “the Lord is there” (Ezek. 48:35).
In connec on with this, there are these very sweet promises. Exod.
20:24: “In every place where I cause My name to be remembered I shall
come to you and bless you.” Lev. 26:11–12: “I will place My tabernacle
among you, and My soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you
and will be your God, and you shall be My people.” Ps. 46:4–5: “There is a
river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy habita ons of the
Most High. God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved. God will
help her before the dawn.” Isa. 59:21: “This is My covenant with them,
says the Lord. My Spirit that is in you, and My words that I have put in your
mouth, will not depart out of your mouth nor out of the mouth of your
children.” Matt. 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered together in My
name, there will I be in the midst of them.” Matt. 28:20: “Behold, I am
with you always, to the end of the world.” John 14:18: “I will not leave you
orphans; I will come to you.”
God, then, is not at all absent from the spiritual house of the church, as
an architect or shipwright leaves his building or ship once he has finished
its construc on and abandons it, exposed to the injuries of storms and
waves of the sea. Rather, by His grace He is always present in His church,
and directs and protects it against all storms of persecu ons and
adversi es. The Father is “the master of this house,” “the head of the
household” who hires the laborers (Matt. 20:1; Heb. 3:4). The Son is “the
cornerstone” and “founda on” of this house (Matt. 21:42; Eph. 2:20). The
Holy Spirit is the manager and steward in this house. Through the ministers
of the Word, He opens and distributes the treasures that Christ earned
with His suffering and death and that have been deposited in that house
(Acts 20:28; 1 Cor. 4:1).

The impulsive cause of God’s calling to the church

§ 39. The impulsive cause that moves God to gather to Himself a church
from humankind is His immense goodness, His fatherly kindness, and His
gracious favor that holds sway in the en re ma er of salva on. 2 Tim. 1:9:
“He has called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but
according to His own purpose and the grace that was given to us in Christ
Jesus before the mes of the world.” Thus the call to the fellowship of the
church is noted with the verb κληροῦσθαι, “to be admi ed into an
allotment” (Eph. 1:11), because God admits the ci zens of the church to
be His allotment, “that they may be His line or inheritance, His possession
and property,” as Moses speaks about the people of God (Deut. 32:9). God
solemnly witnesses about the children of Israel that He has selected the
Israelites to be His own people not because of their merits, but out of His
pure grace and free goodness. Deut. 7:6–8: “The Lord your God has
chosen you to be a people for His own possession, out of all the peoples
that are on the face of the earth. It was not because you were more in
number than any other people that the Lord desired you and chose you,
for you were the fewest of all people; but it is because the Lord loved you.”
Therefore, in the same way, the gathering of the church is a work of pure
grace and undeserved goodness. The parables belong here about the
invita on to a great supper in which all things are ready (Luke 14:17) and
about the invita on to the wedding of the king’s son, in which all things are
also ready (Matt. 22:4).

The instrumental cause for the gathering of the church

§ 40. The instrumental cause that God uses to gather the church is the
ecclesias cal ministry, which includes the preaching of the Word and the
administra on of the Sacraments. As the man who had prepared the great
supper “sent his servant at the me of the supper to say to those who had
been invited: ‘Come’ ” (Luke 14:17), and as that king who gave a marriage
feast for his son “sent his servants to call those who were invited to the
marriage feast” (Matt. 22:3), so the heavenly Master of the house
[paterfamilias], the King of kings and Lord of lords, calls and invites people
to the fellowship of the church and to partake in the goods of heaven,
doing this through His servants, that is, through heralds of the Word. It was
to this end that immediately a er the fall, in the first Gospel promise, He
revealed His will about man’s salva on through His Son. Later, He sent holy
patriarchs and prophets through whom He gathered the church to Himself
in the me of the Old Testament. In the New Testament, He sent John the
Bap st; Christ, His own Son; and the apostles, through whom He
announced the word of salva on to human beings. Heb. 1:1–2: “Long ago,
at many mes and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the
prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by the Son.” Also, a er
Christ was raised up to the right hand of the Father, “He gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers, to complete the saints for the work of the ministry for
building up the Body of Christ” (Eph. 4:11–12).
Therefore as Noah used the work of servants [ministri] in the building of
the ark, so also in the building of the church, His spiritual house, God uses
the ministry of preachers of the Word, who as a result are called ‫הַ בּוֹנִ ים‬,
“builders” (Ps. 118:22), οἰκοδομοῦντες [“house builders”] (Matt. 21:42),
συνεργοὶ ἐν τῇ οἰκοδομῇ τοῦ θεοῦ [“co-workers in God’s house
building”] (1 Cor. 3:9). As in Athens heralds would call together the
assembly of ci zens at the behest of the magistrate—which ac vity is
properly called ἐκκλησιάζειν [“convening an assembly”]—so God calls
together the assembly of His church through ministers of the Word, who
consequently are called κήρυκες, “heralds” (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 2
Pet. 2:5). And the preaching of the Gospel is called κήρυγμα,
“proclama on” (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 1:21; 2:4; 15:14; 2 Tim. 4:17; Titus
1:3).
This declara on of ours that the Word and Sacraments are the means
for gathering and extending the church is opposed: (1) To the Papists. They
bind the church absolutely, not to the ministry of the Word without any
dis nc on of place but solely to the Roman see and to the succession of
bishops in it. (2) To the wise men of this world who pass judgment about
the church on the basis of her external splendor rather than on the basis of
the Word and of purity of doctrine. (3) To the enthusiasts and
Schwenkfeldians, who look for special ecstasies outside the Word. (4) To
the Anabap sts, who remove all spiritual efficacy from the external
ministry of the Word and Sacraments. (5) To Tanner, Latomus, Erasmus,
Zwingli, Gualterus, and others, who imagine that the church exists even in
an assembly of heathen who lack the light of the doctrine of the Messiah.
(6) To schisma cs, who because of the offenses of some people or because
of an admira on of their own wisdom and holiness separate themselves
from the assembly of the church in which the ministry of the Word and
Sacraments is flourishing.
§ 41. Furthermore, this work of God and His ministers is called κλῆσις,
“calling,” from which we get the word ἐκκλησία [“church”]. Rom. 11:29:
“God does not repent of His calling.” 1 Cor. 1:26: “Consider your calling,
brothers. Not many of you were wise according to the flesh, not many
were powerful, not many were of noble birth,” etc. 2 Tim. 1:9: “God has
called us with a holy calling.”
Concerning this calling, three parts are especially to be noted, namely,
that the call is (1) catholic or universal, (2) free, (3) serious. With regard to
the first part, note that the call is universal with respect to God as He
commands that the Gospel be declared to all people and as He wants
everyone to hear it and also wants all to receive by true faith the benefits
offered in it. Yet by the fault of men it becomes par cular. First, some scorn
the Word with an Epicurean contempt, and some even persecute its
ministers and drive them away violently. Second, because of the fault of
their forefathers, the Word was lost and is not actually being preached in
all places everywhere.
We have treated this ma er in detail in our Theological Commonplaces:
On Elec on and Reproba on [Commonplace X], §§ 134ff., where we
showed that God revealed His Word three mes to all people and
commanded them seriously to transmit it without corrup on to their
posterity. He did this in Adam, a er the flood, and at the me of the
apostles. Out of Adam, the whole human race was propagated. Out of the
sons of Noah, all na ons were propagated. Out of the peoples to whom
the apostles preached the Gospel, all families of na ons, tongues, and
peoples were propagated. Those ancestors, therefore, ought to have
propagated to their descendants the purity of the Word, that magnificent
deposit. The fact that this did not take place is due to the fault of men and
is not at all injurious to the universality and liberality of the divine calling.
Although in the Old Testament God entered upon a par cular covenant of
grace with the people of Israel and admi ed them as His “cord of
inheritance” and His own property in such a way that the seat of the true
church was with the Israelites un l the me of the Messiah (Ps. 147:19),
yet not even this undermines the universality of the call.
In the New Testament, the universal calling of all na ons followed,
when “the Gospel was preached to every creature” (Matt. 28:19; Mark
16:15; Col. 1:6). But besides this, the following must be considered
carefully: At the me of the Old Testament, Gen les were by no means
rejected absolutely and cut off from entering the church. In fact, the
following are universal axioms of an eternal and immovable truth that
apply to all people of all mes: Ezek. 18:23 and 33:11: “I do not want the
death of the wicked but that he turn and live.” 1 Tim. 2:4: “God wants all
men to be saved.” 2 Pet. 3:9: “God does not want that any should perish
but that all should return to repentance.”
God also demonstrated this with many examples in the me of the Old
Testament. In Gen. 17:12, in the covenantal command of circumcision, God
ordered not only sons and na ve boys to be circumcised but also those of
foreign races and purchased slaves. From this it is easy to understand that
the sacrament of circumcision by no means belonged to the descendants
of Abraham in such a way as though the Gen les were simply excluded
from it and consequently also excluded from the church. According to
Exod. 12:48, strangers were admi ed to the sacrament of the Passover
lamb and were considered in the same place as na ves if they first were
circumcised. Verse 38 men ons that an ‫ﬠֵ ֶרב ַרב‬, “much mixture,” or a great
mul tude of people, went up from Egypt with the Israelites. They were not
born of the sons of Abraham, but they s ll were incorporated into the
church of Israel and shared the benefits promised to this people. In Lev.
17:[8] strangers and foreigners are permi ed to offer sacrifices. In 1 Kings
8:41 the foreign-born, too, are allowed access to the temple at Jerusalem.
Solomon says, vv. 41–43: “Likewise a foreigner, who is not of Your people
Israel but comes from a far country for Your name’s sake (for they will hear
of Your great name and of Your mighty hand and of Your outstretched
arm), when he comes and prays in this house, hear in heaven, in the
firmament of Your dwelling place, and do everything for which the
foreigner calls to You, that all the peoples may learn to fear You, just as
Your people Israel,” etc.
Here belong the examples of people converted from heathenism to the
true God of Israel: not only certain par cular people—such as
Melchizedek, Jethro, Rahab, Job and his friends, Ruth, King Hiram of Tyre,
the queen of the south, Naaman of Syria, Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, and
others whom Scripture partly names and partly is silent about—but also
whole ci es, regions, na ons, and peoples, such as the Gibeonites,
Ninevites, Egyp ans, Syrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Medes, and Greeks.
Also, there is no doubt that those various journeys of the patriarchs, the
Babylonian cap vity, and the sca ering of the Israelites throughout the
world, for instance, were a means by which many Gen les were called to a
knowledge of the true God and into the fellowship of the church. In Acts
2:5, consequently, we are told that “there were dwelling in Jerusalem
devout men from every na on under heaven.”

Three kinds of people in the church of Israel

Here we must note that there were three kinds of people in the church
of Israel: first, Jews who were born of the descendants of Jacob; second,
the proselytes who not only received the teaching of the Israelite church
but also used the same ceremonies and laws as did the Jews. Suidas
describes them, saying that they had “come in from the heathen and
become ci zens according to the divine laws.” Finally, there were the
devout, the religious, who were joined to the Jews only in the profession of
doctrine but not in the observance of ceremonies.
This observa on also belongs here: Jerusalem, the chief city of Judea,
was located in the very middle of the inhabited world so that the fragrance
of doctrine could be extended easily among the na ons lying round about.
Also, God by His miracles and signs made the church of Israel famous and
renowned in the sight of all na ons, with the result that all peoples agreed
that in Pales ne there was a people whose worship was confirmed by
divine miracles and signs. God Himself reveals that this is the purpose of
miracles (Exod. 9:16), and consequently the apostle also declares that
“God determined allo ed periods and the boundaries of the Gen les’
habita on, that they may seek God” (Acts 17:26–27). From the light of
nature they could have learned that there is a God, that He wanted to be
worshiped and should be worshiped in some way, and that He has revealed
Himself in His Word. They ought to have been convinced that this Word
was resounding in the church of Israel because of the constant fame of the
God of Israel, because of the renown of His miracles, because of the
preserva on of this people against all enemies, but especially because of
the very reading of those divine oracles. It is common knowledge that the
books of the Old Testament were translated into Greek at the command of
Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, and were read by almost all na ons.
Thus Luther is correct in wri ng on Genesis 17: “This is the head of
theology: that God is the God of Jews and Gen les, rich toward all, even at
that me when the Law and circumcision were thriving.”

The calling and the manner of calling are to be distinguished

§ 42. Therefore we must dis nguish between the calling itself and the
manner and order of calling. The actual calling is, of itself and in its nature,
universal with respect to divine grace, but the manner and order of calling
as well as the measure of grace vary greatly. Prosper, De vocat. gent., bk. 2,
ch. 3:
The height of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, whose judgments are
inscrutable and ways unsearchable, has always tempered His mercy and jus ce in such a
way that in the most hidden will of His eternal counsel He did not want the measure of His
gi s to be equal in all ways among all genera ons or among all people. In fact, in one way
He supported those who were to know Him by the tes monies of heaven and earth; but in
another way He supported those whom He advised not only with the servitude of the
elements but also with the teaching of the Law, with the oracles of the prophets, with the
signs of miracles, and with the co-workings of the angels. All the more in s ll another way
He declared His mercy to all people when the Son of God became the Son of Man in order
to be found by those who were not seeking Him, etc. As scarce as the grace upon other
na ons was in past ages, so scarce was grace now in Judea, though when the fullness of
na ons had been brought in, an inunda on of the same showers [of grace] was promised to
the aridity of the Jews. What, then, are the causes for these differences under the same
grace? What are the reasons? If the Holy Scriptures do not speak, who will tell us?

Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 32: “This is the universal way for freeing
the soul, the way that God’s pity grants to all na ons. Surely, when the
knowledge of this way has come to anyone or will come to anyone, no one
should ask: ‘Why now?’ or ‘Why so late?’ because the plan of Him who
sends it is impenetrable to human abili es.” Therefore, though the na ons
under the Old Testament did not obtain the same richness of grace that
the Israelites obtained, nevertheless God, who calls, did not completely
and simply deny them His grace. Although God has not dealt “thus” with
any other na on (Ps. 147:20), that is, though His Word was not entrusted
to the na ons in the same way as it was to the Israelites (Rom. 3:2),
nevertheless He did not simply exclude the Gen les from a knowledge of
His Word nor from entrance into His church. He took the people of Israel as
His children in this house, but He did not cut off from the Gen les the
entrance to the family of this house. The grace of the God who calls has
varied among people and mes; yet to no one has He simply denied His
grace because of some absolute hatred or with a decree of reproba on.

The calling of the nations in the New Testament

§ 43. Finally, there followed in the New Testament a universal calling of
the na ons or, as Christ says, “a full harvest” (John 4:35), namely, when
“the middle wall of par on” between Jews and the na ons was removed
(Eph. 2:14) and the disciples at Christ’s command “went out into all the
world and preached the Gospel to every creature” (Matt. 28:19; Mark
16:15) so that “in the whole world it is growing and bearing fruit” (Col.
1:6). At that me, the calling of the en re fullness of the na ons sca ered
over all the earth began and has con nued un l these, our days, and will
go on un l the end of the world. Some of the ancients, such as Jerome,
Chrysostom, and Lyra on Romans 11 and Augus ne (QQ. evang., bk. 11, q.
33), claim that before the end of the world a remarkable conversion of
most of the Jews should be expected. They think that this can be
concluded on the basis of Rom. 11:25[–26]. We shall debate this later in
greater detail [On the Last Judgment, Commonplace XXXI, § 111].
The universal calling of the na ons seemed a miracle not only to the
Israelites but even to the apostles themselves a er they had received the
Holy Spirit. Consequently, Peter, who was afraid to go off to Cornelius, a
centurion of Caesarea, saw in a vision that such a dis nc on in the New
Testament between Jews and Gen les had been removed and that all
peoples are to be called to the kingdom of Christ without any dis nc on
(Acts 10:11). When the faithful of the circumcision heard this, they said,
“Then to the na ons also God has granted repentance unto life” (Acts
11:18).
Note, therefore, that the universal calling of the na ons was already in
the Old Testament foretold by prophecies, foreshadowed by types, and
announced in advance by examples. The prophecies are many. Gen. 9:27:
“May God persuade Japheth and let him dwell in the tents of Shem.” By
the revela on of the Holy Spirit Noah foretold that the descendants of
Shem, that is, the Israelites, were going to be taken as the special people of
God; that a tabernacle would be built for them, that is, the seat of the true
church; that the knowledge of the true worship of God would be among
them; and, finally, that the descendants of Japheth, or the Gen les, would
be received into that tabernacle. In Gen. 12:3 God promised Abraham that
the Messiah would be born “of his seed” or of his posterity. Meanwhile,
God also added that “all na ons” and even “all the tribes of the earth
would be blessed in him.” God repeats this in Gen. 18:18; 22:18; 26:4;
28:4. When the patriarch Jacob prophesied in Gen. 49:10 that Shiloh, or
the Messiah, would be born of the descendants of Judah, he adds clearly:
“and gathering of the peoples will be to Him,” that is, the Gen les will
receive His word and cling to Him by faith. Deut. 32:43: “Rejoice, O
na ons, His people.” (In Rom 15:10 this passage is related to the calling of
the na ons.) Deut. 32:21: “I will provoke them with those who are no
people; I will aggravate them with a foolish na on.” (Cf. Rom. 10:19.)
David had been promised that the Messiah would be born “of his loins”
or descendants (2 Sam. 7:12; Ps. 89:[36]). Nevertheless, by the inspira on
of the Holy Spirit, through whom David spoke, he declared that promise in
such a way that the benefits of the Messiah would belong also to the
na ons. Ps. 2:8: “Ask of Me, and I shall give You the na ons for Your
inheritance and the ends of the earth for Your possession.” Ps. 18:[43–44]:
“You made Me the head of the na ons; a people whom I did not know will
serve Me. As soon as they heard Me, they obeyed Me.” Ps. 18:[49]: “I will
extol You, O Lord, among the na ons.” (Cf. Rom. 15:9.) Ps. 22:[27]: “All the
ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord; and all the families
of the na ons will worship before Him.” Ps. 72:8: “He will have dominion
from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth.” Ps. 72:11:
“All kings will worship Him; all na ons will serve Him.” (In Rom. 15:11, this
prophecy is related to the calling of the na ons.)
 Isaiah tes fies that Christ would be born of an Israelite virgin (Isa. 7:14),
and on account of this Isaiah calls Him his “cousin” (Isa. 5:1). Yet he also
prophesies that Gen les, too, would be admi ed to the fellowship of the
kingdom and to a sharing in the benefits of the Messiah. Isa. 2:2–3: “It
shall come to pass in the la er days that the mountain of the house of the
Lord shall be established on the top of the mountains … and all the na ons
shall flow to it, and many people shall come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to
the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and He will
teach us His ways, and we shall walk in His paths.’ ” (This prophecy is
repeated in Mic. 4:1.) Isa. 9:2: “The people who walked in darkness have
seen a great light; to those who dwelt in the region of the shadow of
death, light has risen.” (In Matt. 4:16, this prophecy is referred to the
calling of the na ons.) Isa. 11:10: “The root of Jesse” (that is, Christ, born
of Jesse’s line) “will stand as a banner of the peoples; Him will the na ons
beseech.” In Isa. 42:4 the heavenly Father says this about His Son, the
Messiah: “He will establish jus ce among the na ons, and the islands will
await His Law.” Isa. 42:6–7: “I gave You as a covenant of the people, a light
of the na ons, to open the eyes of the blind, to bring forth the prisoner out
of prison, those who sit in darkness from the prison house.” (In Matt.
12:18, this prophecy is referred to Christ.) Isa. 49:6[–7]: “ ‘It is too light a
thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to
restore the desola ons of Israel. Behold, I have given You as a light to the
na ons, that You may be My salva on unto the end of the earth,’ thus says
the Lord.” (In Acts 13:47, this prophecy is explained as pertaining to the
calling of the na ons.) Isa. 55:4–5: “Behold, I made Him a witness to the
peoples, a leader and commander for the na ons. Behold, you will call a
na on that you knew not, and na ons that knew you not will run to you
because of the Lord, your God.” (This prophecy is explained in Acts 13:34
as being about the calling of the na ons.) Isa. 60:3: “Na ons will walk in
Your light, and kings in the splendor of Your face,” etc. Isa. 65:1: “They
sought, who previously did not ask for Me; they found, who did not seek
Me. I said, ‘Here I am!’ to a na on that did not know Me.” (In Rom 10:20,
Paul interprets this as a prophecy about the calling of the na ons.)
Hosea 1:10: “The number of the children of Israel” (of spiritual
Israelites) “will be like the sand of the sea, which is without measure and
will not be numbered; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are
not My people,’ it will be said to them, ‘Sons of the living God.’ ” (In Rom.
9:25–26, this passage is referred to the calling of the na ons.) Hosea 2:23:
“I shall say to Not My People, ‘You are My people’; and they will say, ‘You
are my God.’ ” (Cf. Rom. 9:26 and 1 Pet. [2]:10 with this passage.) In Hag.
2:[7] the Messiah is called “the delight of all na ons.”
The types by which the calling of the na ons was foreshadowed are
likewise many and varied. David had dominion not only over the Israelites
but also over the Philis nes, Moabites, and Edomites (Ps. 60:[8]; 87:4). It
was indicated that the na ons also would belong to the kingdom of Christ,
to whom God gave the throne of His father David (Luke 1:[32]). This same
David had two wives: Ahinoam, an Israelite, and Abigail, a Carmelite (1
Sam. 25:[42–]43). This indicated that Christ, David’s Son, would gather to
Himself a Bride, that is, the church, from both Jews and Gen les. The
queen of Arabia came from far away to Solomon to hear his wisdom (1
Kings 10:1; 2 Chron. 9:1), which indicates that the na ons would also
come to Christ, the heavenly Solomon (Matt. 12:42), to learn heavenly
wisdom from Him. In connec on with this, in the genealogy of Christ not
only are Israelite women listed but also Gen les, such as Rahab, Ruth, and
Bathsheba (Matt. 1:5–6), which indicates that the na ons also would be
gra ed onto Christ through faith and would be brought into spiritual
kinship with Him.
The examples and preludes (in a manner of speaking) for this universal
calling were listed above in the cases not only of certain persons but also of
whole ci es and peoples who were converted from heathenism to the true
God of Israel.
Let us acknowledge with grateful hearts this benefit of our calling from
heathenism to the fellowship of the church, whose great extent Christ and
the apostles o en explain that we might always remember this calling of
ours and conduct ourselves in a manner worthy of it. Matt. 8:[11–]12:
“Many will come from east and west and will recline with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the sons of the kingdom will be
thrown into outer darkness.” Matt. 15:26: “It is not good to take the
children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.” There the Israelites are
compared to children seated at table and the Gen les to dogs wai ng for
crumbs near the table. How great a kindness of God it is, then, that God
drove away His own children, the Israelites, because of their disobedience
and distributed to us wretched dogs not the crumbs but the treasures of
His heavenly benefits!
In Luke 14:16 Christ makes this clear in the following parable. In the
first place, the heavenly “Master of the house invited” the Israelites (as
children and ci zens, who were the primary and more honored guests) “to
a banquet that He had prepared” (that is, to par cipa on in the benefits of
Christ). But when they refused His invita on, He called us Gen les “who
were in the streets and lanes of the city, the poor, the feeble, the blind, and
the lame.”
In Rom. 11:17 Paul describes the greatness of this benefit with another
comparison. The Israelites were the Paradise of the Lord, God’s garden of
delight, where He had planted them like fruit trees. He had sent the
prophets to cul vate that garden. The Gen les, however, were barren and
uncul vated “wild olive trees,” fruitless trees, delivered over to eternal fire.
How great a kindness it is, then, that God gra ed the uncul vated wild
olive to the fer le olive, contrary to its nature, to become a sharer in its
root and richness! Rom. 15:8–9: “Christ was a minister of the circumcision
for the truth of God, to confirm the promises of the fathers and that the
Gen les might glorify God for His mercy.” That is, the Messiah had been
promised uniquely to the Israelites. The fact that the Gen les are called to
His kingdom is by wholly undeserved grace. Eph. 2:11–14: “Therefore
remember that at one me you were Gen les in the flesh.… At that me
you were without Christ, aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and
strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in
the world. But now, in Christ Jesus, you who once were far off have been
brought near in the blood of Christ. For He is our peace, who made us both
one and has broken down the middle wall of par on.” The Israelites had
been kept apart from Gen les by a dividing wall or par on. On the
Israelite side of the wall were “the adop on of sons, the glory, the
covenants, the giving of the Law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom.
9:4). The Gen les had been excluded from all of these. But Christ removed
that wall by calling the na ons to share in those benefits and to have
fellowship in His kingdom. 1 Pet. 2:9–10: “You are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy na on, a people of possession, that you may declare the
virtues of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had
not obtained mercy, but now you have obtained mercy.”

The calling is free

§ 44. So this is the first thing that must be noted about the calling to the
church, namely, that it is catholic or universal. The second is that the call is
completely free or gratuitous, something proved by the obvious condi on
and quality of those called. As far as the Gen les are concerned, one
certainly can entertain no doubt that their calling is by all means free and
completely undeserved. You see, before their calling “they sit in darkness
and dwell in the region of the shadow of death” (Isa. 9:2; Matt. 4:16); in
fact, “they are darkness” (Eph. 5:8), “they are without God, without the
promises” (Eph. 2:12). Therefore this idea about merits preceding the call
is totally impossible. As far as the Israelites are concerned, their call should
be considered to be just as free. You see, though God chose them to be His
special people and for this reason separated them from all other na ons,
that elec on nevertheless is a work of pure grace, of overflowing mercy
(Deut. 7:7). Although they were given wonderful promises (because of
which they were the first to be called into the fellowship of Christ’s
benefits and kingdom, Acts 13:46), nevertheless because those very
promises were given out of grace, they do not at all infer anything merited
or deserved, properly speaking. Rather, with respect to both Jews and
Gen les, the following statement of the apostle s ll remains a statement
of eternal and immutable truth: “God … called us with a holy calling, not
according to our works but according to His own purpose and the grace
that was given to us in Christ Jesus before the mes of the world” (2 Tim.
1:9). And, likewise, the other is Rom. 9:16: “It is not of him who wills nor
of him who runs, but of God who pi es.” Hence when the na ons are
ordered in Rom. 15:9 to “glorify God for His mercy,” while the Israelites are
to glorify Him “because of His truth,” this is not at all to be taken
exclusively, as if only the calling of the Gen les is a work of divine mercy
but not the calling of the Jews. Instead, it should be taken compara vely.
That is, in the calling of the Gen les God made known the riches of His
goodness and mercy far more richly and clearly than in the calling of the
Jews. You see, because the promises made to the Israelites proceeded out
of pure grace, their calling is and remains gratuitous. On the other hand,
because the calling of the Gen les was also foretold by Old Testament
prophecies, they, too, can and should glorify God because of the truth of
those promises.

The calling is serious

§ 45. The third part was that the call to the church is serious. No one
can doubt this: (1) Unless he wants to call the very truth of God into doubt.
That sham hypocrisy which “says one thing with the mouth while
something else is hidden in the heart” is diametrically opposed to the truth
of God described so o en in the Scriptures (Deut. 32:4; John 3:33; Rom.
3:4; Rev. 6:10; etc.).
(2) Lest some doubt remain of whether, when God calls anyone, He is
seriously calling him to the church and to the kingdom of grace, He
therefore confirms that call with this solemn oath: “As I live, says the Lord
God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn
from his way and live. Turn back! Turn back from your evil ways, for why
will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. 33:11). It is because of us—because
of us, I say!—that He who is Truth itself takes that oath. For “when God
desired to show more abundantly to the heirs of the promise the
immutability of His counsel, He added an oath, so that through two
immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have
strong consola on” (Heb. 6:17–18).
(3) The Savior’s parables also prove this very thing. In Matt. 21:41 the
lord of the vineyard destroys the tenants of his vineyard who had killed his
servants and his son when they were collec ng the payment of fruit.
Surely, then, he seriously wanted them to produce abundant fruit in his
vineyard. In Matt. 22:7 the king became angry when those whom he had
invited to the marriage feast of his son refused to come. Surely, then, he
seriously wanted them to come to the wedding and to enjoy the supper he
had prepared. His invita on was not simply a formality. In Luke 14:21 the
master of the house became angry because those whom he had invited to
his supper gave frivolous excuses for not a ending. Surely, then, he
seriously wanted them to come; otherwise his anger would have been
hypocri cal, feigned. The outcome and consequence of his anger, that is,
the severity of the punishment, shows the opposite of a feigned emo on.
(4) Let us also consider the tears of Christ that were born not only on
His face but much rather that were poured out of the depths of His heart.
He Himself explains the reasons for these tears in clear language: “When
He drew near and saw the city, He wept over it, saying, ‘If you had known,
at least in this, your day, the things that pertain to your peace,’ ” etc. (Luke
19:41–42). What? Shall we make crocodile tears out of the tears of Christ?
Concerning the crocodile, those who are knowledgeable about nature say
that it first weeps when it sees a man, but soon it devours him.
(5) What proves the truth of the seriousness of the call most of all is the
precious suffering and death of Christ, the Savior. Because God gave His
Son to the whole world (John 3:16) and because the Son gave Himself as
the price of redemp on for all people (1 Tim. 2:6), therefore the benefits
of the Son also are offered seriously to all people in the word of the
Gospel. We have discussed this elsewhere in greater detail [On Elec on
and Reproba on, Commonplace X, §§ 57–99, 124–46].

The antithesis of the Calvinists

§ 46. Therefore we seriously detest the many and great errors of the
Calvinists that they foster about this point of heavenly doctrine, namely,
about the calling to the church. Because they see that the workshop of the
absolute decree of reproba on is overturned by this doctrine, they pervert
it with the most destruc ve corrup ons. (1) They deny that the calling of
human beings to the church is universal. They interpret this as follows: God
has rejected a very large por on of mankind from salva on with an
absolute hatred, and God either does not call them at all or He does not
call them effectually.
(2) As a result, they make a dis nc on between the internal and
external call, between the effectual and ineffectual call. This dis nc on
they interpret as follows: They say that many are called through the Word
whom God nevertheless does not want to come. In fact, they say, He has
rejected them by an absolute decree. They establish an absolute decree of
reproba on as the reason for that passing-by and (if I may so speak) that
inefficacy.
 (3) When we set against them the universal declara ons of Scripture—
that God invites and calls all people—they make a dis nc on between the
will of the sign and of good pleasure, between the revealed and hidden
will. They explain this dis nc on as follows: In His Word, God does bear
witness that He calls all people and wants them all to come, and this is the
will of the sign and the revealed will. But in respect to the hidden will, He
does not want them all to come, to be converted, and to be saved.
(4) When to prove the truth of the serious call we set against them the
statements of Scripture about Christ’s universal merit, they dis nguish
between the sufficiency and the efficacy of merit. They explain this
dis nc on as follows: Christ’s death would not have lacked the power to
make sa sfac on for all the sins of all people if it had been des ned by
God for that purpose; but God and Christ never had this counsel and this
will.
(5) The first lie of that opinion—that God is by no means serious in
calling all whom He calls—is that they separate the interior efficacy of the
Holy Spirit from the external ministry of the Word and Sacraments, and
they restrict that efficacy solely to those whom they imagine have been
elected by the absolute decree. However, the preaching of the Word and
the use of the Sacraments are the effectual means through which God
seriously wants to work conversion for salva on in the hearts of all people
who do not reject the Holy Spirit.
(6) When we set against them the statements of Scripture about the
efficacy of the Word and Sacraments, they respond by saying that “by the
word ‘sacramental,’ the performance of the internal ministry is a ributed
to the external ministry of the Word, in order to honor it.”
[7] Finally, they claim that “an effectual, internal call belongs only to the
elect,” and once they have been called in this way, they can never
a erward fall out of God’s grace or lose their faith. Each and every one of
these errors is clearly repugnant to the doctrine of the calling. We have set
them forth elsewhere in the very words of Calvinist teachers [cf. On
Elec on and Reproba on, Commonplace X, §§ 132–46; On the
Ecclesias cal Ministry, Commonplace XXVI, § 49]. We condemn these
errors to hell.
Chapter VI: On the Material of the Church,
That Is, of What Human Beings the Church
Consists
Two kinds of people are gathered in the church
§ 47. Those whom the call has gathered into the assembly of the church
are in two species. Some the Holy Spirit inwardly regenerates, renews,
endows with true faith, illumines, sanc fies, and engra s onto Christ. For
this reason, they become true, living members of the church. Some, on the
other hand, belong only to the outward associa on that consists of the
profession of faith and the use of the Sacraments. They join the assembly
of the called, that is, the visible church, though they lack internal
regenera on and holiness. The former are true, living members of the
church who draw life and breath from Christ, the Head. The la er are dead
and ro ng members. The former belong to the church inwardly; the la er,
only outwardly. The former belong simply, properly, and univocally; the
la er belong in a certain respect, improperly, nonliterally, and equivocally.
The former are members with respect to an inner, spiritual union with
Christ; the la er are members with respect to an external companionship,
profession, and associa on with the assembly of the called. The former are
members in the heart; the la er, in outward appearance. The former
belong truly [ὄντως]; the la er, only supposedly [οἰομένως]. The former
are members in the judgment of God; the la er, in the judgment of men.
The former are of the soul and body (so to speak) of the church; the la er,
only of the body but not of the soul. The former are like true and healthy
parts of the body; the la er are like a rash and bad humors in the body.
Christ points this out with the analogy of the “wedding garment” in the
parable about the people who were invited and those who accepted the
invita on to a wedding (Matt. 22:11). Among the guests at the wedding
feast, some were wearing the wedding garment, but some, not wearing it,
were s ll mingling with the other guests. That is, in the external assembly
of the church, in the number of the called, there are some good people
and some bad people, as Christ Himself says in that chapter. Indeed, “this
one person who was not wearing the wedding garment is a figure of the
great body of all the evil people mixed into the Lord’s banquet before His
judgment,” according to Augus ne, Contra Dona st. post collat., ch. 20.
Consequently, when the Augsburg Confession had defined the church in
article VII as “the gathering of the saints in which the Gospel is rightly
taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered,” it adds in article VIII:
“Although the church properly is the gathering of saints and true believers,
nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil people are mingled
therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men,” etc.

In the external assembly of the church there are some

nonsaints
§ 48. In this place, we must demonstrate two things: first, that in the
external assembly of the church there are many nonsaints; and, second,
that the church, when speaking properly and principally, is the gathering of
the saints. In regard to the first part, Dr. Chemnitz notes that we ought to
prefer the expression “nonsaints” to other expressions. You see, were one
to say that there are many evil people in that assembly, that could be taken
to mean the open falsifiers of doctrine and the openly criminal, who we
know must be excluded and rejected from the church. Likewise, it could be
taken to refer to those who reject, persecute, and obs nately deny the
Word, people whom no one would call members of the church. Were one
to say that in that assembly there are many unregenerate [or those who
have not been reborn], that could be taken to mean those who have not
been bap zed, for Bap sm is the ordinary means of regenera on (Titus
3:5). Therefore we should say that in the external assembly of the church
there are many nonsaints or hypocrites. We should note, too, that those
nonsaints mingled with the assembly of the church agree with it in the
profession of doctrine and use the same Sacraments. The church separates
obs nate here cs and the manifestly criminal from herself by
excommunica on.
We prove the truth of that first part: (I) From manifest tes monies of
Scripture. Matt. 7:21: “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will
enter the kingdom, but he who does the will of My Father, who is in
heaven.” Matt. 18:7: “It is necessary that offenses come” (in the kingdom
of heaven, that is, in the church, for Christ speaks about this in that
chapter). To the parable of the different workers in the vineyard Christ adds
this exclama on: “Many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 20:16). He
repeats the same in Matt. 22:14, a er the parable of the wedding of the
king’s son, to which someone came without wearing the wedding garment.
John 8:39: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of
Abraham.” Acts 20:30: “From among your own selves will arise men
speaking perverse things.” Rom. 2:28–29: “He is not a Jew who is one
outwardly [in manifesto], nor is circumcision something external and in the
flesh. He is a Jew who is one inwardly [in abscondito], and circumcision is
of the heart, in the spirit, not the le er. His praise is not from men but
from God.” Rom. 9:6 and 8: “Not all who are descended from Israel are
Israelites … It is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God,
but the children of promise are reckoned as the seed.” 1 Cor. 11:19:
“There must be fac ons [haereses] among you.”
(II) From various parables of Christ, the Savior. In Matt. 13:24 He
compares the kingdom of heaven to a field in which not only grain grows
but also weeds, which cannot be rooted out of it before the me of the
harvest, that is, before the final judgment. Christ Himself explains the
parable in this way: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the
field is the world; and the good seed are the sons of the kingdom; the
weeds are the sons of the evil one;” etc. [Matt. 13:37–38]. It is also
explained in detail by Cyprian, Le er ad Antonian. de Nova ano, and
Augustine, tractate 61 on John; De ide et operibus, ch. 5.
In Matt. 13:47, He compares it to a net that drags in and catches all
kinds of fish, both good and bad. The separa ng of them finally occurs on
the shore. Christ Himself likewise explains this parable: “In the end of the
world, the angels will come out and separate the evil from the midst of the
righteous” (v. 49). Gregory, Homily 11 in evang.: “The net of faith now
holds us like fish, good and bad ones all mixed together, but the shore
indicates what the net of the church was drawing up.” Chrysostom, Sermon
47: “The catch pulls in a mixture of fish, but the separa on puts the elect
into the keeping-box. In the same way, the calling gathers Chris ans,
righteous and unrighteous, good and evil; but divine elec on dis nguishes
the good and evil.”
 In Matt. 3:12, the church is said to be like a threshing floor on which
both wheat and chaff are spread. In the last judgment, the threshing floor
will be totally cleansed. The wheat will be stored in the heavenly granary
but the chaff will be burned with unquenchable fire. Augustine, tractate 6
on John: “We confess that in the catholic church there are both good and
evil, but they are like grain and chaff.” Fulgen us, De fide ad Petrum, ch.
43: “Hold firmly and have no doubt that God’s threshing floor is the
catholic church and that chaff mixed with the grain will be included in her
un l the end of the age. That is, the evil are mixed in with the good in the
communion of the sacraments.”
In Matt. 22:10, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a marriage feast at
which gather the good as well as the evil who have no wedding garment. In
Matt. 25:1, foolish and wise maidens are invited to the wedding.
In John 10:1, the kingdom of heaven is likened to a sheepfold in which
there are sheep and goats. Although the Lord will “judge between sheep
and sheep, between rams and he-goats” (Ezek. 34:17), the complete
separa on will finally occur on the Last Day when Christ will separate the
elect from the reprobate, “as a shepherd separates the sheep from the
goats” (Matt. 25:32).
In John 15:1ff., Christ uses the parable of the vine. As on a vine some
shoots are green and draw sap from the vine while some dry up, so also in
the body of the church there are some who draw the Spirit of life from
Christ and some who are dry and unfrui ul shoots.
(III) From other analogies set forth by the Holy Spirit. The church is the
great house of God (1 Tim. 3:15). [2 Tim. 2:20:] “In a great house there
are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay; some for
honor, some for disgrace.” The church is God’s garden (Song 4:12). In this
garden there are not only fruit-bearing trees—the truly devout and
believers who are called “trees of righteousness” (Isa. 61:11), which “are
planted by streams of water, that yield their fruit in their season” (Ps. 1:3)
—but also barren, fruitless trees for whom a cu ng down has been
prepared (Matt. 3:10; Luke 13:7). In fact, as one tree has some green and
fruit-bearing branches and some dry ones, so also the church has some
members who are green and bear the fruit of good works and other dead
and ro en members covered only with the foliage of words. The church is
the city of God, as we have shown earlier [§ 20]; but in a city the evil are
mixed with the good, etc.
(IV) From types and examples. Jerome, Adv. Lucifer., past the middle:
“As there were all kinds of animals in Noah’s ark—the leopard and kids, the
wolf and the lambs—so also in the church there are sinners and righteous.”
In the families of the patriarchs, that is, in the household church of Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, you find Cain and Abel, Shem and Ham,
Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, Joseph and Reuben, etc. Augus ne,
Le er ad Vincent. Dona st. (quoted in [Ius canonicum,] dist. 47, canon 9):
“However watchful the discipline of my house is, I am a man and I live
among men. I dare not claim that my house is be er than Noah’s ark,
where among the eight people there was one reprobate. Or that it is be er
than the house of Abraham, who was told: ‘Cast out the handmaiden and
her son.’ Or that it is be er than the household of Isaac, who was told in
regard to his twin sons: ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.’ ” Josh. 15:63:
“The Jebusites have dwelled with the Israelites in Jerusalem to this day.” In
fact, in the most holy company of the apostles there was Judas, the
betrayer of Christ, whom Christ calls a “devil” (John 6:70). Augustine, De
civ. Dei, bk. 18, ch. 49: “Among His disciples, Christ had one whom He used
well, though he was evil, to complete the plan of His suffering and to offer
His church an example of tolera ng evil people.” On the basis of the
Epistles to the Gala ans, Corinthians, and Ephesians and of Revelation 2–
3, it is evident that in the churches of the Corinthians, Gala ans,
Ephesians, Sardinians, and Laodiceans there were nonsaints mixed in with
the truly devout.
(V) To this are related the books of Augus ne against the Dona sts and
Pelagians and the disputa ons of the ancients against the Nova ans or
Cathari. “Here” (in this life) “the Jebusites dwell with the people of
Jerusalem. Here in the Master’s garden both s nkweed and the silver fir
grow at the same me, the thistle and the myrtle. In Jacob’s flock there
were white and black animals, sheep and goats. In Peter’s net there were
good and bad fish. In the Lord’s field there are lilies among the thorns. On
the Lord’s threshing floor there is grain with chaff. In Christ’s storeroom
there is wine with the vinegar, oil with its dregs. In Noah’s ark there were
clean and unclean animals.”
 § 49. This part must be set against: (1) The Audians. Their sect
pretended a great innocence and chas ty of life and said that they were
leaving the fellowship of the church because in it usurers and the impure
were tolerated, as is said in the catalog of heresies appended to the
Historia of Theodoret. Theodoret (Hist., bk. 4, ch. 10) writes about them as
follows: “That ins tu on is full of arrogance and is a descendant of the
teaching of the Pharisees. The Pharisees used to accuse the Physician of
souls and bodies, saying to the holy apostles: ‘Why does your Master eat
with tax collectors and sinners?’ Also, God says about these through the
prophet: ‘Those who say: “I am pure. Do not touch me.” This is the smoke
of My wrath.’ ”
(2) The Nova ans, so called from Novatus. They made an evil secession
from the church because of the apostasy of certain people at a me of
persecu on. Epiphanius, bk. 2, vol. 1, Haeres. 59: “Novatus was at Rome at
the me of the persecu on, the first one before Maximinus. Along with
those whom he had lured into being his associates, he was puffed up with
arrogance at the failing of those who backslid in the persecu on and was
unwilling to have fellowship with those who were penitent a er the
persecu on,” etc. Cyprian, bk. 4, Le er 2, a li le before the end:
Who is so swollen with arrogance, so forge ul of humility and gentleness, so boas ul with
arrogance as to dare—or believe that he is able—to do what the Lord did not permit even
the apostles to do, that is, to be able to separate the weeds from the grain? Or who, as if he
(Novatus) had been given the authority to carry off the chaff and clean the threshing floor,
would try to separate the chaff from the grain, though the apostles were told: “In a great
house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay”? Or who
would seem to pick the gold and silver vessels but to hold the wood and clay vessels in
contempt and reject them, though only on the Lord’s Day are the wooden vessels consumed
with the fire of divine heat and the clay vessels broken by Him who was given a rod of iron?

The Cathari were said to have been the same. Augus ne, De haeres. ad
Quodvultd., ch. 38: “The Cathari proudly and hatefully call themselves by
that name as if because of their cleanness. They follow the here c
Novatus, so they are also called ‘Nova ans.’ ”
(3) The Dona sts, about whom Augus ne writes, De haeres., ch. 69:
“The Dona ans or Dona sts first caused a schism because of Caecilianus,
who was ordained bishop of the church at Carthage against their will. They
accused him of crimes, though those were unproved, etc. Later they
turned the schism into a heresy, claiming that Christ’s church perished
from the en re world because of the crimes of Caecilianus. A future church
was promised, they said, and in Africa the church remained in the party of
Donatus, while in other areas of the earth it had died out as if by a
contagious fellowship.”
(4) The Anabap sts, who say that any assembly in which nonsaints are
mingled is not the church. They also say that the Holy Spirit is not effectual
through the ministry of those whose life does not correspond to the
profession of doctrine.
[5] Schmaltzius (Refut. thesium Frantzii, disp. 8, p. 274) argues that “this
part of the defini on—that evil people and hypocrites are mixed in with
the church in this life—can be totally omi ed because it is not necessary
for such people to be in the visible church. Without such people, anyhow,
its nature can be observed.” Yet this is not at all the sense in which we say,
in our defini on of the church, that evil people and hypocrites are mixed in
it, as if this was essen al to the church in such a way that there is no
church at all unless such people are mixed in. Instead, because the mixture
of hypocrites can scarcely be separated from the church, none of the truth
departs from the church through that mixing.

The church is properly the gathering of the saints

§ 50. The second part is that the church is properly the gathering of the
saints. We prove this against the Papists with these founda onal truths: (I)
In Holy Scripture the church is called “the mys cal Body of Christ” (Rom.
12:5; 1 Cor. 10:17; 12:27; Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:18; etc.). Therefore just as in a
human body each true member is animated and controlled by the spirit of
life, and in turn whatever in the human body is not animated and governed
by the spirit of life is not a member of that body except equivocally, so also
whoever is a true and genuine member of that mys cal Body is governed
by the Holy Spirit, and in turn whoever does not have the indwelling Holy
Spirit governing him is not a true and genuine member of that mys cal
Body. 1 Cor. 6:15: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of
Christ?” 1 Cor. 6:19: “Do you not know that your body is the temple of the
Holy Spirit, who is within you, whom you have from God?”
Augus ne, Contra Crescon., bk. 2, ch. 34: “Although the evil have been
separated spiritually from the good by their life and behavior, yet they
appear to be mingled physically with them in the church un l the Day of
Judgment when they will be separated physically for the punishments due
them.” (The church catholic is the mys cal and spiritual Body. All its
members, therefore, are joined together by the bond of the Spirit. Because
this cannot be said about the evil, they must not be members of that Body,
properly speaking.) De doctr. Christ., bk. 3, ch. 32: “That is not truly the
Body of Christ which does not remain with Him forever.”
Bellarmine objects, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 9: “The evil are dry and dead
members; nonetheless they are true members of the church.” It is obvious,
however, that dead and dry members are members only equivocally, just
as a painted man is a man only equivocally. The Holy Spirit describes the
members of this Body in such a way that the descrip on cannot fit the evil.
In Eph. 1:[23] the church is called not only “the Body of Christ” but also
“the fullness” of His body. Dry and dead members, however, do not fill or
complete the body, but rather burden it. In Eph. 4:16 the en re Body of
the church is said to be “fi ngly held together and joined by what every
joint supplies, according to the power ac ng inwardly according to the
measure of each member.” But this cannot be said about dead and dry
members, for they are not held together with the Body by the Spirit of life.
They have no touch, no ac vity, nor do they grow. In Col. 2:19 Paul says in
regard to this mys cal Body that it “is supplied and joined through its joints
and bands and grows with the growth of God.” Yet dead and dry members
are connected neither with the Head nor with the other members of the
Body, nor do they grow with the growth of God, etc. Therefore they are not
true and living members of Christ and of the church. They are not
governed by the Spirit of Christ.
By the power of the truth, Costerus himself (Apolog., part 3, ch. 12) is
forced to acknowledge this. “On the basis of this passage, blessed Dr. Hugh
alludes to the human body, to which the Body of the church is similar, and
says that whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not a member of
Christ. In this Body there is nothing dead; outside it, there is nothing living.
This is true, for if righteous Chris ans are considered as the only ones
among the members, it is not strange. The Holy Spirit is in them alone, for
it is wri en: ‘Whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not His.’ Also, all
things are applied to their good,” etc. The Englishmen of Rheims (Annot. on
1 John 2, sect. 10) acknowledge: “The evil in the church are more like
corrupt humors and superfluous excrement in the body than any living
members or parts.”
(II) True members of the church are also the sons of God because the
church is the mother of all true believers. But now, the sons of God are
described as being “born of God” (John 1:12), as being “heirs of God and
joint heirs with Christ” (Rom. 8:17), as being “led by the Spirit of God”
(Rom. 8:14), as “imita ng the work of their Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:45).
The opposite is added clearly, Rom. 8:9: “Anyone who does not have the
Spirit of Christ is not His.” Matt. 7:23: “I never knew you. Depart from Me,
you workers of iniquity.” It is obvious that those proper es of the sons of
God do not fit all the called, who are in the external associa on of the
church. Not all of the called, therefore, belong to the assembly of the sons
of God, that is, to the church in its proper and principal sense.
Bellarmine, loc. cit., objects: “The word ‘son’ is taken in three ways:
first, with regard to birth; second, with regard to imita on; third, with
regard to teaching. The evil are sons of God not with regard to
regenera on, of course, but with regard to teaching, and that is enough for
them to be called sons of the church.” We respond. When it is said that
“whoever does not have God as his Father does not have the church as his
mother,” this must be taken to mean those who are sons by regenera on,
not by teaching alone. Those who are sons neither by rebirth nor imita on
but only by teaching are sons of the devil. They are not sons of God and of
the church catholic, properly speaking.
(III) True ci zens of the church are also Christ’s sheep. But now, Christ’s
sheep are described as follows: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know
them, and they follow Me; and I give them eternal life, and they will never
perish, and no one will snatch them out of My hand” (John 10:27–28).
This descrip on does not fit all those who are in the assembly of the called
or who are joined to the external associa on of the church but only those
who are true believers. In fact, in the assembly of the called there are
s nking goats mixed in with the sheep, whom the heavenly “Chief
Shepherd” [1 Pet. 5:4] will separate from each other on the Last Day (Matt.
25:32). So not all the called—or, what is the same, not all who are in the
external associa on of the church—are true sheep of Christ and true
members of the church. The Jesuit Toletus, commentary on John 10:
“No ce: although the sheep of Christ generally are those who believe in
Christ, Christ here is speaking par cularly about the predes ned and elect
who will be sheep forever.” This explana on of Toletus is proved by that
very text, which declares in regard to Christ’s sheep that they follow Christ
in faith and life, that they receive eternal life, etc.
Therefore Bellarmine dis nguishes in vain between meanings of the
word “sheep.” He says: “Some mes ‘sheep’ is taken indiscriminately for the
good as well as for the evil, as in John 21[:17]: ‘Feed My sheep.’
Some mes it is taken only for the predes ned, as in John 10[:27]: ‘My
sheep hear My voice.’ ” For us, it is enough that he concedes that in John
10:27 this word means only the predes ned, for in v. 16 the words are
added: “There shall be one flock and one shepherd.” Therefore only the
predes ned belong to the flock of the church catholic.
(IV) The prophets and apostles quite frequently speak about the church
in such a way that their praises cannot refer to the en re assembly of the
called since that assembly includes good and evil people, wheat and tares,
good and bad fish, etc., according to the Savior’s parables. Therefore one
must necessarily claim that there is a true church, properly speaking, to
which those praises and a ributes belong in a primary and immediate
manner. Every predicate requires a subject to which it is a ributed of itself,
properly, and immediately, but it is a ributed to all the other things only in
a certain respect and because of that first and principal subject.
The former can be affirmed from many tes monies of Scripture. Ps. 45:
[13]: “The King’s daughter is all glorious within” or “internally.” But now,
not all who are in external associa on with the church are decorated
inwardly with the virtues and gi s of the Holy Spirit.
Song 4:7: “You are all beau ful, my love; there is no spot in you.” Isa.
52:1: “Awake, put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your
glory, O Jerusalem, the holy city; for no more shall the uncircumcised and
the unclean come into you.” Ezek. 44:9: “Thus says the Lord God, ‘No
foreigner uncircumcised in heart and flesh will enter My sanctuary.’ ” Joel
3:[17]: “I am the Lord, your God, who dwells in Zion, My holy mountain.
And Jerusalem will be holy, and foreigners will never again pass through it.”
But now, in the external associa on of the church there are many people
uncircumcised in heart and ears.
Matt. 16:18: “The gates of hell will not prevail against the church.” But
now, the gates of hell do prevail against many joined to the external
associa on of the church; that is, Satan overthrows and destroys them
with his tempta ons. Ferus, on Matthew 16: “He is not speaking about the
church as it is commonly taken for those who are called Chris ans,
whether they are good or bad. Rather, He is speaking about the church
according to the Spirit, and that includes only the elect.” Cajetan,
commentary on the same passage: “ ‘Against the church,’ which consists of
the gathering of the faithful in one faith, hope, and love.”
In 1 Tim. 3:15 the church is “the house of God.” But now, we are only
then the household of God “if we hold fast the confidence and glory of
hope unto the end” (Heb. 3:6).
Throughout the Old and New Testaments, the church is called “the
Bride” of Christ (Song 4:10; Isa. 61:10; John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2). But now,
just as the brides of the priests in the Old Testament were virgins (Lev.
21:13; Ezek. 44:[22]), so also Christ, the High Priest of the New
Testament, chooses only those souls to be His Bride and church who stand
firm in the virginity of the faith and abstain from the adulterous embraces
of Satan, the world, and the flesh. For this reason, John Wycliffe (Tract.
contra fratres sive monachos, ch. 39) writes: “The brothers destroy this
ar cle of Chris an faith: ‘I believe there is the catholic church,’ for they
teach that people who will be condemned are members of the holy
church. Thus they join the devil with Christ by marriage.”
(V) In Rom. 8:29–30 the apostle describes the true church and true
members of the church in such a way that the descrip on cannot be
a ributed to all who belong to the external associa on of the church.
“Those whom God foreknew He also predes ned to be conformed to the
image of His Son … Those whom He predes ned He also called; those
whom He called He also jus fied; those whom He jus fied He also
glorified.” But now, not all the called are predes ned; not all are jus fied
and glorified. Therefore not all the called belong to the church in the
proper and principal sense. Toletus the Jesuit, on this passage: “God called
the predes ned in me. He jus fied the called from their sins. Whom He
jus fied, He glorified and took to the kingdom of heaven.”
(VI) In Rom. 2:28–29 Paul dis nguishes between one who is a Jew
outwardly and one who is a Jew inwardly. He says that the former is to be
reckoned on the basis of outward circumcision, and the la er, on the basis
of inward circumcision. Therefore just as only he is a true Jew who is one
inwardly and who is circumcised in the heart, so also only he is a true
Chris an and a true member of the Chris an church who is a Chris an
inwardly and who shares in a spiritual circumcision. In connec on with
this, Peter gives a serious warning to Chris an women, who cons tute part
of Christ’s kingdom on earth, to see to it that their adornments be “the
hidden person of the heart,” etc. (1 Pet. 3:4).
(VII) The same Peter describes the spiritual edifice of the church as
follows: “Coming to the living Stone, you, too, are being built up like living
stones into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 2:4–5). But now, this
descrip on does not fit all the called, for not all are built like stones upon
Christ, nor do all offer spiritual sacrifices to God. Therefore not all the
called belong to the edifice of the church in the proper sense.
(VIII) The church catholic is called our mother and “the Jerusalem
above” (Gal. 4:26). But she that is the Jerusalem above has “nothing
unclean, but rather those who are wri en in the Lamb’s book of life” (Rev.
21:27). Therefore the church catholic has nothing unclean but only the
saints and those wri en in the Lamb’s book of life.
(IX) The church has the name “church” [ecclesia] because she has been
“called out” of the world. Therefore those who are s ll “of the world”—
that is, who are not yet reborn, sanc fied, and renewed but are s ll
completely immersed in worldly and carnal lusts—are not true members of
the church. Rom. 8:9: “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does
not belong to Him.” Whoever does not belong to Christ is also not a true
member of the church catholic, because the Head of the church is Christ.
Therefore whoever does not have the Spirit of Christ is not a true member
of the church catholic. 1 Cor. 12:13: “By one Spirit we were all bap zed
into one Body.” Those in whom the Spirit of Christ is not present (or, as
Bellarmine says, in whom there is no internal virtue) do not belong to the
mys cal Body that is the church. A li le later we shall add the statements
of the fathers, namely, in § 78.

Bellarmine’s antithesis
§ 51. In De ecclesia (bk. 3, ch. 2), before defining the church and
showing who belongs to it, Bellarmine first lists five opinions that he calls
“here cal,” and to these he later adds his own, which he calls “catholic.”
Among the here cal opinions he places this one first: that “the church is
the gathering only of the predes ned,” which he a ributes to Wycliffe and
Huss. The second is that “the church is the mul tude of perfect people
only, people who have no sin,” which he a ributes to the Pelagians and the
Anabap sts. The third is that “the church is the assembly of only the
righteous, that is, of those who have never fallen in regard to the
confession of faith,” which he a ributes to the Nova ans and Dona sts.
The fourth is that “the church is the gathering of the saints who truly
believe and obey God,” which he a ributes to the Confessionists, that is, to
those who embrace the Augsburg Confession. The fi h is that “the church
consists of only the righteous predes ned,” which he a ributes to Calvin.
We respond. (1) Our opinion is explained quite clearly in the Augsburg
Confession, namely, that the church in the true and proper sense is the
gathering of the saints and true believers, among whom in this life,
nevertheless, many hypocrites and nonsaints are mixed in the external
associa on. Therefore we claim that hypocrites, evil, secretly faithless, and
all the reprobate, so long as they are and remain such, are not true
members of the true church, even though outwardly they confess the
same faith and use the same Sacraments as the saints. We admit that
some mes a place is le for these in the external assembly of the church,
but we deny that they belong to the internal and spiritual fellowship of the
church, properly speaking.
(2) We have nothing in common with the Pelagians, Dona sts,
Nova ans, and Anabap sts, as Bellarmine correctly recognizes.
(3) When some of our people say that “the church is the assembly of
the predes ned or elect,” they are not using that term properly and strictly
for only those who persevere in faith un l the end of life, as Scripture
defines the elect in the proper sense; nor are they using it for those who
have been elected by an absolute decree of God, as the Calvinists define
the elect. Rather, they are using it broadly and improperly for all true
believers, reborn people, and saints. Thus there is no difference between
these two statements: that the church is the gathering of the saints and
that the church is the assembly of the predes ned.
(4) The judgment about the words “righteous” and “perfect” is the
same. We do not understand these words in a Pelagian, Nova an, Dona st,
and Anabap st sense, but as Scripture defines the righteous and perfect,
namely, those who by true faith have become partakers of the
righteousness of Christ, who have been reborn through the Holy Spirit,
who are eager to do works of righteousness, and who daily struggle for
perfec on. It is false, therefore, to say that our “posi on has been
conflated from the heresy of the Pelagians, Nova ans, and Dona sts,” as
Bellarmine in this place so boldly but falsely charges.
(5) Let us see how he tries to prove that false accusa on. He says: “The
Confessionists teach three things: first, that there is no sin that is venial by
its nature but that all sins are mortal of themselves and become venial out
of the mercy of God, who does not impute them to believers. In this regard
they are like the Pelagians.” We respond. We have spoken in detail about
this en re ma er in our trea se On Actual Sins [Commonplace XIII, §§ 90–
102] and have demonstrated that our posi on is precisely the opposite of
the Pelagians’ heresy.
Next, Bellarmine says:
Second, in the Apology of the [Augsburg] Confession they teach that sinners do not belong
to the church except in name, and in this respect they again are like the Pelagians. Nothing
keeps them from saying that evil people are mixed in with the good, for they pretend that
there are two churches. One of them is the true church to which belong the privileges of
which Scripture tells. It is the gathering of the saints who truly believe and obey God, and it
is not visible except to the eyes of faith. The other is the external church, which is the church
in name alone. It is the gathering of people who agree in the doctrine of faith and use of the
sacraments. In it, both good and evil people are found. Thus they are never willing to let the
wicked be members of the church or to be of the church, but merely want them to be mixed
in with the church and with the good people. Even Luther in his book De concil. et ecclesia
says that the church is the holy Chris an people, and to show that he is speaking about the
holiness of individual members, he argues that the pope and cardinals are not of the church
because they are not saints. Therefore if only the righteous are parts of the true church, and
if all sins, however insignificant, are mortal sins and make a person unrighteous, it follows
that only the perfect, only those who are free of all sin, are of the church. This was the
opinion of the Pelagians.

We respond. By no means do we claim two churches: one, true and

internal; the other, nominal and external. Rather, we say that one and the
same church, namely, the whole assembly of the called, is considered in
two ways: from within and from without—or with respect to the call and
the external associa on consis ng in the profession of faith and use of the
Sacraments, on one hand, and with respect to interior regenera on and
internal fellowship consis ng in the bond of the Spirit. In the prior way and
in that respect, we admit that also hypocrites and nonsaints belong to the
church. But in the la er way and in this respect, we say that only true
believers and saints belong to it. All these points will become more clear
from following sec ons and especially from our discussion of the visibility
and invisibility of the church.
We speak dis nctly about the church, therefore, because the Holy Spirit
speaks dis nctly about the church in the Holy Scriptures. Some mes the
word “church” is used for the en re assembly of the called in which all who
gather together in the external confession to hear the Word and to use the
Sacraments are considered as members of the church. On the other hand,
it is some mes used for the assembly of true believers and saints who
have been endowed with true faith of the heart and with inner
regenera on. Yet these people are not outside the assembly of the called
so as to cons tute a separate church. Rather, they are in the actual
assembly of the called with whom they are connected by external
associa on. Therefore we very carefully dis nguish between these two (I
do not say “churches” but) ways of using the word “church.” We do not
want those who are in the assembly of the called, who profess the same
faith and use the same Sacraments as the true believers but lack a true and
living faith, we do not want them, I say, to delude themselves about the
honorific word “church” and to claim that they possess those outstanding
promises and honorific praises that Scripture a ributes to the true church
or to the gathering of the saints. Furthermore, we do not want them to
think that because they are members of the visible church they cannot be
damned even if they con nue securely in impenitence and hypocrisy and
meanwhile are strangers to every concern for true piety. Rather, we make
this dis nc on so that they may understand that in order for one to be a
true and living member of the church, besides the external associa on
with the church consis ng in the confession of faith and in the use of the
Sacraments, it is also necessary that the Holy Spirit endow him with an
inner regenera on and renewal. Therefore we also define the church as
“the gathering of the saints” so that no one may think that the church is
merely an external commonwealth of good and evil people, because,
properly and accurately speaking, it is the holy fellowship of those who are
joined together by the bond of the Spirit in true faith and love.
 We are by no means using the word “saints” in a Pelagian or Anabap st
sense, nor are we pretending that true ci zens of the church are clearly
and completely sinless in the weakness of this life. We are not transforming
the church into a Platonic idea and into some empty fantasy evaluated by
mathema cal abstrac on. Instead, we dis nguish between sins of
weakness (with which true faith, repentance, and zeal for holiness can
stand) and sins against conscience (through which the reborn cease being
true and living members of the church). You see, Bellarmine says falsely
that we claim that “all sins, however insignificant, are mortal in actuality in
the reborn and make the reborn unrighteous before God.” We do urge a
careful dis nc on between venial and mortal sins in our churches.
The third hypothesis on the basis of which Bellarmine tries to convict
our posi on of Pelagianism is this: “The Confessionists say that all the
works of man, even jus fied man, are mortal sins. From this it seems to
follow that no man is of the church.” We respond. Bellarmine knows
exactly what Luther meant when he said, “A righteous man sins in every
good work.” He meant that the imperfec on of the work and the
corrup on of the flesh always adheres to the reborn. By no means do we
claim, however, that all good works, even of a jus fied person, are mortal
sins. We do not even say that all the sins of the reborn are mortal in
actuality, but rather we admit that some are venial. Therefore with what
kind of seriousness can he say that we claim that all the good works of the
reborn are mortal sins? We have spoken about this whole ma er in
sufficient detail in our trea se On Good Works [Commonplace XX, § 39].
Bellarmine objects, saying that even if we claimed that the reborn do
not have counted against them the sins and weaknesses that s ll cling to
them because through faith the reborn are in Christ, not even in this way
would we be free of syncre sm with the Dona sts and Nova ans. For just
as they did not exclude all sinners from the church but only those who
commi ed idolatry, so also we in like fashion would not be excluding all
sinners but only those who do not truly believe—when we claim that no
charge is imputed against believers, that is.
We respond. May God not impute to you this crime: that through a false
accusa on against your own conscience you a ribute to us the following
vulgar rumors!—as if we claimed that true and saving faith can remain with
sins against conscience and that no crime can be imputed against
believers. You see, elsewhere (namely, De jus fic., bk. 1, ch. 3; bk. 3, ch. 6;
bk. 4, chs. 1 and 4) Bellarmine admits we connect repentance and a zeal
for good works with true faith by an unbreakable and perpetual link.
Bellarmine does us a grave injus ce, therefore, and struggles in vain to
make our posi on guilty of so many and such great heresies.
Stapleton himself (Relect. princ., controversy 1, q. 2, art. 5, p. 17) praises
those words of the Augsburg Confession: “the wicked are members of the
church according to external associa on through the Sacraments;
nevertheless the church herself is principally the fellowship of faith and of
the Holy Spirit.” Also, Johann Hoffmeister notes on the Augsburg
Confession, article VIII, from Augus ne, that “one can be said to ‘be in the
church’ in two ways. In one way, to be a member in it is like being a sharer
in the structure of righteousness, namely, of spiritual life, that is, being
joined with the other members in the Spirit of charity. In the other way, to
‘be in the church’ is to cling to the members of the church like chaff to
wheat.” And he approves of the statement of Philipp Melanchthon in his
Loci that the church some mes signifies generally the gathering of all
people who confess the Gospel, but properly and principally it signifies the
gathering of the righteous who truly believe in Christ and are sanc fied by
the Spirit of Christ. And he admits that these things are said according to
the faith of the catholic church. This should be noted carefully.

The definition of the church according to Bellarmine’s opinion

§ 52. Against our posi on Bellarmine sets forth his own, which he likes
to call “catholic”: “The church is the assembly of people bound together by
the confession of the same Chris an faith and by the communion of the
same sacraments, under the governance of their legi mate pastors and
especially of Christ’s one vicar on earth, the Roman pon ff.” He sets up
three parts of this defini on and says that each and every one of them is
required for anyone to belong to the church: the confession of the true
faith, the communion of the sacraments, and subjec on to the Roman
pon ff. With regard to the first part, he says that “all infidels are excluded,
both those who never were in the church” (such as Jews, Turks, and
pagans) “and those who have le the church” (such as here cs and
apostates). With regard to the second part, he says that “catechumens and
the excommunicated are excluded.” With regard to the third part,
“schisma cs” are excluded. All others, however, are included, even if they
are reprobate, wicked, and impious. The church is defined in almost the
same way by Lindanus (Panopl., bk. 4, ch. 4) and Canisius (De praec.
eccles., ch. 2, art. 9).
We respond. Many things are lacking in this defini on. For instance: (1)
If a communion of the same sacraments is required in the church, why,
then, do the Papist clergy take a sacrament for themselves alone (holy
orders)? Why do they alone take one of the sacraments in its totality (the
Eucharist)? And why do they assign a sacrament to the laity alone and
reject it completely from themselves (marriage)?
(2) If a confession of faith is required for someone to be a member of
the church, then bap zed infants will be completely excluded from the
church because they cannot yet outwardly confess their faith because of
their age.
(3) If “true faith” is understood as the doctrine of faith that Christ gave
His apostles and that the apostles put into wri ng (as it should be
understood), and if “the sacraments” are understood as those that Christ
ins tuted and commi ed to the church (as they should be understood,
because it is not the sameness but the truth of the Sacraments that binds
the church together), then by force of those defini ons one can easily
prove that the pope’s assembly is not the true church. They have corrupted
that doctrine of faith in various ways; they have connected the saints to
Christ in His office of mediator; they have added new sacraments to the
two that Christ ins tuted; and those that Christ did ins tute they have
mu lated, corrupted, and transformed into ac ons that are categorically
different.
(4) If subjec on to the Roman pope is a necessary requirement for
someone to be a member of the church, what will become of the Old
Testament church? What will become of the church triumphant in heaven?
In fact, what will become of the church that was gathered at the me of
Christ and of the apostles, since at that me not even the tle “Roman
pon ff” was known on earth? The churches of Asia at the me of Victor,
the churches of Africa at the me of Augus ne, and the churches of the
Angles before the monk Augus ne arrived in Britain were not included
under the governance of the pope. According to the canon of Nicaea, “the
governance of the bishop of Rome did not extend beyond the churches of
Rome’s suburbs” (Rufinus, bk. 1, ch. 5). Now, shall we cut off from the unity
of the Body so many and such great churches of Africa, Asia, Britain, etc.?
Bellarmine himself admits (De pon f. Roman., bk. 4, ch. 14) that at the
me of the Council of Constance there was uncertainty and doubt as to
who the true pope was. He says: “At that me there were three who
wanted to be considered pon ff: Gregory XII, John XXIII, and Benedict XIII.
One could not easily decide which of these was the true and lawful pon ff,
because each had very learned supporters.” If subjec on to the pope,
therefore, is an essen al requirement for someone to be a member of the
church—in fact, if that subjec on is necessary for salva on, as defined in
[Ius canonicum,] Extra., [ tle] De majoritate, ch. Unam sanctam—then
woe to those poor Chris ans who were living at that me!
(5) That subjec on to the Roman pon ff (which, though it holds last
place in this defini on, nevertheless was first in Bellarmine’s inten on) is
posited too generally, for the ques on remains whether that subjec on is
necessary only in spiritual ma ers or in temporal ma ers too; also,
whether the requirement is for an absolute subjec on or a limited and
restricted one. Bellarmine undoubtedly requires an all-inclusive and
absolute subjec on in both spiritual and temporal ma ers. Yet he should
review his own words, De pon f. Roman., bk. 4, ch. 2: “The second opinion
is that the pope, even as pope, can be a here c and can teach heresy if he
ever were to define something without a general council. This has actually
happened in the past. This opinion is followed by Nilus and some members
of the faculty at Paris, such as Gerson, Almain, Alphonsus de Castro, and
Pope Hadrian VI.” In regard to this opinion he later adds his own
determina on “that this is not properly here cal, because the church s ll
tolerates those who follow it.” Those who make such a claim, however, will
never approve an absolute subjec on in spiritual ma ers. The vast
majority of Catholics disapprove of the absolute governance of the pope in
temporal ma ers, as is evident from the wri ngs of Barclay and the
theologians of the University of Paris. Much less will they acknowledge an
all-embracing and absolute subjec on.
(6) If the words of the defini on are to be viewed according to
Bellarmine’s intent, then all the things signified by the words will be
inverted and contrary to the Scriptures. He understands “Chris an faith” as
the wri en and unwri en Word, tradi ons, councils, papal decrees, etc. He
understands “sacraments” as those seven that the Roman church counts as
sacraments. He understands “pastors” to mean those ordained by bishops
with a certain, prescribed ritual and with the sworn renuncia on of
marriage, etc. All these, however, are opposed to the true meanings of the
words as used in Scripture. They are opposed, I say, to the true doctrine of
Christ, to the true Sacraments, and to the true pastors.

Bellarmine’s definition omits the true members of the church

§ 53. It is fair and right to view these and similar things as lacking in
Bellarmine’s defini on. Let us ignore all these, however, and here press
home this one point: in this defini on he omits those who most especially
belong to the church, namely, those who are endowed with the internal
gi s and virtues of the Holy Spirit. Bellarmine does not deny this, for he
writes:
There is this significant point between our opinion and all others: all others require internal
virtues to establish someone within the church, and in so doing they make the church
invisible. We believe that all the virtues are found in the church: faith, hope, love, and the
rest. Yet for someone in any way to be called a part of the true church about which Scripture
speaks, we do not think that any internal virtue is required but only the external profession
of faith and communion of the sacraments, which is received by the sensa on itself.

We see, then, what sort of church Bellarmine is establishing. With his

words he indeed professes that there are internal virtues in the church. Yet
for someone to be a true member of the church about which Scripture
speaks, he denies that those virtues are required, because even without
them anyone can be a member of the church, provided he unite himself to
the church by profession of faith, the use of the sacraments, and
subjec on to the pope. We have shown earlier, however—and the ma er
itself demonstrates clearly—that those wonderful praises and illustrious
promises that are in Scripture regarding the church belong only to the
good and to the elect who have been endowed with internal virtues.
Furthermore, on the basis of what he adds later from Augus ne for the
sake of illustra on, it is very obvious that in Bellarmine’s defini on the
larger por on of the church is omi ed—those who belong to the church
most especially. Augus ne, Breviculus colla onis, collat. 3, says:
 The church is a living Body in which there is a soul and body. The soul is the internal gi s of
the Holy Spirit: faith, hope, love, etc. The body is the external profession of faith and
par cipa on in the Sacraments. From this it happens that some are of the soul and body of
the church, and hence they are united with Christ the Head internally and externally. Such
people are of the church most perfectly, for they are living members in the Body, so to
speak, though some among them share in its life more and some, less, etc. Again, there are
some who are of the soul but not of the body, such as catechumens and the
excommunicated, if they have faith and love, which is possible. Finally, there are some who
are of the body but not of the soul, such as those who have no inner virtue yet because of
some hope or fear profess the faith and par cipate in the Sacraments under the rule. These
are like hair and nails and bad humors in the human body.

Bellarmine quotes all this very accurately from Augus ne, but they are all
strongly opposed to his opinion. You see, if the church is a living Body in
which there are soul and body—that is, it is not only the external
profession of faith and use of the Sacraments but also the internal gi s of
the Spirit—then the church certainly is not “an assembly of people as
visible and palpable as the assembly of the Roman people or the kingdom
of France or the republic of Venice,” something that Bellarmine declares in
the very same words in the paragraph immediately preceding. If Augus ne
were to say that the church is only a body but not a soul, then that
comparison would be possible. A er all, for someone to be a ci zen of
Rome, a subject of the kingdom of France, or a member of the republic of
Venice, an external recogni on of Roman, French, or Vene an dominion
and the observa on of their laws are sufficient. But in a true member of
the true church, the requirements are not only an external profession of
faith and external use of the Sacraments but also an internal renewal
through the Holy Spirit. The church is not body alone but also soul; that is,
it is a living, soul-endowed Body. Consequently, for someone to belong
truly to the Body of the church, the Holy Spirit must govern him, lead him,
and “animate” him, so to speak.
Bellarmine’s defini on, however, passes over those who are most
perfectly of the church, who are of the soul and body of the church, who
are living members in this Body, that is, those who have been endowed
with the internal gi s of the Holy Spirit. In fact, it also completely excludes
some of those who belong to the soul of the church, such as catechumens
and the excommunicated who have true faith. On the other hand, it
includes those who belong only to the body of the church, who are like
hair or nails on the human body, that is, those who profess their faith only
outwardly without any inner renewal. Bellarmine does not disguise this, for
he adds in clear words: “Our defini on includes only” (Note the exclusive!)
“this last mode of being in the church.” This, however, is the same as if
someone wished to define a person on the basis of his hair and nails, or his
bad humors and excrements, or as if someone who intended to define
wine defined only the dregs or who intended to define a ship named only
its bilge and ballast.
A defini on is u erly defec ve if it is made in such a way that it
excludes anything at all that most especially belongs to the defini on.
Bellarmine’s defini on excludes those who especially belong to the church,
namely, catechumens and the excommunicated who have true faith, and
who, he admits, belong to the soul of the church. On the other hand, it
includes those who belong to the church in the lowest manner, namely,
those who because of some temporal hope or fear profess faith, people
who are only of the body but not of the soul of the church. In fact, they are
like nails and bad humors in the human body. When Bellarmine declares
that with his defini on he includes them alone, he admits that he has
defined the church as her excrement and bad humors.
We, too, concede that evil people belong to the visible church or to the
external associa on of the church. But we add clearly that they are not
true and living members of the invisible church, the church in its proper
sense. In this respect our posi on is totally different than Bellarmine’s, as
will appear more clearly in our disputa on on the visible and invisible
church [below, §§ 69–85].
Section I: Whether the Unbaptized Belong to the
Church
§ 54. If we have first taken careful note of these ma ers, we can easily
understand who belongs to the church. Bellarmine goes from his general
defini on to specific parts and tries to prove that the following are
excluded from the catholic church: (1) The unbap zed (De eccles., bk. 3, ch.
3). (2) Here cs and apostates (ch. 4). (3) Schisma cs (ch. 5). (4) The
excommunicated (ch. 6). (5) He tries to prove, on the other hand, that not
only the predes ned belong to it but also the wicked and reprobate (ch. 7);
also the unperfected (ch. 8), great sinners (ch. 9), and the secretly faithless
(ch. 10). We must take a brief look at all of these.
As regards the unbap zed, there are two kinds. Some are total strangers
to the Chris an religion. They follow the supers ons of the heathen and
have rejected Chris an Bap sm. To these also belong infants born in
heathendom. The ques on here, however, is not about these people, for
both sides admit that they are outside the church because the apostle calls
them “those outside” (1 Cor. 5:12). Other people, on the other hand, have
not received the sacrament of Bap sm, and yet they have been endowed
with an inner, true faith, such as the thief on the cross, catechumens,
martyrs carried off to punishment before receiving Bap sm, infants born of
Chris an parents and offered up to Christ by the prayers of their parents
and of the church, etc.
Also, there are two categories of catechumens, as Rabanus teaches, De
ins t. cleric., bk. 1: “One [category] is of those who hear sermons and want
to become Chris ans but have not yet asked for Bap sm. They are called
listeners or hearers. The other is of those who ask for Bap sm. They are
called the askers [competentes] or the elect.” (See also Augustine, Confess.,
bk. 9, ch. 6; De ide et operibus, ch. 6; Sermon 116 de temp., which is
addressed to the askers [ad competentes]; Jerome, Le er ad Pammach.;
etc.) Here Bellarmine is dealing only with catechumens, and he says they
are not in the church. We, on the other hand, say that catechumens and all
others endowed with true, internal faith are in the church, even if they
have not yet actually received Bap sm.
 Here are the stronger arguments in favor of our posi on. (I) There is no
salva on outside the church. (This axiom is constantly in the mouth of our
adversaries.) But if catechumens are endowed with true faith, they share in
salva on even if they depart this life without Bap sm. Therefore
catechumens endowed with true, internal faith are not yet outside the
church.
Bellarmine responds: “The author of the book De eccles. dogma bus,
ch. 74, states that catechumens are not saved.” Meanwhile, he admits that
“this opinion is too harsh,” because Ambrose (Orat. de obitu Valen niani)
declares clearly: “Catechumens can be saved,” to whose number
Valen nian belonged when he died. Why, then, did he bring up that
author? Surely everywhere Scripture connects true faith and salva on with
a perpetual link, as we have shown in greater detail elsewhere, namely, in
the ques on about unbap zed infants [On Holy Bap sm, Commonplace
XXIII, §§ 211–17, 233–43].
Second, Bellarmine quotes the response of Melchior Cano: “Although
catechumens are not of the church that is properly called ‘Chris an,’
nevertheless they do belong to the church that embraces all the faithful
from Abel un l the end of the world. Catechumens, therefore, can be
saved.” But we, too, say this very thing, namely, that believing
catechumens do belong to the church catholic, which includes all those
who are saved from Abel un l the end of the world. We disagree with
Cano, however, in this respect: he denies that this is the Chris an church.
A er all, even the church of the Old Testament, if we would look at the
ma er itself, was the Chris an church because its Head was Christ, just as
in the New Testament church; because the devout of the Old Testament
also believed in Christ, the Christ who was to come. Consequently,
Bellarmine correctly draws this conclusion against Cano: “If catechumens
do not belong to the Chris an church, they belong to no church at all
because there is no other true church besides the Chris an church.”
So what response does Bellarmine finally make? He responds:
“Catechumens are in the church, if not in fact, then in intent and desire.
This is enough for their salva on.” Yet it is certain that whoever are saved
belong to the church not only in intent and poten al but also in fact and
actuality, for none are saved unless they are first actually called out of the
world into the church. None are saved unless they are first gra ed onto
Christ by faith. Yet, through such a call, one actually does pass into the
church, and whoever by faith becomes a member of Christ is actually in the
church. Just as no one could be saved in the flood unless he actually was in
Noah’s ark, so also no one can be saved unless he actually is of the church.
No doubt, very many who were overwhelmed by the waters of the flood
seriously wished and desired to be in the ark; but this desire and intent
was of li le advantage to them. Bellarmine responds: “Comparisons do not
fit in all respects.” Yet they ought to fit in that point in which the
comparison is established. But now, anyone can see that the church in the
apostle’s passage [cf. 2 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 11:7] and in the statements of the
devout ancients is compared in this very point to Noah’s ark: that no one is
saved outside the church, just as no one was kept unharmed from the
waters of the flood outside the ark. This very point will become more clear
from other arguments we intend to bring up to confirm our belief.
(II) So, then, we draw a conclusion in this way: All who are members of
Christ are members of the church. The reason is obvious: The church is the
mys cal Body whose Head is Christ; therefore whoever are members
under Christ, the Head of the church, are also members in the mys cal
Body of Christ. Faithful catechumens are members of Christ because
Scripture in many places says that faith gra s us to Christ as branches to
the vine and unites us most closely to Christ (John 15:5; Rom. 6:5; Gal.
2:20; etc.). Bellarmine cannot deny this, because he declares in his
preceding chapter that those who have been endowed with the internal
gi s of the Holy Spirit—faith, hope, and love—are united with Christ the
Head inwardly. Therefore catechumens with faith are members of the
church. One cannot think that catechumens with faith are members of
Christ only by intent and poten al, because no member lives, is animated,
and is moved unless it actually and in fact is joined with the head and
draws feeling and mo on from it. No branch draws life-giving sap and
produces fruit without actually and in fact being on the vine. But now,
faithful catechumens are ruled and given life by the Holy Spirit, and they
produce the fruits of good works. Therefore they actually and in fact are
members of Christ, on whom they actually and in fact are gra ed like
branches onto the vine.
(III) Those who are the children of God are also the children of the
church. We acknowledge in our spiritual regenera on God as our Father
and the church as our mother. Consequently, the apostle declares in Gal.
4:26: “The Jerusalem above is free, and she is the mother of us all,”
namely, of those who are true believers. But now, faithful catechumens are
children of God, since Scripture everywhere a ributes adop on to faith
(John 1:12; Gal. 3:26; etc.). Therefore faithful catechumens are also the
children of the church.
(IV) The forgiveness of sins and the endowment of the Holy Spirit do not
take place except in those who are in and of the church. But now, faithful
catechumens have the remission of sins and the gi of the Holy Spirit;
otherwise they cannot be saved. Therefore faithful catechumens are in and
of the church. You see, here Bellarmine is making indiscriminate use of
these terms, as is obvious to anyone who reads this third chapter.
(V) Unbap zed infants born in the church, who are offered up to Christ
by the prayers of their parents and of the church, are children of God,
members of the church, and heirs of salva on, as we have shown in our
trea se On Bap sm [Commonplace XXIII, §§ 211–17, 233–43]. But now,
the condi on of believing catechumens is no lower than the condi on of
those unbap zed infants, because their faith reveals itself through external
confession and the external fruits of good works, something we cannot say
about the faith of infants. Therefore we must consider believing
catechumens also as children of God, members of the church, and heirs of
salva on.
(VI) In Luke 23:43 Christ said to the thief who had been converted but
who had not yet been bap zed: “Today you will be with Me in paradise.”
But now, no one can be with Christ in paradise unless he has first been a
member of the true church, because access to the church triumphant lies
open only from the church militant. Therefore the converted thief was a
true believer and a true member of the church even before Bap sm.
(VII) Many martyrs were carried off to their punishments before
receiving Bap sm. What? Shall we deny that they were members of the
church? But shall we in this way pluck those roses from the garden of the
church and also exclude them from the heavenly paradise? The ancients
who ba le with such effort for the necessity of Bap sm a ributed to the
martyrs a bap sm of blood, lest they be forced to exclude them from the
church and from salva on.
 (VIII) The sayings of the ancients belong here. Cyprian, Letter 73 ad
Jubajanum: “They should know, first, that those catechumens have a
complete faith and” (Note this!) “a unity with the church; that they are
going out to do ba le with the devil from their divine camp with a full and
genuine knowledge of God the Father and the Holy Spirit. Second, they
should know that the catechumens are not deprived of the sacrament of
Bap sm. The Lord declares in the Gospel that those who are bap zed with
the greatest and most glorious sacrament of blood are perfected, having
been bap zed with blood and sanc fied with suffering, and are obtaining
the grace of the divine promise.”
Augustine, De bapt. contra Donat., bk. 4, ch. 21: “I do not hesitate to
place a catholic catechumen burning with divine love ahead of a bap zed
here c, but even within the catholic church herself we place a good
catechumen ahead of a wicked bap zed person.” Ibid.: “We are not doing
an injus ce to the sacrament of Bap sm when we acknowledge that some
catechumen is more faithful and be er than a bap zed person, etc. The
centurion Cornelius, though not yet bap zed, is be er than the bap zed
Simon Magus. The former was filled with the Holy Spirit before his
Bap sm, while the la er was puffed up by an unclean spirit a er his
Bap sm.” Tractate 4 on John: “In the church there were to be some
catechumens of higher grace. Some mes you happen to see a catechumen
who abstains from all sexual rela ons, does good in the world, renounces
all that he had owned, and distributes that to the poor. And he is a
catechumen, perhaps also instructed in saving doctrine beyond many of
the faithful.” But since Augus ne denies salva on to such a catechumen
unless he comes to Bap sm, this must be understood with regard to a
contempt of Bap sm. If it were taken simply as the lack of Bap sm in a
case of necessity, Augus ne would be opposing Scripture, the truth,
himself, and even Bellarmine. Augus ne writes, Contra Donatist., bk. 4, ch.
22: “I find that one can fulfill not just suffering for the name of Christ, that
thing which he lacked in Bap sm, but also faith and conversion of the
heart, if by chance he cannot be helped by the celebra on of the mystery
of Bap sm due to dire circumstances.” And later: “For what it is worth,
even without the visible sacrament of Bap sm, as the apostle says, the
heart believes unto righteousness and the mouth confesses unto salva on.
This was declared in the case of the thief. But it is fulfilled invisibly when
the mystery of Bap sm is excluded not by a contempt for religion but by a
me of necessity.” Also, here Bellarmine concedes that “catechumens can
believe and be saved if they die in that state.”

Bellarmine’s antithesis: that all the unbaptized are excluded

from the church
§ 55. Let us see what arguments Bellarmine uses to exclude all the
unbap zed from the church. He says: “It is certain that catechumens are
not in the church actually and properly but only poten ally, just as a man
[homo] who has been conceived but is not yet formed and is not called a
man except poten ally. We read in Acts 2[:41]: ‘So those who received his
word were bap zed, and there were added that day about three thousand
souls.’ ”
We respond. (1) Believing catechumens either are actually in the church
or they are not saved. As we have shown before, there is no third
alterna ve, because outside the church it is impossible for there to be any
gra ing onto Christ, the Head of the church, any bestowal of the Holy
Spirit, and any eternal salva on. Therefore, if Bellarmine concedes that
believing catechumens are saved, he must also concede that they are
actually in the church, not merely poten ally.
(2) Believing catechumens are born of God through the Word of truth
and through faith in Christ. It is not correct, therefore, to compare them to
an embryo that is not yet formed and born. The former is clear since not
only is the sacrament of Bap sm called the “washing of regenera on”
(Titus 3:5), but the Word, too, is the “incorrup ble seed” by which
believers are “reborn” (1 Pet. 1:23; James 1:18); also, those who receive
Christ by true faith “are born of God” (John 1:12–13). Therefore we invert
the comparison. Just as an infant who is formed and born is actually a
human being [homo], so believing catechumens are actually reborn of God
and consequently are also actually in the church.
(3) The church is the assembly of people who have been called forth,
namely, from the filth of the world to the knowledge and salva on of
Christ, from darkness to light, from the kingdom of the devil to the
kingdom of the heavens. Therefore they are also actually in the church.
(4) Those who are added to the church are of two kinds. Some receive
the Word in true faith and also receive the sacrament of Bap sm at one
and the same me. Others, a er receiving the Word by faith, are not
bap zed either because they are forced by necessity, as was the thief on
the cross; or they are carried off to their punishment, as martyrs before
receiving Bap sm, etc.; or they are led by their own free will, as
catechumens whose Bap sm in the early church would be postponed un l
Easter. For example, Ambrose (according to Socrates, bk. 4, ch. 25) was not
yet bap zed when the people of Milan called him to be their bishop.
Valen nian was snatched away before being bap zed, according to
Ambrose in his Ora o de obitu [Valen niani]. Those who, according to Luke
in Acts 2:41, were added to the church at Jerusalem belong to the first
group, for it is said clearly that “they received his word and were bap zed.”
Therefore the predicate “were added” should be referred to both
preceding parts, namely, to the recep on of the apostle’s word by true
faith and to the acceptance of Bap sm through which faith was sealed in
their hearts and that recep on into the assembly of the church was
confirmed.
(5) As for those who are endowed with true internal faith but do not
immediately receive the sacrament of Bap sm, if they are kept from the
Sacrament either for some me or un l the end of life and this is not
because of any contempt for that sacrament, we should not say that they
are outside the church. They hear the Word of God, they believe in Christ,
they confess Him with their mouth, they show due reverence to the
ministry, and some of them even seal their confession with blood. Hence
no one can deny that they are in the church.
(6) We must also note this dis nc on: the effect of Bap sm should be
viewed differently in infants and in believing adults. With respect to
bap zed infants, Bap sm is the one ordinary means of regenera on and
the only door to the church. In believing adults, however, Bap sm is not
the first thing that works regenera on; they have already been made
partakers of regenera on through the Word and faith. Rather, it seals and
confirms regenera on and increases in them the gi s of the Holy Spirit.
 (7) If Bellarmine counters, saying that “believing catechumens are not
joined to the church by the fellowship of the sacraments and thus should
not be said to be in the church,” we respond: Those parts of Bellarmine’s
defini on, that “the church is the assembly of people who are bound
together by the profession of the same Chris an faith and by communion
in the same sacraments,” must be taken either together or separately. If
separately, one cannot conclude that believing catechumens are not in the
church on the basis of a lack of communion in the Sacraments, for it is
enough that they are united with her by the confession of faith. If those
parts are to be taken together, one will be able to infer by the same logic
that bap zed infants are not in the church because their age does not
allow them to speak the profession of faith. If you say that “a profession of
faith through sponsors and through the actual recep on of the Sacrament
is enough for them to be said to be in the church,” it will be easy to
respond: A desire and longing for Bap sm also is enough for believing
catechumens to be joined to the church by the communion of the
Sacraments, and thus one can say that they are in the church.
(8) Finally, the passage of the apostle [Acts 2:41] is speaking about the
par cular church that was at Jerusalem at that me, to which those three
thousand people gave their names by profession of faith and recep on of
Bap sm. Here, however, we are discussing the church catholic, which is the
gathering of the saints. By Bap sm we are received into a par cular
church, but we must not infer from this that there is no other means by
which we may be received into the church. You see, there is s ll another,
namely, profession of faith, which is sealed by the sacrament of Bap sm.
By no means should one infer from this that no one belongs to the church
catholic unless he be moistened by the sacrament of Bap sm. The saints of
the Old Testament belong to the church catholic even though they did not
have the sacrament of Bap sm. Lest anyone say that they had circumcision
instead of Bap sm, one must note that very many who died before they
were circumcised were nonetheless true members of the church catholic
and entered into the inheritance of eternal life, as we have shown
elsewhere with immovable arguments [On Circumcision and the Paschal
Lamb, Commonplace XXII, § 15].

Arguments from ecclesiastical writers

 § 56. The arguments that Bellarmine brings out from ecclesias cal
writers have an easy explana on. (I) “The Council of Florence (Instruct.
Armenorum) teaches that people become members of Christ and of the
Body of the church when they are bap zed.” We respond. We admit that
through Bap sm people become members of Christ and of the church, but
from this one cannot and should not infer that no one is a member of
Christ and of the church unless he is bap zed. A er all, there s ll remains
another medium through which faith is kindled in the hearts of people, by
which they become members of Christ and of the church. That medium is
the preaching of the Word. Thus Cornelius (Acts 10:1) was a member of
Christ and of the church before receiving Bap sm, because he was a
partaker of the Holy Spirit, who is given only to members of Christ and of
the church. Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 10:17 that those who “partake of one”
sacramental “bread” are members “of one” mys cal “Body.” In 1 Cor.
12:13 he says that we “are made to drink into one Spirit,” that is, those
who drink from the same sacramental cup are one mys cal and spiritual
Body. Now, can it be inferred from this that those who do not eat of the
sacramental bread nor drink from the cup of the Eucharist are completely
excluded from that unity of the mys cal Body? By this logic, however, all
bap zed infants would through both parts be excluded from the fellowship
of Christ and of the church, and through the second part, in the Papist
church, all the laity would be excluded from this communion. Briefly, in
infants, Bap sm is the means through which they become members of
Christ and of the church. In adults, [Bap sm] is the sign and seal of our
adop on through Christ and recep on into the church. This must be taken
to refer to those who receive Bap sm with true faith, because Simon
Magus was bap zed but nevertheless was a member neither of Christ nor
of the church catholic.
(II) “Nazianzen (Orat. de sancto bapt.) says that a catechumen stands in
the ves bule of piety and s ll cannot be called believing unless he first
enter through Bap sm.” We respond. This should be taken to refer to a
visible and par cular church to which catechumens add themselves. That
is, by a profession of faith they confirm that they have been truly added, by
the public tes mony of having received Bap sm. Nevertheless, if they have
been endowed with a true internal faith, God considers them members of
the church catholic. No one can deny this if he pays a en on to the
preceding reasons for our posi on. Cornelius in Acts 10:2 was “a devout
man who feared God” even before he was bap zed. Surely he had gone
past the ves bule of piety and was a believer, for “he came to works by
faith, not to faith by works,” as Bede comments on this passage. If that
statement is taken simply and absolutely, in which Nazianzen denies that
catechumens can be called believers unless they enter through Bap sm,
then it conflicts with Bellarmine himself, who in this very chapter concedes
that “catechumens are believers and are saved if they die in that state.” He
also teaches in the preceding chapter that “catechumens endowed with
the internal gi s of the Holy Spirit belong to the soul of the church.” How,
then, can it be said of them that they have no faith and that they have not
yet entered the church? Nazianzen is speaking about various ranks of the
visible church, which had been used at that me: some were catechumens,
some perfect Chris ans, some penitents, some praying people, some
demon-possessed, etc. In this respect one can say that catechumens are in
the ves bule of the church.
(III) “Chrysostom (Homily 24 on John) says that a catechumen is foreign
to a believer and has nothing in common, neither ci zenship nor table,
with him.” We respond. According to the external polity of a visible and
par cular church, catechumens had been separated from the others, the
bap zed faithful. Yet if they were endowed with an internal, living faith,
they could not be excluded from a spiritual communion with Christ. Hence
they, too, were believers and were members of the church catholic. If a
catechumen is completely foreign to a believer, why does Bellarmine
himself admit that he has faith and can be saved? Catechumens were not
allowed to come to the Lord’s table unless they were first moistened by the
sacrament of Bap sm, just as men were not allowed to eat the paschal
lamb in the Old Testament unless they had been circumcised (Exod.
12:44). But one cannot infer from this that they were completely excluded
from spiritual fellowship with Christ, which is sealed and confirmed
through the use of the Holy Supper. Otherwise they could not have been
saved, though Bellarmine does concede salva on to them.
(IV) “Tertullian (De praescript.) reproaches the here cs because they do
not dis nguish catechumens from the faithful.” We respond. The word
“faithful” [fideles] is ambiguous, for it can be taken to mean either those
who are endowed with true, internal faith (and in this sense no one can
deny that catechumens belong to those of whom we are speaking here), or
it can be taken specifically to mean those who have professed their faith by
means of the recep on of Bap sm as a public tes mony. In this la er
sense the wri ngs of the ancients correctly dis nguish catechumens from
the faithful, and Tertullian rightly censures here cs who reject this
dis nc on. But if Bellarmine restricts the word “faithful” simply from
catechumens, then let him delete the words of his immediately preceding
paragraph: “Catechumens are faithful and can be saved if they die in that
state.” We should also note that Tertullian reproaches in here cs their
confusion not so much of words as of things, namely, that they admi ed to
Bap sm catechumens who were not yet sufficiently instructed in the
ar cles of faith, etc.
(V) “Cyril (on John, bk. 12) teaches that catechumens are to Chris ans
what the uncircumcised were to the Jews, who, because of that, could not
eat the Passover lamb.” We respond. We embrace this gladly, for we do not
admit catechumens to the use of the Holy Supper before they are bap zed.
Meanwhile, in the Old Testament many of the uncircumcised were
believers and were members of the true church, as we learn from the
examples of those who were converted from heathenism to the true God
of Israel. In the same way, believing catechumens even before receiving
Bap sm and using the Holy Supper are members of the true church and
can be saved if they die in that state.
(VI) “Augus ne (tractate 4 on John) makes a dis nc on between
catechumens and the faithful.” We respond. One can pass judgment about
this from the preceding. In the external associa on of the church,
catechumens were dis nguished from the faithful in that sense which we
explained a li le earlier. Yet one cannot simply deny the tle “faithful” to
catechumens. As a result, Augus ne in the same place prefers some
catechumens to those who, in the external polity of the church, come with
the tle “faithful” and are dis nguished from catechumens.

Bellarmine’s rational argument against catechumens

§ 57. Finally, Bellarmine adds the argument: “Catechumens do not have
a right to any of the sacraments nor to the other things that are common
to the whole church. Therefore they are not actually and properly of the
church.”
We respond. (1) That catechumens have no right to any sacraments is
obviously false. If they have been sufficiently instructed in the Chris an
religion, they have the right to Bap sm, the first of the New Testament
Sacraments. And they are not simply and absolutely excluded from the
sacrament of the Eucharist, because they also have a mediate right to
approach it, namely, if they are first bap zed.
(2) It is also false to say that catechumens have no right to the other
things that are common to the whole church, whether this is understood
as the visible church or the invisible and catholic church. The hearing of the
Word is a common good of the whole visible church. We cannot and
should not exclude catechumens from that. The forgiveness of sins, the
giving of the Holy Spirit, salva on, and eternal life are good things of the
whole church catholic; that is, they are common to all the truly devout and
true believers. Faithful catechumens are not excluded from such benefits,
for as Bellarmine says, “They are saved if they die in that state.” Yet they
could not be saved if they did not share in the forgiveness of sins and in the
Holy Spirit and if they had no right to the good things that are proper to
the church catholic.
(3) Many of the catechumens are martyrs who, according to the
ancients, are bap zed with their own blood. If, then, catechumens have no
right to those things that are common to the whole church, then those
martyrs will have to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven.
(4) An end presupposes means leading to that end. Salva on or the
kingdom of heaven is the end. The means leading to the kingdom of
heaven are the good things proper to the church. These are both external,
namely, the preaching of the Word and the administra on of the
Sacraments, and internal, namely, the illumina on of the Holy Spirit,
regenera on, jus fica on, forgiveness of sins, etc. But now, Bellarmine
concedes to catechumens the end, namely, salva on or the kingdom of
heaven. Therefore he must also concede to them the right to those means
that lead to the end: the internal as well as the external goods of the
church.
Section II: Whether Heretics Belong to the
Church
§ 58. The Papist writer Thomas Stapleton (Princ. fid. doctrinal. demonst.,
part 1, ch. 13, p. 14) writes: “It is Luther’s opinion that the true church is
called here cal.” Page 15: “Therefore it is Luther’s opinion that here cs of
all mes who in some way have been suppor ve of his dogmas were the
true church.” We respond. (1) Although there are here cs in the church,
they nevertheless are not of the church. (2) It is one thing to be a here c; it
is another thing to be considered a here c by the Papists.
Alphonsus de Castro, also a Papist writer, claims (De justa haeret. punit.,
bk. 2, ch. 24) that here cs are parts and members of the church, for this is
how he writes: “Indeed, I do admit and cannot deny in my own judgment
that a here c is part of the church and a member of her and is not
completely separate from her. You see, though he does not have faith, he
s ll has the bap smal character. As long as that endures, he will always be
a member of the church.” Bellarmine argues against him (ch. 4) and sets
against him the following statements of Scripture: 1 Tim. 1:19: “Some
have made shipwreck concerning faith.” That is, one part of the ship of the
church has been wrecked, and they have fallen from it into the sea. Titus
3:10–11: “A man who is a here c, a er the first and second admoni on,
avoid, knowing that such a one is subverted and sins, being condemned by
his own judgment.” 1 John 2:19: “They went out from us, but they were
not of us. For if they had been of us, they would have remained with us.”
He also cites the Council of Nicaea and the Lateran Council, as well as some
statements of the fathers, and he responds to contrary arguments.
§ 59. For our part, this is what we say about the ma er: (I) One must
dis nguish between those who are here cs in the judgment of the Roman
church such as it is today (that is, the Papist church) and those who are
here cs really and in God’s judgment. The pon ff declares that those are
here cs who, having bid farewell to human tradi ons, embrace only the
wri en Word of God and seek every refuge of righteousness and salva on
in one Christ, to whom they cling by faith. On these he pronounced his
anathema in the Council of Trent and excluded them from the Roman
Catholic church. However, they have not for that reason been excluded
from the true church catholic, which includes within its embrace all the
truly faithful who have lived from the beginning of the world and will live
to its end, whose faith was, is, and will be the same.
(II) One must dis nguish between those who secretly foster heresy and
those who are manifest here cs, that is, those who stubbornly defend
dogmas that conflict with the founda on of faith. Some make a secession
from the church, and some are separated from her through
excommunica on by a legi mate judgment of the church. (As far as we are
concerned, Bellarmine cannot prove his asser on that “secret here cs
ought to be called not so much here cs as people who err.” Thomas and
Occam define a here c more accurately, according to Alphonsus de Castro,
Adv. haeres., bk. 1, ch. 6: “A here c is anyone who has departed from the
catholic faith in any way.”)
(III) Augus ne proves (De bapt., bk. 3, ch. 19) that secret here cs,
before they are separated from the church because of their obs nate
stubbornness, are s ll in the church (that is, the visible church). The
parable of the tares (Matt. 13:25) teaches the same thing, as does also the
clear declara on of the apostle in 1 Cor. 11:19: “There must be heresies
among you.” And experience demonstrates that some who nurture heresy
in their hearts confess with their mouths the same faith and use the same
Sacraments as does the church. Consequently, there s ll is a place for them
in the visible church, though neither group belongs to the church catholic,
which is the gathering of the saints. Thus the English College of Rheims
(Annot. on 2 Timothy 2) writes against Bellarmine: “Here cs who persist
in the external fellowship of the sacraments and in the confession are
separated from the church in the sight of God and really and properly are
driven from the limits of God’s house.” The defini on of the church that
Bellarmine has proposed fits many here cs. He defines the church as “the
assembly of people who are bound together by the profession of the same
Chris an faith and communion in the same sacraments under the rule of
the Roman pon ff.” Yet in this assembly there are some who foster heresy
and are tolerated for a while, either un l they separate themselves or un l
they are expelled through excommunica on. Bellarmine admits this very
thing with clear words in ch. 10 of this book, where he declares: “By an
external profession of faith here cs are in the church before they leave.”
He also cites a statement of Augustine, Epist. Joh., treatise 3: “There are
many within who have not gone out but who nevertheless belong to the
An christ.” Therefore one cannot simply state that here cs are outside the
church.
(IV) In the preceding third chapter, Bellarmine says, “People become
part of the body of the church when they are bap zed.” But there are
here cs in the assembly of the bap zed. Therefore some here cs do
belong to the body of the church, that is, of the visible church.
(V) Finally, some mes stubborn here cs retain something of the church,
namely, the sacrament of Bap sm and some uncorrupted part of the
Word. Thus even through a here cal and corrupt ministry sons and
daughters are bego en for God (Ezek. 16:20; 23:37). There we must learn
to dis nguish carefully between the precious and the worthless, the gold
and the dross, the divine and the human. The conversion of people
through the Word and their regenera on through Bap sm in an assembly
of here cs must not be a ributed to the leaven of here cal opinions.
Rather, it must be a ributed to the Word that is read aloud to their
listeners from the books of the Bible and to Bap sm, which is effec ve
even if here cs administer it, provided they observe the form of ins tu on
and think correctly about the substan als of this sacrament. Consequently,
Augus ne (De bapt., bk. 3, ch. 19) argues that one can say that “here cs
are s ll in some way in the church, even a er they have le it, because of
the administra on of the Sacraments, because even they administer some
Sacraments truly.” The Papists declare that we are here cs, yet they do not
dare to deny that all who have been bap zed in our churches have been
bap zed correctly and according to Christ’s ins tu on. Thus they generally
do not rebap ze those who transfer from us to them (with the excep on of
some few examples in the Belgian persecu ons under Duke Alba, of which
the more prudent Papists do not approve). Therefore they leave at least
Bap sm to us. But now, as widely as that assembly of the bap zed extends,
so widely also extends the catholic church of the called, as we can prove
with invincible arguments. Here cs, therefore, are s ll in the church in a
certain respect.
Section III: Whether Schismatics Belong to the
Church
§ 60. In ch. 5, Bellarmine argues that “schisma cs are not in the church
nor of the church.” He claims: “Those are schisma cs who do not wish to
be under the Roman pon ff.”
We respond. (1) Those who depart from bishops who have fallen into
heresy are not schisma cs, because in this way they are going over to the
church catholic.
(2) The dominion of the Roman pon ff over the whole church cannot be
proved from the Holy Scriptures. Therefore those are not immediately
schisma cs who do not want to be under the Roman pope, especially a
pope who forces them into heresies and idolatry.
(3) At mes whole assemblies that adhere to their pastors are torn away
from each other. Nevertheless these do not immediately become
schisma c. Regarding Bishop Victor of Rome, Eusebius (Hist., bk. 5, ch. 23)
men ons that because of the controversy over the me of Easter he tried
to cut off all the parishes of Asia, along with the neighboring churches,
from the unity of fellowship, as if they were holding an alien belief. But the
bishops of Europe, such as Irenaeus and others, did not immediately judge
that either the Roman or Asian church was schisma c because they
con nued to maintain communion with Victor and did not abstain from
communion with the Asians. This they would not have done if they had
judged either one schisma c.
(4) Those who disagree with others regarding a difference in ritual or
because of a discrepancy over a doctrine that does not concern the
founda on of salva on should not immediately be considered schisma c,
provided they remain joined together by the unity of faith and love.
Glorianus, De schismate, p. 181: “In a simple schism that occurs without
any corrup on of doctrine, in such a way that it is doub ul who caused the
schism, before it is legi mately judged, there is no doubt that its adherents
belong to the church, as Gerson tes fies.”
(5) There are those who by inten onal effort turn away from the church
in order to s r up a schism, such as Marcion, who said (according to
Epiphanius, Haeres. 42): “I will tear apart your church and send a schism
upon it forever.” We gladly concede that they, as foes of unity, no longer
belong to the church, as Epiphanius adds about Marcion (loc. cit.): “He did
not tear apart the church, but himself and his adherents.”
** An quity has dis nguished here cs from schisma cs for precisely
this reason: heresy by erring overturns the founda on of faith and
salva on; schism is lacking in those things that surround an unharmed
founda on (Dr. Hunnius). **
Section IV: Whether the Excommunicated
Belong to the Church
§ 61. Bellarmine (ch. 6) tries to prove that the excommunicated are not
in the church from Matt. 18:17: “If he refuses to listen even to the church,
let him be to you as a Gen le and a tax collector,” and 1 Cor. 5:[2]: “Let
him who has done this work be removed from among you.” Verse 13: “Put
away the evil one from among yourselves.”
We respond. (1) One must dis nguish between a just and an unjust
excommunica on. If the excommunica on was unjust, it removes a person
from a par cular church, but such a one does not thereby cease being a
member of the church catholic. Luke 6:22: “Blessed are you when men
exclude you.” John 16:2: “They will put you out of the synagogues.”
Augus ne, De vera relig.: “Divine providence o en allows even good men
to be driven out of the Chris an gathering. They have borne this insult and
injury with pa ence for the sake of the peace of the church. They have not
been plo ng any novel es of heresy or schism. Such people will teach you
with what true affec on and with what great sincerity of love God must be
served.” Jerome, on Matthew 16: “Bishops and presbyters who do not
understand this passage take to themselves some of the Pharisees’ pride in
order to condemn the innocent or to think that they are acqui ng
themselves, the culpable. Nevertheless, before God not the judgment of
the priests but the life of the guilty is sought.” [Ius canonicum,] c[ausa] 24,
q. 3, ch. Comperimus: “He who excommunicates another unlawfully
condemns himself, not the other.” Lombard, Sent., bk. 4, dist. 18, § H: “The
sentence of the church harms those whom it has struck down according to
their merits, and they are outside in God’s sight. But the one who does not
deserve [the church’s sentence] is not harmed by the church’s sentence—
unless [God Himself] damns [him].” As a consequence, Origen writes:
“Whoever has gone away from the truth, from faith, from love, he thereby
departs from the camp of the church, even if the bishop’s voice does not
cast him out. On the other hand, if a person is sent out of the church by an
incorrect judgment and if he has not done anything to deserve to leave, he
is not harmed. You see, some mes a person who is sent out is s ll inside,
and a person who is outside seems to be kept within.”
 (2) None of us denies that excommunica on, whether it is just or unjust,
does separate a person from the fellowship of a visible and par cular
church. That is the only thing Bellarmine’s arguments prove, and they are
not at all opposed to us. You see, we are arguing here about the church
catholic, which is the gathering of the saints and truly faithful. No one is
separated from her by excommunica on without having first separated
himself from her by impenitence and unbelief.
(3) The statements of Christ and of the apostles speak about just
excommunica on and about separa on from a par cular church.
(4) Bellarmine is using an example of civil banishment that nevertheless
does not favor him. In civil banishment there are certain grades. Some are
exiled only for a certain me, and when that term has passed, they have
the right to return to their city. They do not lose all dealings that ci zens
have among themselves. Others are banished without hope of restora on.
Some of those s ll retain the right of ci zenship, but others lose it
completely. In the same way there are also certain grades in
excommunica on. Some are kept away from the holy mysteries only
temporarily. They are not immediately deprived of all dealings that exist
among the ci zens of the church.
(5) Bellarmine admits that those who are excommunicated unjustly can
be saved. Therefore they do not stop being members of the church. He
cries out that “it is enough for them for salva on that they are in the
church by virtue of their desire and intent.” But this reply is insufficient, for
no one is saved unless he is really and actually of the church, as we proved
earlier. The unjustly excommunicated are actually and really members of
Christ. Therefore they are actually and really members of the church.
Bellarmine says, “External communion properly makes a person a member
of the visible church.” Therefore he is tacitly conceding that he who is
unjustly excommunicated is a member of the invisible church by virtue of
his will and internal communica on. You see, if there is a twofold
communica on in the church, there will certainly also be a twofold way to
be in the church, namely, according to external communica on and
according to internal communica on. This is precisely what we mean
whenever we dis nguish between the visible and invisible church.
(6) Excommunica on can be compared with the ul mate punishment in
a certain manner, but not simply nor in every respect. Death is always the
ul mate punishment in the state; but excommunica on, that is, the minor
excommunica on, is not the ul mate judgment in the church. There is no
return from the punishment of death into this life, but there is a return
from excommunica on into the church.
(7) Bellarmine admits that “one who has been excommunicated unjustly
can be and remain God’s friend and can belong to the soul of the church,”
that is, if he retains the internal gi s: faith, hope, charity, etc. How, then,
can he claim in general that by excommunica on one is deprived of all
spiritual fellowship that people of the church have among themselves? Is
there not some spiritual fellowship among people of the church also in
those internal gi s? Bellarmine ought to have dis nguished between
internal and external communica on. Excommunica on separates one
from the external communica on. (Yet this is not true permanently. In fact,
Irenaeus and other European bishops con nued their fellowship with the
Asian bishops whom Victor had excommunicated. The Egyp an,
Pales nian, and African bishops also did this, according to Eusebius, Hist.
eccl., bk. 5, ch. 24.). But it separates no one from the internal communion
of the church unless he has first separated himself.
(8) Bellarmine admits that “excommunica on does not separate a
person from the number of those who will be saved, but from the visible
church.” He is really admi ng, therefore, that excommunica on does not
separate one from the catholic and invisible church, outside of which no
one will be saved and within which are all who will be saved. That is, he is
really approving our dis nc on between the visible and invisible church.
(9) In the preceding ch. 5, penul mate §, Bellarmine writes: “The church
triumphant is united—in fact, is one—with the church militant.
Consequently, no one can be separated from the one without being
separated from the other.” From this we draw the following conclusion:
those who are unjustly excommunicated are not separated from the
church triumphant (because “they remain God’s friends,” as Bellarmine
admits in this chapter). Therefore they are not separated from the church
militant. (The logical consequence is apparent from Bellarmine’s very
words.) From this we draw the immovable conclusion that anyone who is
separated from the external fellowship of the church militant by an unjust
excommunica on is nevertheless not completely separated from the
church militant, that is, from her internal fellowship. Yet we, too, say this
very thing when we dis nguish between the visible and invisible church, as
will later be seen in more detail [§§ 69–85].
Section V: Whether the Elect Alone Belong to
the Church Catholic
§ 62. In ch. 7 Bellarmine argues that “not only the predes ned but also
the reprobate belong to the church.” There he cites Christ’s parables (Matt.
[13]:13, 22, and 25), the examples of the incestuous man (1 Corinthians
5), and the statement of the apostle (2 Tim. 2:20: “In a great house there
are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay”). The
Englishmen of Rheims (Annotat. on 1 Timothy 3, sect. 10) deny that “the
elect who have not yet been born or called belong to Christ’s church.” On
the contrary, they declare: “The wicked and reprobate who remain in the
public profession of the church are true members of Christ’s Body” (Annot.
on John 15, sect. 1).
This is what we think about this ma er: (1) One must dis nguish
between the visible and par cular church and the invisible and catholic
church. In the visible and par cular church, good and evil, the predes ned
and reprobate are mixed, but only the good belong to the invisible and
catholic church. To the visible and par cular church belong all those who
profess the same religion and use the same Sacraments, whether they are
good or evil, reborn or hypocrites. But to the invisible and catholic church
belong only the good and the reborn who are true, living members of
Christ, from whom they draw the Spirit of life. All of Bellarmine’s
arguments prove only that in the church visible and par cular the evil are
mixed in with the good, the reprobate with the predes ned. This is
something none of our people has ever denied.
(2) The word “elect” is either taken specifically and properly according
to Scripture’s way of speaking for all and only those who persevere in the
true faith and become sharers in eternal life; or it is taken generally and
improperly according to the church’s way of speaking for all who have been
truly reborn, some of whom again fall out of faith and salva on. When we
say that the church catholic is the “gathering of the elect,” we are taking
the word “elect” in the la er sense, because to the church catholic belong
not only elect people, properly and specifically speaking, but all the truly
reborn, so long as they remain such. (Bellarmine says it in this way: “One
can be called a child of God and member of Christ in two ways: in one way,
by the truth of the essence or form; in the other, by the truth of the
permanence or end.” He takes the first part to mean the reborn; the la er,
the elect.) The Calvinists define the elect on the basis of an absolute
decree of God, and they deny that such people absolutely elected can lose
faith once they have received it. Thus “reborn” and “elect” are equivalent
terms as far as they are concerned. But we disagree with them on this
point. Therefore when the wri ngs of our people speak of the church
catholic as the gathering of the elect, this must not be taken in the Calvinist
sense but in that sense which is explained in the Augsburg Confession [art.
VII], that the church catholic is “the gathering of the saints.”
(3) One can be called a member of Christ and of the church in two ways:
first, with respect to divine foreknowledge and, second, with respect to
one’s present state. This dis nc on is drawn from the following statements
of Scripture: Rom. 8:9: “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ
does not belong to Him.” Gal. 5:24: “And those who belong to Christ Jesus
crucify the flesh with its lusts.” Yet 2 Tim. 2:19 says: “God’s firm
founda on stands, bearing this seal: ‘The Lord knows those who are His.’ ”
Thus when Paul was s ll a persecutor, he was a member of Christ and of
the church with respect to divine foreknowledge or predes na on, but he
was not yet a member of Christ and of the church with respect to his
present state. Augustine, tractate 45 on John: “According to
foreknowledge and predes na on, how many sheep are outside? How
many wolves inside?” Later, he explains this by saying: “How many who will
be chaste indulge themselves [now]? How many who will believe in Christ
blaspheme Christ [now]? And these are sheep, though now they are
listening to a stranger’s voice and are following strangers.” Also: “How
many who will blaspheme are inside and praising [now]? How many are
chaste [who] will commit fornica on? How many [now] stand who are
going to fall? And these are not sheep, for we are speaking about the
predes ned.” Bellarmine himself approves of this dis nc on, for he writes
here: “It should be noted that a person can be a child and member of
Christ in two ways: in one way, according to predes na on; in the other,
according to present righteousness.” And later: “The apostle is showing
that those who are children only according to predes na on are such not
actually but poten ally. Those, however, who are children according to
present righteousness are such actually and simply.” Therefore when the
church catholic is called the gathering of the elect, it is being taken
properly in the la er sense because the elect, to speak according to their
present state, are actually and simply called members of the church
catholic. The elect according to foreknowledge, on the other hand, are
called members of the church not actually but poten ally (to be drawn into
the actuality at their own me) and in a certain respect. The well-known
statement “Outside the assembly of the called one must not look for the
elect; outside the visible church one must not look for the invisible church”
must be taken to mean the elect so-called not only with respect to God’s
foreknowledge but also with respect to their present righteousness. If all of
this is kept in mind, it will easily become clear what should be decided
about this verbose discussion of Bellarmine.
Section VI: Whether the Imperfect Are in the
Church
§ 63. In ch. 7, Bellarmine argues against the Pelagians and Anabap sts,
who teach that the church consists only of the perfect. But this by no
means pertains to us. (1) We admit that no one in this life is absolutely
perfect and without all sin.
(2) If the word “perfect” is taken in the same way as Scripture takes it
(Gen. 6:9; Phil. 3:15; etc.)—for those who humbly acknowledge their
imperfec on, who seek perfec on in Christ alone, who daily progress in
the pursuit of perfec on, and who aspire to true perfec on in eternal life—
then we say that such perfect people and indeed only such are of the
church. That is, they alone belong to the invisible church, which is defined
as “the gathering of the saints.” In the visible church, however—that is, in
the external associa on of the church—hypocrites, nonsaints, and the
imperfect are mingled with perfect people of this sort. Chrysostom, on
Psalm 39: “The church does not consist of perfect people but also has
those who are given over to sloth and laziness, people who embrace a so
and dissolute life and gladly enslave themselves to pleasures.”
(3) One must also make a dis nc on between the church militant on
earth and triumphant in heaven. Those in the church triumphant have
overcome all their foes and have reached true perfec on. Those in the
church militant, however, must s ll ba le against Satan, the world, and the
flesh, and from this struggle they rarely go away unwounded.
(4) Bellarmine here is admi ng: “No one in this life is absolutely
perfect. The righteous not only humbly but also truthfully say not only for
others but also for themselves: ‘Forgive us our trespasses.’ In this weak
flesh no one is without sin,” etc. These words should be set against the
hypocrisy of the monks who dream about their works of supereroga on
and also to the dispute about the perfec on and merits of works.
(5) Bellarmine adds: “Because the sins of the righteous are by their
nature venial, they do not take away righteousness, and the blessed Virgin
was immune from all sin.” We have discussed this ma er elsewhere in
sufficient detail [On Actual Sins, Commonplace XIII, §§ 92–102].
Section VII: Whether Great SInners Are in the
Church
§ 64. In ch. 9, Bellarmine sets out to prove that “not only the perfect but
also serious sinners, and not only secret but even manifest sinners, are in
the one, true, catholic church of Christ.”
We respond. (1) One must dis nguish between the church militant and
the church triumphant. Manifest sinners have a place in the church militant
with regard to external associa on; they will be excluded, however, from
the church triumphant.
(2) One must dis nguish between the external associa on of the church
militant and the internal and spiritual communion of saints in her or, what
is the same, between the church visible and invisible. Hypocrites and
wicked people are mixed in with the good in the external associa on of the
church, but by no means do they belong to the inner communion with
Christ. Just as Christ says about His disciples in John 17:14 that they are “in
the world but not of the world”—(to be “in the world” is “to dwell visibly in
the world”; to be “of the world” is “to embrace the wickedness and
unbelief of the world,” according to Toletus’s commentary on this passage)
—so also we say that the wicked, on the contrary, are in the church but not
of the church.
(3) One must dis nguish among manifest sinners. Some of them are s ll
being tolerated in the external assembly of the church, and some are
separated from her through excommunica on. Manifest sinners who have
not yet been excommunicated s ll have a place in the visible church. They
are separated, however, from the invisible church, which is the gathering of
the saints, even before excommunica on.
(4) One must dis nguish between those sinners who, burdened with
great sins, have again been converted through true repentance and those
who persevere in their sin without repentance. The former are of the
invisible church even before their solemn, public acceptance and as soon
as they are hear ly sorry for the sins they have commi ed and have
received forgiveness of them by faith in Christ. The la er, though they may
be tolerated in the visible church, nevertheless by no means belong to the
invisible church. If one observes all of this carefully, he can easily pass
judgment about the points that Bellarmine argues here. The arguments he
produces prove only that there are great sinners along with the saints in
par cular churches, in the visible church, in the external associa on of the
church; that wicked people hold offices in the church; that we can use
Sacraments that evil men administer; that God is effectual for salva on
through the ministry even of wicked men; that because of the sins of some
people we should not leave the church; etc. But who of us, whom he calls
“Confessionists,” has ever denied any of these things? Rather, we say this
and support it with immovable arguments: that those who con nue
securely in serious sins without repentance do not belong to the invisible
and universal church (in the proper sense), which is the gathering of saints,
even if they confess the same faith, use the same Sacraments, and s ll
have a place in the external associa on of the church.
§ 65. If Bellarmine wants to be consistent, he cannot deny this, for he
writes in this very chapter, § Addit:
In the Breviculus colla onum, Augus ne relates that the Dona sts were falsely accusing the
catholics of crea ng two churches: one on earth, which had good and evil; the other in
heaven, which had only good people. The catholics responded that they were not crea ng
two churches but were dis nguishing two mes. They said that the one, same, holy church
was one thing now, another in the future; that now it has evil people mixed in, but that then
it will not have them. In the same way, there are not two christs, though at one me Christ
was mortal and at another me, immortal.

Just as the Dona sts were falsely accusing the catholics of se ng up two
churches because of the dis nc on of the church into militant and
triumphant, so the Papists falsely accuse us of inven ng two churches
because of the dis nc on of the church into visible and invisible. As the
catholics formerly responded to the Dona sts that they were not crea ng
two churches but were dis nguishing two mes, so also we respond to the
Papists that we are not inven ng two churches but are dis nguishing the
external and the internal fellowship of the church.
In § Ad ul mum he concedes: “The evil are not living members of
Christ’s Body.” If one were to say, “Then they are members equivocally,” he
responds:
Many Catholics are accustomed to concede that the evil are not true members nor are they
simply of the body of the church, but only in a certain respect and equivocally. That is what
Joannes de Turrecremata writes (bk. 1, ch. 57), where he proves this from Alexander of
Hales, Hugh, and Thomas. The same thing is taught by Petrus a Soto, Melchior Canus, and
 others who, though they say that the evil are not true members, s ll say that they truly are
in the church or are in the body of the church and are simply faithful or Chris ans. A er all,
there are not only members in a body but also humors, teeth, hair, and other things that are
not members. The faithful or Chris ans are not so called from love but because of their faith
or profession of faith.

This same thing, however, is our posi on. We admit that evil people are in
the body of the church with regard to external associa on, but they are
not true, living members of this mys cal Body. Rather, they are in the
church as corrupt humors are in the human body. Turrecremata, Soto,
Canus, and other Papist writers approve of our posi on. Along with
Turrecremata, Soto, Canus, etc., Costerus says the same thing, Apol., part
3, ch. 12: “As phlegm, pus, saliva, and overflowing blood are neither a
member nor parts of the human body and yet are not outside of the body,
so the wicked are related to the excess humors that are passed at their
me, when they are mature, along with excrements.” Toletus, commentary
on Romans 8: “Those who do not have a living faith in Christ are not
Chris ans.” Lombard says the same thing, Sent., bk. 1, dist. 37, le er C:
“Those who know God but do not glorify Him as God do not belong to the
temple of God.” The Ius canonicum says the same thing, Decret., part 2,
causa 24, q. 3, ch. 8: “Those do not belong to the church who are physically
mingled with her unity but are separated by a very wicked life.” [Ius
canonicum,] causa 33, q. 3, de poenit., dist. 1, ch. 70: “He who is a sinner
and is stained with some fault cannot be said to belong to Christ’s church.”
Consequently, before Bellarmine and the Council of Trent it was a common
and unanimous doctrine of the Roman church that the evil are members of
the church only equivocally and that they are just like excremental humors
in the body.
Furthermore, in response to the sixth argument, Bellarmine writes:
In his commentary on Galatians 1, Jerome explains the passage “Paul the apostle to the
churches of Gala a” and wants to set forth how the apostle’s words agree with one another,
since at one me he seems to praise all the churches and at another me he seems to scold
and rebuke them all. Jerome says that “church” is taken in two ways, that is, there are not
two churches, but Scripture speaks about the one church in different ways. Some mes
Scripture a ributes to the whole church that which is proper to perfect people, for instance,
that they lack spots and blemishes, and some mes that which is proper to sinners, for
instance, that they sin and need reproof.
We also say the same thing: that “there is a ributed to the en re church
by synecdoche what befits one part,” which are the words of Bellarmine in
the next chapter. Scripture speaks about the church in different ways: first,
popularly and by synecdoche, thus understanding the whole assembly of
the called with this word; then carefully, properly, and principally, thus
numbering only the elect or saints in that assembly.
In response to the eighth argument, he complains that “even some
Catholics imagine that there are two churches,” that is, those who have
embraced a dis nc on between the visible and invisible church. When he
sets out to refute them, he actually confirms their opinion. He says:
When the Dona sts made the false charge that catholics were crea ng two churches, one
that contained only good people and the other that contained good people along with the
wicked, the catholics answered that they never dreamed up two churches but only
dis nguished parts or mes of the church. They dis nguished parts because the good
belong to the church in one way, and the evil belong to it in another way. Good people are
the interior part and something like the soul of the church. The wicked are the exterior part
and something like the body. They were giving the example of the interior and exterior man,
which are not two men but two parts of the same man. In dis nguishing mes they were
saying that the church exists now in one way, but it will exist in a different way a er the
resurrec on; for now it has good and evil people, but then it will have only good ones.

Yet that is our posi on. We admit that wicked people belong to the
external associa on of the church, but we say that they have been
excluded from the inner, spiritual communion. This very thing is confirmed
by the comparisons that Bellarmine takes from Augus ne, for he writes as
follows:
This same Augus ne o en confirms this doctrine elsewhere and explains it with various
comparisons. He says (Contra Donatist., bk. 7, ch. 51) that the good are in God’s house,
which is the church, in such a way that they are the house of God, built of living stones, and
that the wicked are in the same house in such a way that they are not the house. In his book
De unitat. ecclesiae, last chapter, he says that the wicked have been cut off from the soul of
the church but not from the body. That is to say, they belong to the exterior man of the
church but not to the interior. In De doctr. Christ., bk. 3, ch. 32, as he explains the passage “I
am very dark but comely, like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of Solomon” (Song 1:5), he
notes that it does not just say, “I am very dark,” but, “I am very dark and comely.” This is
because one and the same church is now very dark, like the tents of Kedar, because of the
sinners she has within herself, and at the same me she is comely like the curtains of
Solomon, that is, like the tent of a king, because of the good people she has within herself.
The same Augustine, In epist. Joh., tractate 3, teaches that the wicked are in the body of the
church not as members but as corrupt humors that actually are in the body yet are truly
separate from the members of the body.
One cannot explain our opinion more clearly and lucidly than Augus ne
did with these comparisons. Because Bellarmine approves of them, he will
be unable to disapprove of our posi on.

Bellarmine’s antithesis
§ 66. Bellarmine sets forth a sort of dis nc on, however, by which he
thinks it can be maintained that wicked people are true members of the
church catholic. He says: “They can be considered members in two ways: in
one way as they are things according to themselves or according to their
essence and substance; in the other way, as they are opera ve
instruments.” He later applies that in this way: “I say that an evil bishop, an
evil presbyter, an evil doctor are dead members and hence are not true
members of Christ’s Body, as far as the defini on of a member is
concerned, as it is a part of a living body. Yet they are true members with
respect to the instrument. That is, the pope and the bishop are true
heads,” etc.
We respond. (1) Bellarmine has dreamed up this dis nc on to be able
to hold that even an evil pope is s ll the head of the church, though he is
not a true and living member of her. He writes in this way: “If it is so” (that
is, if the evil are not simply true members of the body of the church but
only in a certain respect and equivocally, as many Catholics teach), “then
an evil pope is not the head of the church.” The pope, however, is not very
careful about this worthless dis nc on, as will become clear from what
follows.
(2) We concede that an evil pope and evil bishops are instruments
through which God acts in the church, but we deny that they are true
members of that mys cal Body, that is, of the church catholic in the proper
sense. You see, one must dis nguish the external administra on of the
church from her internal fellowship. Evil bishops are able to conduct the
administra on of ecclesias cal du es, but they do not belong to the
internal communion of the church, and therefore they are not members.
(3) To be sure, the limbs of the human body are its instruments in a
certain respect. But it does not follow from this that all instruments are
also members. Pen, paper, and ink were Bellarmine’s instruments when he
wrote those things, but were they actually his members? God uses the
devil’s work to punish people, but shall we really say that the devil is God’s
member? When Bellarmine says, “An evil bishop is not a true member in
the manner of a member, as is a part of a living body, but only in the
manner of an instrument,” he is actually saying that an evil bishop is not a
member but only an instrument.
(4) The ques on of whether evil people are true members of the church
catholic is a general one. Hence the proof should be general too.
Bellarmine’s dis nc on, however, speaks only about evil bishops and evil
prelates whose work God uses in the church. But are there no evil people
in the Roman church except evil bishops and prelates alone? Bellarmine
argues that “the church consists not only of evil bishops but also of evil
people.” Therefore he should have brought forth the sort of dis nc on that
would apply to all the evil people in the church without excep on. But the
dis nc on that Bellarmine brings forth is not of that sort, for it does not
apply to evil laymen; the la er cannot be called instruments and hence are
not members of the church.
(5) If we must judge and call evil prelates true members of the church
because they are opera ve instruments, it will follow that one and the
same man is a true member of Christ and a true member of the devil,
which is absurd. “The damned are not in the Body of Christ, for Christ
cannot have damned members,” Augus ne says in Contra Cresconium, bk.
2, ch. 21. The logical sequence is clear, because a true member of the
church catholic is also a true member of Christ. Just as there is a spiritual
connec on between Head and members in the mys cal Body of Christ, so
also there is a spiritual connec on of members among themselves. Hence
whoever is a true member of the church catholic is also a true member of
Christ. But now, according to Bellarmine’s hypothesis, evil prelates are true
members of the church; therefore they must also be true members of
Christ. According to the verdict of Scripture, however, evil prelates are
members of the devil; therefore they must at the same me be members
of Christ and of the devil, which is incompa ble and blasphemous. 2 Cor.
6:14–15: “What fellowship has light with darkness? What communion has
Christ with Belial? Or what par cipa on does righteousness have with
unrighteousness?” Bellarmine should recognize his own words. De jus f.,
bk. 2, ch. 7, § Sep mo: “If Christ is truly called a sinner through our
unrighteousness imputed to Him, one will also be able to call Him the son
of the devil, something that the heart shudders to consider. Scripture,
however, everywhere calls Him the Son of God.” Therefore he presupposes
that no one can be called, much less be, a child of God and a child of the
devil at the same me.
(6) Dead members are not true members but are so called equivocally.
For this reason, Aristotle says, De anima, bk. 2, ch. 1: “A dead member is a
member no differently from a painted member.” Evil prelates are dead
members; Bellarmine admits this. Experience shows the same, for they are
not connected by the bond of the Spirit to Christ, the Head of the church,
nor do they make increase, fitly joined to the Body, unto the edifying of
themselves for love [cf. Eph. 4:16]. Therefore they are not true members
but are so called equivocally. Nothing keeps one from saying that God s ll
uses their ministry, for that does not make them true members but only
opera ve instruments. In His church, Christ uses many instruments that
nevertheless are not His members. An evil man can be a useful architect, as
we see from the example of those whose work Noah used in the
construc on of the ark.
Section VIII: Whether Secret Unbelievers Are
Members of the Church
§ 67. In ch. 10, Bellarmine argues that “secret unbelievers are true
exterior parts and even members, though dry and dead members, of the
body of the church.” Furthermore, he defines secret unbelievers as people
“who have neither an internal faith nor any Chris an virtue yet outwardly
confess the catholic faith and mix in with the true believers in the
communion of the sacraments because of some temporal advantage.”
We respond. (1) Bellarmine himself acknowledges that “some Catholics
here concede to the denying posi on” and protect our side.
(2) One must dis nguish between par cular churches and the church
catholic in the proper sense. Secret unbelievers are in par cular churches,
but they certainly do not belong to the church catholic in the proper sense.
(3) This is something Bellarmine cannot deny, because in this very
chapter he writes: “Secret here cs are not catholic in intent and will but
only in the external profession of faith.” (Yet for anyone to be a member of
the church catholic, it is required that he be catholic in intent and will, not
only in the external profession of his faith, because God has greater regard
for heart and intent than for words and outward appearance.) He also
writes: “Secret here cs are not united with the church except by an
external connec on.” (Yet an internal connec on is required for someone
to belong to the church catholic, because the bond of communion in the
church catholic is spiritual and internal.) He writes finally: “Those who
pretend that they are Chris ans and Catholics are not of the church except
in outward appearance and puta vely, not truly.” (Yet for someone to
belong to the church catholic, it is not enough that he be of the church
according to outward appearance and puta vely, but according to the
internal connec on and truly.)
(4) We admit that secret here cs are in the church, but we deny that
they are of the church. Augustine, Johan. epist., tractate 3: “They are in
the body just like bad humors. When they are vomited up, the body is
relieved. So also when the evil go out, the church is relieved and says:
‘When my body has vomited them up and thrown them off, those humors
went out from me. But they were not from me.’ What is this: ‘They were
not part of me’? They were not cut out of my flesh, but were pressing hard
against my stomach when they were within me.” (Therefore, just as the
bad humors are not from the body nor are they parts of the body, though
they are in the body, in the same way secret here cs and unbelievers are
not of the church nor should we reckon them among the members thereof,
even though they are in the church.)
(5) We freely admit that here cal bishops can be in par cular churches
and that God is s ll effectual through their ministry, especially if they have
not yet vomited forth their heresy publicly. From this, however, it does not
yet follow that they are consequently members of the church catholic. We
showed a li le earlier that more things are required for someone to be a
true member of the church catholic than that he be an opera ve
instrument.
The tes monies of the fathers, with which we prove that neither
manifest sinners nor secret unbelievers belong to the church catholic in the
proper sense, are listed in detail by Whitaker (Controv. 2. de eccles., q. 1,
ch. 14).
Section IX: Whether THE Angels Are Members
of the Church
§ 68. Bellarmine writes, De Chris anima, bk. 4, ch. 5, § Prima: “Angels
also are contained in the Body of Christ, which is the church.”
** Nevertheless he also writes, De grat. et lib. arb., bk. 2, ch. 17, prop.
10: “Although some of the holy angels have been freely predes ned for
eternal life by God’s will alone, and some have been rejected because of
foreseen sins, nevertheless the riches of God’s grace and jus ce are
revealed more clearly in the elec on and reproba on of human beings.” **
In De eccles., ch. 3, Franciscus Junius establishes “two general parts of
the church: the angelic race and the human race.”
** Ravenspergerus, Globor. sacr., decad. 3, q. 6: “ ‘Church’ is taken
either broadly or strictly and properly. It is taken broadly for the en re
preordina on and decree of glory, and among this assembly the angels are
said to be contained too. But if the word ‘elec on’ is taken strictly and in
the sense of Scripture, it can by no means be said that the angels are
elect.” **
Tossanus (notes on Heb. 12:22) concludes from the apostle’s words
“you have come to myriads of angels” that “the angels, too, belong to
God’s church and to the gathering of the saints.” Guilielmus Bucanus, Ins t.
theol., locus 41, p. 466: “The blessed angels also are a material part of the
true church.”
** The arguments of Bucanus are these. (1) “Christ is the Head of the
angels. Therefore they are members of the church.” We respond. Christ is
the Head over all things (Eph. 1:22), yet not all creatures, certainly, are
members of the church. (2) “When a devout man recovers his senses, he
comes into the assembly of the angels. Angels, therefore, are a material
part of the church.” We respond. A devout man comes to God. Is God,
then, a material part of the church? **
The same claim is made by Trelca us (Loci, p. 293), Ursinus (Catech., p.
343), and Polanus (Thes., part 3, p. 93). On this point they appear to follow
Origen (on Luke, homily 23), who established “a twofold church, with a
mee ng of angels and humans.”
 What is to be thought about this? We respond. (1) It is certain that
before the fall, angels and humans were one church, one mys cal Body,
one blessed fellowship of beings praising and proclaiming God. By the fall,
however, mankind was torn away from this Body.
(2) Although through Christ the Mediator a recapitula on
[ἀνακεφαλαίωσις] was made of things that are in heaven and on the earth
(Eph. 1:10), this nevertheless will only be completed in eternal life, in
which from the angels and the elect there will again be established one
fellowship, one Body, and one chorus glorifying God.
(3) Therefore we concede that angels are ci zens of the church
triumphant and, in a sound sense, are even parts thereof (Heb. 12:23). If
we are talking about the church militant and visible, however, the church
must be defined as an assembly of human beings called out of the world,
etc. You see, the members of the visible church in this world are described
as being conceived and born in sins but freed from sins through Christ and
gra ed onto the church through the Word and Sacraments, while holding
to it through faith in Christ and passing through death to life. None of this,
however, applies to angels.
** If the angels are members of the true church, all the goods of the
church also belong to them, including also the merit of Christ Himself. How
does it happen, then, that the fallen angels have been completely excluded
from that benefit of the church, though it belongs to fallen humans?
Philipp Caesar, Disp. de ult. Chris advent., thesis 71: “For the angels, Christ
is not Redeemer but only Preserver, and Preserver not from evil in which
they have never been but in the good in which they have stood by His
grace. In this regard He is called the Head of them, too, as of members of
the true church, 1 Tim. 5:21; Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18; 2:[19].” Zanchi has the
same thing in De operibus Dei, bk. 3, ch. 21. Wendelin, Theol., bk. 1, ch. 28,
p. 561: “The material of the church consists of human beings who have
been called through the preaching of the Word to share in eternal
salva on; otherwise ‘church’ is usually taken in the broad sense in such a
way that it includes the angels too. Here, however, we are talking only
about the church of human beings, for whom the benefits of Christ that
have been explained up ll now were intended.” **
(4) Therefore angels are not members, in the proper sense, of the
church visible and militant. They have not been joined to the church by the
external fellowship that consists in profession of faith and the use of the
Sacraments, nor do they have internal communion with her, properly
speaking. This is because they lack the bond of that communion, namely,
the true and living faith that lays hold of the righteousness of Christ and,
through it, incorporates us with Christ. Also, they do not fight against
Satan, the world, and the flesh in the same way as the reborn, the
members of the true church, stand in the ba le line against those foes.
(5) Meanwhile we do not deny that angels are in the church’s
assemblies (1 Cor. 11:10). Yet they are in them not as parts but as guards
and watchmen so that the heavenly Jerusalem is described as “having
twelve angels upon the gates” (Rev. 21:12). They are also in them as
desiring “to look into” the mysteries that are declared to human beings in
the preaching of the Gospel (1 Pet. 1:12).
(6) There is no reason for you to object, saying, “Christ is the Head of
the saints and angels, and hence they are members of the church,” for
Christ is the Head of the angels not with regard to consubstan ality or
communion of the same nature (Heb. 2:16), nor with respect to spiritual
effects and grace, so as to offer them freedom from sins and all things
necessary for salva on, for in this way He is Head only of the church
gathered from human beings. Rather, He is Head of the angels with respect
to divine and general dominion (Eph. 1:22; Col. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:22). In this
way He is Head not only of the angels but also “over all things,” because of
which the angels also “worship Him” (Ps. 103:20; Heb. 1:6).
(7) Nor is the argument of Thomas ([ST,] part 3, q. 3, art. 4) valid and
effec ve. He says: “By way of comparison, one mul tude, arranged as a
unit according to dis nct ac vi es or offices, is called one body. Now, it is
obvious that both men and angels are ordained for this one end, which is
the glory of divine frui on. Consequently, the mys cal Body of the church
consists not only of men but also of angels.” We respond. Things must not
be defined on the basis of their end alone; rather, one must add the
internal and essen al causes. Also, associated beings are not always of the
same genus. You see, many things are joined and together aim toward the
same end, yet their conjunc on is not a connec on of members under one
head.
(8) Bucanus (loc. cit., when he at first affirmed that angels are a material
part of the true church) was correct in a erward adding something like a
correc on: “But we are speaking of the church according as God acquired
her with His blood and gathers her with His Word, and God has not
redeemed the blessed angels who never fell, nor has He assumed them
(Heb. 2:16), nor does He call them to the communion of His church by the
ministry of the Word. Rather, He has confirmed them in their first origin.
We declare, therefore, that the church is gathered only of human beings
according to the promise the Father gave to the Son in Heb. 2:8.”
This is now enough about this topic. Our next task is to go on to
dis nguish between the visible and invisible church. From that dis nc on,
all the things that have been disputed about the members of the church
will become more clear.
Chapter VII: On the Distinction between the
Visible and Invisible Church
§ 69. The term “invisible church” is very hateful to the Papists. Eck
ridicules this sense of the word “church” and says that “it is a mathema cal
church and Platonic ideas.” Others call it a “s gma c,” “utopian,” and
“imaginary” church. Bellarmine, on the basis of Fridericus Staphylus (De
eccles., bk. 3, ch. 11), writes: “In the beginning the Lutherans created the
invisible church. But when they saw what absurdi es followed as a result,
they decided in a secret council to call the church ‘visible.’ Therefore they
all began to teach that the church is visible but in such a way that it was
visible in name, invisible in reality.” In ch. 9, resp. ad arg. 8, he writes that
we “imagine two churches, one of which is visible, the other invisible.”
Becanus repeats the same thing in his trea se De ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 1, p.
20. Pistorius (Hodoget., pp. 134–35) falsely accuses us of pu ng the
church visible in opposi on to the church catholic. On p. 145 he a ributes
to us the opinion that we claim that “the church has not always been
visible, such as under the papacy.”
Therefore one must note carefully on what occasion or in what sense
and respect and to what end the church is called visible and invisible. (1)
We are by no means introducing two churches that are opposed to each
other as totally different [ἀντιδιῃρημένως], in such a way that the visible
and invisible churches are contradis nc ve species. Rather, we say that
one and the same church is visible and invisible in diverse respects. (2) We
do not approve of the madness of the Anabap sts, who, under this pretext
(because the church is invisible), secretly go around from house to house
and try to establish li le churches [ecclesiolae] in them. Luther’s severe
admoni on against them is in the Wi enberg edi on, vol. 2, f. 210. God’s
will is that we should seek, know, and acknowledge what and where the
true church is so that we may unite ourselves to her as members and
ci zens. Therefore she is also defined as “the visible assembly of those
who embrace the Gospel of Christ and use the Sacraments correctly.” (3)
We do not support the fana cal opinions of the Enthusiasts, who hold the
visible ministry of the Word and Sacraments in contempt, await internal
ecstasies, and for this purpose close themselves off in corners in order to
be placed outside people’s sight as they listen to divine u erances. (4) We
do not say that the church is visible only in name and allegorically, as the
Papists charge falsely, but truly and really, as will become clear from the
following. (5) We do not call the church invisible in order to assert that the
church was preserved under the papacy; for we say that the true, holy, and
catholic church is always invisible, even at this me when the light of the
Gospel is being rekindled and shines very brightly in many realms and
provinces. (6) We are not speaking here only about the church triumphant,
which is invisible to human eyes that have not yet been glorified. Not even
the Papists themselves can deny that. We are also speaking about the
church militant on earth. Turrianus admits, Contra Sadeel., bk. 1, ch. 4:
“The part of the church that is triumphing in heaven with Christ is invisible,
but the part that is s ll on earth is visible.” (7) On the last day of judgment,
Christ will separate the sheep from the goats and will set the righteous at
His right hand (Matt. 25:32). We do not deny that at that me the church
catholic, which is the gathering of the saints, will be visible. Here, however,
we are discussing the church as considered by us in the status of this life.
§ 70. What, finally, do we intend with this dis nc on? We respond. (I)
Some mes the word “church” is taken generally for an indiscriminate
assembly of the called in which all who gather themselves together by
their external profession to hear the Word and use the Sacraments are
considered members of the church. Some mes it is taken specifically and
properly for the assembly of the truly reborn and elect within the former
assembly who are known to God, the examiner of hearts and affec ons [cf.
Rev. 2:23]. With respect to the called, the church is called “visible”; with
respect to the elect, “invisible.” Therefore as long as the dis nc on
between the called and the elect stands, our posi on will also stand: that
the true church, which is the gathering of the saints, is invisible. Within the
visible assembly of the called there are the elect. To them the tle “church”
is properly owed, since they are the true, living, genuine members of it.
But now, those who have been truly reborn and elected are not externally
obvious, nor can they be grasped by means of the eyes. “God knows those
who are His” (2 Tim. 2:19), but this is invisible to us. The effects of faith
and piety in the reborn are outwardly apparent according to Matt. 5:16:
“Let your light so shine before men,” etc., and James 2:18: “Show me your
faith by your works,” etc. Nevertheless from those effects we can offer no
conclusive, infallible judgment about the faith of people, because
hypocrites can and do perform similar works for appearance’s sake. By the
law of love we consider as reborn and elect all those who gather together
in the external assembly of the church, hear the Word, use the Sacraments,
and abstain from the more serious outward sins. Yet God alone looks upon
the source of all good works, namely, the heart, as to whether it is right.
No work is truly good that does not proceed from true faith in Christ and
from genuine love. But now, even hypocrites can pretend works of love and
faith. John 15:13: “Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down
his life for his friends.” Yet the apostle expressly declares, 1 Cor. 13:3: “If I
deliver my body to be burned and have not love, I am nothing.” Therefore
it is possible to pretend the greatest work of love outwardly without an
inner love. The Holy Spirit does not perfect the work of regenera on and
renewal in a visible and obvious manner, but in a secret manner (John 3:8).
Indeed, interior regenera on and renewal reveals itself through “fruits of
the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22). Yet even hypocrites can feign those fruits. Therefore
that recogni on (or, rather, knowledge) belongs to God alone, who is the
infallible searcher of hearts. By that knowledge He can discern the truly
devout and reborn from the hypocrites, the apes of the devout. Here I cite
the words of Bellarmine, De eccl., bk. 3, ch. 10, § Sed neutra: “The
recogni on of the truly faithful from the effects of faith is not certain, but
instead is conjectural.”
** Piscator, Resp. ad 3. rat. Camp., p. 43:
If there is a number of believers whose due obedience to Christ’s commandments is known
to God alone, will you deny the invisible church? To be sure, the outward ac ons of people
are sure indicators of their faults, but not of their piety and virtues. Some mes people
pretend a virtue that deceives others with its appearance. The apostle said, “Whoever does
not have the Spirit of Christ is not His.” Wherever this Spirit is, there is also Christ’s church.
But who knows where the Spirit of God is except the Searcher or, rather, the Knower of
hearts and affec ons? Before you pass judgment on a person’s heart on the basis of works
that are of the Spirit, you must know the integrity of that heart. Who except that most wise
Searcher of hearts knows whether that source from which piety emanates is true, simple,
and sincere or pretended and feigned? **

(II) Therefore the church, taken as the en re assembly of the called, is

considered in two ways: inwardly and outwardly, that is, with respect to
the internal and external fellowship. The internal fellowship of the church
consists in the unity of saving faith, hope, and love by which the truly
devout are joined to Christ the Head and to the other members of the
mys cal Body. The external fellowship of the church consists in the
confession of faith and the use of the Sacraments, to which the exercise of
church discipline can be added. The church is visible with respect to the
external fellowship but invisible with respect to the internal fellowship.
Those who belong to the external fellowship of the church are obvious to
human eyes, but the same is not true for those who belong to the internal
fellowship, because faith and spiritual newness, which is the proper and
internal dignity of the true church, lies hidden by the infirmi es of the
flesh. Also, the “life” and blessedness, joined immediately to true faith, is
s ll “hidden with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3). Col. 3:4: “When Christ who is
our life appears, only then shall we appear with Him in glory.” But in this
life, it is covered and hidden by the scandal of the cross and death, as if
with a thick and heavy veil, so that it is not conspicuous to human eyes. 1
John 3:2: “We are the sons of God; it does not yet appear what we shall
be.” Accordingly, the truly devout and reborn are called “hidden” and
“secret” people (Ps. 83:[3]; Rom. 2:29; 1 Pet. 3:4).
(III) The church considered on the basis of the calling and taken as the
en re assembly of the called is said to be visible not only with respect to
the people called but also with respect to the external means and
instruments through which the church is gathered to God on this earth;
and also with respect to the external exercises of religion, which are: the
confession of doctrine, the use of the Sacraments, and church discipline.
The preaching of the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments, as
well as also the other external func ons of the church, meet the eyes and
ears; therefore with respect to all of these and each of these the church is
said to be visible. In turn, it is said to be invisible primarily and especially
with respect to faith and the internal gi s of the Holy Spirit in the reborn,
gi s that human eyes cannot observe. It is said to be invisible, second, with
respect to the Head in the mys cal Body whom we now do not see, and
because the discernment of the good from the hypocrites, with whom the
good are mingled in the visible church, has been le to divine knowledge
alone. 1 Kings 8:39: “You alone know the hearts of the children of men.” 2
Tim. 2:19: “The Lord knows those who are His.”
 (IV) One must note carefully that the church visible and invisible is not
opposed as contrary but as subaltern and subordinate. For the invisible
assembly of the elect is contained under the visible assembly of the called,
because “outside the gathering of the called one must not look for the
elect,” and the church of the called is broader than that of the elect
because “many are called, but few are elect” (Matt. 20:16). All those who
belong to the invisible church, therefore, also belong to the visible church.
That is, as many as have been chosen, those also have been called. The
opposite, however, is not true. Hence as the church militant and the church
triumphant are not opposed to each other as contrary nor do they
cons tute two churches (for whoever today is a member of the church
militant can tomorrow be a member of the church triumphant, and
whoever is gathered to the church triumphant from among men was first a
member of the church militant), in the same way the visible church and the
invisible church are not opposed to each other as contrary, nor do they
cons tute two churches (for the same man is a member of the visible and
of the invisible church in different respects, and whoever is a member of
the invisible church must also be a member of the visible church).
(V) Note also: the church of the elect is said to be “invisible” not
because the devout who are sca ered throughout the world do not come
into the sight of men with regard to their person, but because faith and
divine elec on (by reason of which they belong to the church as living
members) are not percep ble in them. They are seen as corporeal people;
they are not seen as elect people. Also, the church of the elect is said to be
“invisible” not because the devout and elect have absolutely no interac on
with the visible ministry of the Word and Sacraments and with the external
exercise of divine worship, but because the internal gi s of the Holy Spirit
(by which God’s eyes dis nguish them as living members of the church
from dead and ro ng members) are not at all accessible to human vision.
** The church taken materially, that is, with reference to the people in
it, is partly visible—namely, according as it is understood to mean the
church militant, for the church triumphant is invisible to us. But when it is
taken formally, that is, with reference to the faithful, then it is invisible. **
(VI) Therefore the dis nc on of the church into visible and invisible has
been set forth against the disputa ons of the Papists. They build their
defini on of the church, to which one must listen and from which one may
not depart, out of a comparison such as the following: The republic of
Venice, the kingdom of France, the empire of Germany, etc., consist of a
certain order of rulers and subjects, of certain laws and customs. So also
Christ’s church is bound, so to speak, to the Roman pon ff and prelates
who are in the ordinary succession in such a way that whatever they claim
and think must necessarily be accepted by everyone, and no one may
depart from them for any reason, because the church is “the pillar and
support of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).
Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 2, § Atque hoc: “The church is an
assembly of people as visible and palpable as the assembly of the Roman
people or the kingdom of France or the republic of Venice.” Chapter 5,
resp. ad ob. 2: “No one, not even if he so wished, can be a subject of Christ
and have fellowship with the heavenly church who is not subject to the
pope.” Chapter 10, resp. ad 2:
In order for us to consider those bishops and pastors (whom we see) as true bishops, there
is no requirement that they have faith or the character of order or a legi mate elec on, but
only that the church consider them as such, etc. This is the same as if we were to say: that
they are not true bishops in themselves, but so long as the church considers them as such,
then obedience is owed to them; and that they hold the place of Christ in fact, not by right;
and, finally, that the church cannot be deceived by them, because the church cannot err. Yet
she is bound to follow those whom she considers as her true pastors. This is something that
must be taken in a sound manner, namely, if all bishops of this sort agree in doctrine or if
they are the chief pon ffs, etc.

De pon f., bk. 4, ch. 2: “The fourth statement is u erly certain and is one
we must declare: that whether or not the pope can be a here c, he can by
no means define something that is here cal and that must be believed by
the en re church.” And later: “It is impossible for the pope to define
anything rashly.”
Those are Bellarmine’s words. Against this poli cal fancy, however, we
must set forth the u erly true declara on that that church to which the
Scriptures a ribute those great praises is invisible; that is, it is the flock of
the sheep whom Christ knows and who, in turn, recognize Him from His
Word and can never be snatched out of His hands, just as Christ defines His
church (John 10:14, 28). Therefore the church must not be sought on the
throne or in the golden crown of the pope, in the purple hat of the
cardinals, in the bishops’ two-horned miters, in abbots’ miters, in monks’
cowls, in the tonsures of sacrificing priests, in the sackcloth of the
Benedic nes, in the cinctures of the Franciscans. Rather, the glory of the
King’s daughter, or of the church, is within (Ps. 45:[13]): in Christ, the Lord
of glory; in the Gospel of glory; in the hope of glory, as D. Lobechius writes
(Disp. in August. confess., disp. 10, th. 12).
Consequently, in De bapt., bk. 3, ch. 18; bk. 1, chs. 21–22; bk. 6, ch. 3;
bk. 7, ch. 51; and in many other places, Augus ne teaches: “Only the saints
and elect are that church which is founded on the Rock, against which the
gates of hell cannot prevail, and to which the Keys to the kingdom of
heaven have been given, and which is the pillar and support of the truth.”
To this Bellarmine responds coldly, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 9: “Augus ne
means only that all the privileges which God has granted to the universal
church have been granted because of the saints alone, that is, for the
advantage and profit of those who a ain eternal salva on.” The facts
themselves demonstrate that this response goes too far. You see, it is one
thing for the saints alone to be the church that is said to be founded on the
Rock; it is something else for this to be given to the universal church, that
is, to the en re assembly of the called in which there are some nonsaints.
Augus ne, De unit. eccles.:
Surely the church is among good people—the church about which it is said: “As a lily among
thorns, so is my love among the daughters” [Song 2:2]. For it is among those who build upon
the Rock, that is, who hear the words of Christ and do them. When Peter confessed that
Christ was the Son of God, Christ told him: “Upon this rock I will build My church” [Matt.
16:18]. Therefore the church is not among those who build on sand, that is, who hear
Christ’s words but do not do them, etc.

(VII) This dis nc on of the invisible church from the visible has also
been set forth against the opinions of those who fla er themselves in their
sins and believe that they cannot be damned because they are members of
the visible church. Against them it is right to teach and urge that hearing
the Word, confessing the faith, and using the Sacraments in the visible
assembly of the church do not suffice for salva on unless one is endowed
by the Holy Spirit with inner regenera on and unless he clings by true faith
to Christ the Head and is joined by the adhesive of love to the other
members of this mys cal Body.
(VIII) Those are the primary ends and aims because of which the true
church is said to be invisible and is dis nguished from the visible assembly
of the called in a certain manner and respect.
 Now, a secondary aim and less principal meaning of this term is added.
Not only do worldly kingdoms surpass the church in their external
splendor, but also here cal assemblies quite o en surpass her with their
wealth, power, glory, erudi on, authority, numbers, appearance of works,
etc. Because of this, lest anyone pass judgment about the church on the
basis of that outward appearance, it has been said that the church is
invisible. That is, this wretched, despised, scanty assembly, in which there
are many weaknesses and which is not only oppressed by persecu on and
the cross but is also misshapen by many stumbling blocks and scandals, is
the church. One must consider it not on the basis of external appearance
but on the basis of the Word, and one must judge it according to the norm
of the Word. In this respect we concede that the church in this sense is not
always invisible in the same way. That is, it is not always oppressed in the
same way, despised and cast aside; rather, like the moon, its external
splendor varies, waxes, and wanes. Some mes persecu ons oppress her
and clouds of heresy darken her; but at other mes she enjoys tranquility
and shines brightly with purity of doctrine.
In 1 Kings 19:[14], Elijah said, “I alone am le .” But the Lord responds,
“I have le for Myself seven thousand men who have not bent their knees
before Baal” [1 Kings 19:18]. Paul repeats this passage in Rom. 11:3–4
and applies it to the dispute about the rejec on of the Jews. The status of
the church among the people of Israel was wretched at that me. The
public ministry had ceased. Nonetheless God had s ll le for Himself seven
thousand devout people who, though not percep ble to Elijah’s eyes, were
yet manifest to God’s eyes. Luke 17:20–21: “The kingdom of God does not
come with observa on (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως), nor will they say, ‘Behold
here’ or ‘Behold there,’ for the kingdom of God is within you.” However,
this meaning of visibility and invisibility properly pertains to the ques on
whether the church can pass away [§§ 86–103].
(IX) Finally, we must remove the ambiguity that lies in the expression
“church catholic.” The church catholic is called, first, “the gathering of the
saints and elect.” In this sense, properly, we are using that expression in
this disputa on. Second, it is called “the gathering of par cular churches”
that confess the catholic faith. Augus ne uses it in this sense in tractate 6
on John: “There are good and evil in the catholic church, but like wheat
and chaff.” According to both meanings one can say that the church
catholic is invisible. This is because human eyes cannot see who among the
called are truly the saints and the elect, nor does the church catholic that
includes the called of all mes and of all places become visible to the view
of eyes before Judgment Day. Tertullian’s statement from his De praescript.
belongs here: “[The church] catholic is eternal in mes, infinite in places,
innumerable in persons.” Only in the la er sense do the Papists concede
that the whole catholic church cannot be seen. They claim that one cannot
infer from this that the church is invisible, of itself and simply speaking,
since its parts can be seen, though the en re thing is not apparent.
Pistorius (Hodeg., p. 136) explains this using the Rhine as an example. One
cannot see each and every one of its parts with a single glance, but it does
not follow from this that the Rhine is invisible. They also deny that in the
first sense the expression “church catholic” can be used for the gathering
of the saints and elect. Therefore they deny simply that the church is
invisible. We assert the opposite in the sense that is obvious from our
foregoing statements.

The arguments that prove that the church is invisible: First,

Jeremiah 31:33: “I will put My law in their hearts”
§ 71. Bellarmine does not touch upon the more serious arguments by
which we prove that the church is invisible in a certain way and respect. He
men ons some of the insignificant ones (De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 15) and tries
to respond to them. Let us see what he offers. (I) Jer. 31:33: “I will put My
law in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”
Here God dis nguished the church of the New Testament from the church
of the Old Testament. The former was an external assembly and
consequently had the Law wri en on external tablets of stone. The la er is
an inward people, and consequently they have the Law wri en in their
hearts. Bellarmine responds:
Jeremiah is not comparing the synagogue with the church, but the new covenant with the
old covenant. Although the new covenant properly is love, which is the Law wri en in the
heart, and though the old covenant properly is external doctrine or the Law wri en on
stones, it nevertheless does not follow that the church of the New Testament is invisible. For
as the body of an animal is visible yet has many parts inside that one does not see—such as
the heart, liver, vital spirits, and similar things—so also the visible church has many invisible
parts, such as faith, hope, love, etc. However much these invisible gi s are necessary in the
 church and exist only in the church, nevertheless they are not in all its parts, just as
sensa on is necessary in an animal and exists only in an animal but is not in all its parts.

We respond. (1) Bellarmine ought to have shown which of our people

uses this argument formed by that logic.
(2) He sets forth the elabora on of this locus on the basis of our
posi on as if we were claiming that the church of the Old Testament was
an external and visible assembly, while the church of the New was an
internal and invisible assembly. Yet we say that the church of the Old
Testament was no less invisible, in a certain respect, than that of the New.
(3) We certainly do recognize a difference between the Israelite church
of the Old Testament and the Chris an church of the New Testament in
this: the church of the Old Testament ordinarily was bound to some one
na on, to a certain na on and people, and even to one place. In the New
Testament, however, the church is gathered to Christ without respect or
dis nc on of places, na ons, languages, peoples, and persons through the
preaching of the Gospel in all the world among all na ons. Consequently, it
is also called “catholic” or “universal.” From this, one cannot infer that the
true church of the elect in the Old Testament was visible. It was not visible
to people’s eyes any less in the Old Testament than in the New who are the
elect in the assembly of the called.
(4) If that which is required in true members of the church cannot be
seen, surely with respect to her true living members the church must be
invisible. But love, which properly is the new covenant and the Law wri en
in the hearts of the devout, cannot be seen on the outside. Therefore, with
respect to her true living members, the church is invisible; that is, it is not
apparent to human eyes who are the true and genuine members of the
church. Bellarmine himself declares, ch. 2: “There are three ways of being
in the church: only in the body, only in the soul, and in both body and soul
simultaneously.” Yet that way of being in the church that involves only the
soul cannot be seen.
(5) Bellarmine’s comparison does not square with this. As regards those
invisible parts of an animal, such as the heart, liver, and vital spirits, one
can make an infallible judgment about them from external ac ons, just as,
also, those internal organs are apparent in their anatomies. Yet one cannot
pass a definite and infallible judgment from external ac ons about faith,
hope, and love, of which the internal fellowship of the church consists and
by reason of which gi s someone truly belongs to the church. Bellarmine
himself acknowledges this when he clearly writes, ch. 10, § Sed neutra:
“The recogni on of faith from its effects is not certain but conjectural.”
(6) Therefore we conclude from this passage as follows: Only those are
true and genuine members of the church, and to them the honorable tle
“church” is properly due, in whose hearts God wrote His Law and whose
God He is and who are His people. But now, those who really and truly are
such people cannot be recognized by an external view. Therefore the true
members of the church, according as they are such, cannot be seen or,
what is the same, the church with respect to her true members is invisible.

Second, Luke 17:20: “The kingdom of God does not come

with observation”
§ 72. (II) Luke 17:20–21: “The kingdom of God does not come with
observa on [μετὰ παρατηρήλσεως]; nor will they say, ‘Behold here’ or
‘Behold there,’ for the kingdom of God is within you.” The true church is
the kingdom of God. But now, one cannot see on the outside who properly
belongs to the kingdom of God. Therefore one also cannot see on the
outside who properly belongs to the true church. We prove the minor
premise from Christ’s statement that the kingdom of God does not come
with observa on but is within man. Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 20, ch. 9,
says: “The church militant is called the kingdom of God and the kingdom of
heaven because already now it is ruling and triumphing with Christ, though
it is not doing this the way it eventually will reign.” Later he says: “Yet the
tares do not reign with Him, even though they grow with the wheat in the
church.” (Therefore the tares, or the wicked, do not belong to this
kingdom.) Later he adds: “Those rule with Christ who are in His kingdom in
such a way that they themselves are His kingdom. Now, how are those His
kingdom who seek their own and not the things that are of Jesus Christ?”
[Cf. Phil. 2:21.] Bellarmine makes the excep on: “ ‘Kingdom of God’ means
either the grace through which God rules in the hearts of people, as
Theophylact explains, or Christ Himself, as Bede explains.”
We respond. We are happy to accept the interpreta on of Theophylact,
which very clearly confirms our opinion, for it is not evident to human eyes
in whose hearts Christ lives through faith and rules through grace. Christ
sets this declara on against the Pharisees, who were convinced that the
kingdom of God, that is, the kingdom of the Messiah foretold by the
prophets, would be worldly and temporal. Against that persuasion of theirs
Christ sets forth this statement: that “the kingdom of God does not come
with observa on (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως),” that is, with external splendor
and great pomp, like the kingdoms of this world. Rather, it is a spiritual and
internal realm whose beginning, progress, and growth are hidden to
human eyes. The Glos. ord., on this passage: “It cannot be observed
because My kingdom is not temporal but spiritual, a kingdom that has
already begun by faith.” But how does the following asser on of
Bellarmine square with that statement of Christ: “The church is an
assembly of people as visible and palpable as the assembly of the Roman
people or the kingdom of France or the republic of Venice”? Surely, it
cannot be denied that those kingdoms and empires come with
observa on, that is, that they boast of their external splendor and that
their beginnings and growth can be observed. But Christ denies this
concerning the kingdom of God, that is, the true church.

Third, John 4:23: “The true worshipers worship in spirit and

truth”
§ 73. (III) John 4:23: “The hour is coming and now is when the true
worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.” The church of the
New Testament, therefore, does not consist of an external sign nor is it
bound to places and physical ceremonies. Bellarmine concludes and
responds in favor of our posi on as follows: “This passage teaches that the
principal worship of God in the church will be internal. Because of this,
however, it does not follow that the church herself is invisible, nor does it
follow that external worship should be rejected and external temples
destroyed. The Lord is not speaking about the place for prayer but about
the manner and ritual.”
We respond. (1) Our argument is: The true church, the proper sense,
consists of true worshipers. But now, human eyes cannot see who the true
worshipers are because “the true worshipers worship in Spirit and truth.”
But the eye cannot determine who they are who do this, since hypocrites
do the same thing as far as outward appearance is concerned. Therefore
the true church, in the proper sense, cannot be seen.
(2) Therefore we accept what Bellarmine grants, that “the principal
worship of the church is spiritual and internal.” Therefore because of this
and with respect to this it properly is and is called “church.” Indeed, the
church does have external worship and ceremonies, but this is not its
principal worship. Consequently, from the external worship and
ceremonies that meet the eyes one cannot judge who is properly a ci zen
of the church catholic and a true member of it. Rather, one must pass such
judgment on the basis of internal and spiritual worship. This, however, is
not apparent to human eyes, and therefore one also cannot see who they
are who pursue a spiritual and internal worship.
(3) Christ is speaking not only about the manner and ritual of prayer but
also about the place, as His very words tes fy clearly: “The hour is coming
when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the
Father, but the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth.”
The Samaritans used to worship on Mount Gerizim; the Jews, in the temple
at Jerusalem. Christ, however, teaches that the devout in the New
Testament would worship God in spirit and truth without a dis nc on of
places.
Bellarmine objects: “If Christ had wanted to say that the true worshipers
of God would no longer worship God in Jerusalem nor on Mount Gerizim,
He would have made a false statement. It is evident that a er Peter and
John received the Holy Spirit, they went up to the temple at Jerusalem at
the ninth hour, the hour of prayer (Acts 3[:1]). It is also evident that there
always were Chris ans in Pales ne who worshiped God at Jerusalem and
on Mount Gerizim,” etc. But this is a frivolous excep on. Christ does not
simply deny that the devout are going to worship God in Jerusalem or on
Mount Gerizim in the me of the New Testament. Rather, He denies that
they are going to worship with that opinion of necessity and of hoping for a
peculiar sanc ty from a place, by which opinion the Samaritans worshiped
on Mount Gerizim and the Jews at Jerusalem, as if the hearing of prayer
was bound to a certain place. That is, He is asser ng that they are going to
worship God in spirit and truth without any dis nc on of places.
(4) From this comes another observa on against Bellarmine. He claims
that the church of the New Testament is bound to the Roman pon ff and
to the city of Rome, for which reason he considers “the catholic church”
and “the Roman church” as equivalent terms. Christ, however, says in this
passage that adora on, the principal part of divine worship in the church,
is not bound to a certain place. Therefore He says that the church is not
bound to a place. But now, the nature of places, mes, persons, and the
other circumstances is the same. Hence just as the church of the New
Testament is not bound to a certain place, so also it is not bound to certain
mes, certain persons, certain na ons, or a certain people. Consequently,
it is not “an assembly as visible and palpable as the Roman people,” etc.

Fourth, Hebrews 12:22: “You have come to Mount Zion”

§ 74. (IV) Heb. 12:22: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of
the living God,” etc. Here the church is called a spiritual Mount Zion.
Bellarmine objects: “The apostle is not taking ‘Mount Zion’ and ‘the city of
the living God’ to mean the church militant but the church triumphant,
which consists of blessed spirits.”
We respond. (1) In his preceding ch. 5, toward the end, Bellarmine
writes: “The church triumphant is united, nay, is one, with the church
militant.” From this we draw the following conclusion. Of whatever thing
one part is invisible, that thing is invisible with respect to that part. One
part of the church catholic, namely, the church triumphant in heaven, is
invisible. Therefore the church catholic is invisible with respect to that part.
As a consequence it is visible only in a certain manner, but not simply.
(2) The author of the Epistle contrasts the spiritual Mount Zion with the
physical Mount Zion. With the earthly Jerusalem he contrasts the spiritual
Jerusalem, which he calls “the city of the living God.” He is not taking the
“spiritual Zion” and “the city of the living God” to mean only the church
triumphant but the whole church catholic, part of which is s ll doing ba le
on earth. He is showing that there is a single fellowship and an u erly close
connec on of the church militant on earth with the church triumphant in
heaven. He also is showing that both are to be considered as one mys cal
Body. He says, “You have come” (not “You will finally come”) “to the
universal assembly (πανήγυριν) and church of the firstborn.” Therefore he
is not speaking only of the church triumphant.
 (3) We draw a conclusion as follows. Every spiritual thing is invisible. The
church is the spiritual Zion and a spiritual city. Therefore it is invisible.
(4) Thereby, also, when the church of the New Testament is contrasted
with the physical Zion and the earthly Jerusalem, this shows clearly that
the church of the New Testament is no longer bound to a place, closed off
in one area, and visible because of external rites and ceremonies in the
way that the church of the Old Testament was. Instead, this shows that the
church is free of those legal ceremonies and has been spread throughout
the world. Of course, we are not speaking here about this invisibility of the
church catholic in the proper sense.

Fifth, 1 Peter 2:5: “As living stones, be built up, a spiritual

house”
§ 75. (V) 1 Pet. 2:5: “You also, as living stones, be built up, a spiritual
house, a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to God.” This house,
however, is the church. Bellarmine objects:
Something is said to be spiritual in two ways: In one way, according to substance. In this way
angels are said to be spiritual. In the other way, according to its ordinance with respect to
the spirit, as a body is called spiritual and good works are called spiritual sacrifices. The
church is said to be a spiritual house in the second way, since the apostle intends that the
church not be a house built of wood and stones but of people consecrated to God.

We respond. (1) We concede that the house of the church consists of

spiritual people, that is, of people who have been reborn by the Spirit of
God and who are ruled by the Spirit of God. We also concede that one can
see those people. But because they are seen as physical people, not as
spiritual people who belong to the house of the church, it s ll remains firm
that the church, as a “spiritual house” built out of spiritual people, is
invisible. Only by the regenera on and renewal of the Spirit do people
become the spiritual house of God and true members of the church. But
now, the working of the Spirit is inward and not at all exposed to human
eyes. 1 Cor. 2:11: “For what man knows the things of a man except the
spirit of the man that is in him?” Therefore one also cannot see which
people are truly spiritual. Indeed, people do cons tute this spiritual house,
but not as physical and visible people but according as they are spiritual
people, that is, according as they grow together into one mys cal structure
through the Holy Spirit.
(2) Those truly and properly belong to the church “who offer to God
spiritual sacrifices accepted through Christ.” But now, who such people
truly are is not apparent to human eyes. Therefore the church of the saints,
which consists of such people, is invisible.
(3) The same apostle encourages Chris an women to take care that
their adornment be “the hidden man of the heart (ὁ κρυπτὸς τῆς
καρδίας ἄνθρωπος)” (1 Pet. 3:4). He is acknowledging that the
adornment through which we are true ci zens of the church is to be
sought in the inner man and in the hidden place of the heart. But now,
because that adornment is inward and hidden, it is by no means visible to
external viewing.
(4) If the church is a spiritual house, it will not be “an assembly as visible
and palpable as the assembly of the people of Rome or the kingdom of
France or the republic of Venice.” These realms are spiritual in neither the
first way nor the second. Yet being a spiritual house truly applies to the
church not only because part of it (namely, the church triumphant) consists
of blessed spirits but also because the other part of that church (namely,
the church militant) consists of spiritual people who, like living stones, are
being built by faith upon the cornerstone and founda on, Christ. But now,
not only are those blessed spirits invisible, but also that en re construc on
of spiritual people is invisible. Therefore the church, too, is invisible.
Augus ne says, Letter 57: “The faithful are gathered into one spirit and
into one Body whose Head is Christ.” Later he adds: “Such a gathering is
the building of the temple of God. It is not a fleshly birth but a spiritual
rebirth that makes such a gathering.” Contra liter. Pe liani, bk. 2, ch. 118:
“The wicked are not in that structure of Christ’s church, which increases in
the members of Christ through connec on and contact into the increase of
God [cf. Col. 2:19], for, in fact, the church is on the Rock,” etc.

Sixth, we believe there is the catholic church; therefore we

do not see it
§ 76. (VI) We confess in the Creed that we “believe there is the catholic
church” [credere ecclesiam catholicam]. Therefore we do not see it.
Bellarmine twists himself in various ways. His first response is: “One can
say, in the Creed it does not merely state: ‘I believe there is the church’
[credo ecclesiam] but ‘I believe there is the holy church’ [credo sanctam
ecclesiam]. But the holiness of the church undoubtedly is invisible.” Yet he
himself abandons this response, and he is right to do so. A er all, we
confess to believe both that there is a church and that it is holy. If only the
holiness of the church were an ar cle of faith but not the church itself, we
would have to say, “I believe there is the holiness of the church,” not, “I
believe there is the holy church.” In addi on, on the basis of our
adversaries’ hypothesis, only part of the catholic church—and it is the least
part—is holy. Therefore it is not correct for them to confess that they
believe that the en re catholic church is holy.
But as I have said, Bellarmine gives li le weight to this response. So he
adds another. He says:
It is be er, I say, that in the church one thing is seen and another is believed. We see this
assembly of people that is the church. We do not see that this assembly is the true church of
Christ, but we believe it. The true church is the one that confesses the faith of Christ. But
who knows evidently that ours is the faith of Christ, something that we believe with a firm
and very certain faith? Yet it is one thing to see and another to believe. In fact, the apostle
defines believing as the evidence of things not seen [Heb. 11:1].

He later explains this with some examples. “The apostles saw that man
who is Christ, the Son of God, yet they did not see but believed that He
was Christ, the Son of God. Also, we say in the Creed: ‘I believe there is one
Bap sm,’ though what we see and experience is bap sm, that is, the
sprinkling of water and the pronouncing of the words. We do not see that
this sprinkling of water and pronouncing of words is the Bap sm of Christ,
that is, that it is a sacrament, but we believe it.” Costerus uses the same
response in his Enchir., ch. de eccl. Becanus also repeats this in De ecclesia,
q. 1, concl. 1, p. 24: “Although we see with our external eyes the mul tude
of those people from whom the visible church has been produced, yet we
do not see but believe that in this mul tude is the true teaching of Christ
and of the apostles.” (Becanus should have added from Bellarmine: “We do
not see that this assembly or mul tude of people is the church.” But
everyone sees why he omi ed it.)
We respond. Bellarmine could not have pleaded our case be er nor
have explained our posi on more clearly, for we say the same thing in
every detail. We see the assembly of people that is the church, but we do
not see whether those people are the church. As not only the apostles but
also all people indiscriminately saw Christ the man, so also people see
indiscriminately all the children of the church. But just as eyes did not
show that the man Christ is the Son of God, so also neither senses nor eyes
declare that these people are the children of the church. All people see the
sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity, but the eyes do not declare
that such sprinkling is the Bap sm of Christ and is a holy sacrament. Thus
the people who belong to the church are seen and are visible, but it is not
outwardly apparent that those people are true living members of the
church. In his commentary on Romans 8, Pererius notes from Cajetan that
“two things in the object of faith are to be considered. One of them is
material; the other, formal. The material object of faith can be seen, but
the formal object is invisible.” I add the minor premise: With respect to its
material, the church can be seen, but according as it is a formal object of
faith, it is believed, not seen. Therefore our argument stands on the firm
basis: “I believe there is the church.” Therefore we do not see what we
believe; we perceive it not with our eyes but by faith. Heb. 11:1: “Faith is
the convic on of things not seen.” 2 Cor. 5:7: “We walk by faith, not by
sight,” and there faith and sight are opposed to each other. Augustine,
tractate 10 on John: “This is faith—to believe what you do not see.”
Gregory, Homily 26 in evang.: “The things that we see are no longer the
objects of faith but of recogni on.” Homily 32 in evang.: “That which can
be seen is be er said to be known than believed.”
Bellarmine concedes: “It is believed, not seen, that the assembly of
people that confesses the faith of Christ is the true church. This is because
it cannot be known evidently, that is, seen, whether that faith is the faith of
Christ.” Yet we can argue much more strongly that because the internal,
saving faith through which people become true living members of the
church and without which they are dry and ro ng members—that is,
equivocally called members—I say, because that internal faith cannot be
seen, therefore the true church, which is the gathering of true believers
and saints, is also invisible. “Who knows for certain,” writes Bellarmine (ch.
10, § Ad haec necesse est), “in whom that internal faith exists?”
More arguments for our position: First, the church properly is
the gathering of the saints
§ 77. Those are the arguments of ours to which Bellarmine wanted to
respond. But there are several others. (1) Here belong all the statements of
Scripture by which we proved above (§ 50) that the church properly is the
gathering of the saints. From them we draw the following conclusion: To
the church, properly speaking, belong only the saints and true believers.
But now, who these true believers and saints are is not apparent to human
eyes. Therefore the true church, properly speaking, is also not apparent to
human eyes.

Second, the proper splendor of the church is internal

(2) Here belong all the passages in which the splendor and adornment
of the true church is called interior and hidden. Ps. 45:[13]: “All the glory
of the king’s daughter is interior.” This daughter of the heavenly King and
Bride of Christ is the church, and her adornment is said to be interior,
namely, in the virtues and gi s of the Holy Spirit. Therefore if the true and
proper splendor of the church is interior and invisible, surely the church,
too, to this extent and in this respect, is invisible. Augustine, De bapt.
contra Donat., bk. 5, ch. 27: “All the beauty of the king’s daughter is
within, in those in which there is the certain number of the saints
predes ned before the founda on of the world.” Rom. 2:28–29: “For he is
not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something outward, in
the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one hiddenly, and circumcision is of the
heart, in the Spirit, not the le er. His praise is not from men but from God.”
That which is in secret is also invisible. The church, according to its primary
meaning, is in secret because, as the apostle declares, only he is a true Jew
who is such in the secret or in the hidden place of his heart, and only that
is true circumcision which is in the heart and in the Spirit, not in the flesh.
Thus in like fashion we can declare that the church that commends itself
openly as the church and draws the eyes of people with its visible splendor
is not to be acknowledged as the true church. Rather, those who are
Chris ans in secret are true Chris ans and the true church. Therefore the
church, according to its primary meaning, is invisible.
Third, the members of the true church are known to God
alone
(3) Here belong all the passages in which the knowledge of those who
are true, living members of the church is claimed for God alone. The
church is invisible; that is, the gathering of the saints is clearly visible not to
human eyes but to the eyes of God. The Israelite church of the ten tribes at
the me of Elijah was hidden among an indiscriminate crowd of idolaters in
such a way that it was not visible even to the eyes of the very holy and
observant prophet Elijah. When he complained: “I alone am le ,” and said
that all the true worshipers of God had been killed, the divine oracle told
him: “I have le for Myself seven thousand men in Israel who have not
bent their knees to Baal” (1 Kings 19:18). Therefore that assembly of the
devout was invisible to Elijah but was very well-known to God, the
Searcher of hearts.
No one should make the excep on that the nature of the church in the
Old Testament is different from that of the church in the New. Let him
rather note that the apostle clearly is applying this example to the status of
the church in the New Testament (Rom. 11:4). Thus when the apostle had
complained about the apostasy of Hymenaeus and Philetus and about the
subversion of many people that they had caused (2 Tim. 2:18), he
immediately added: “But God’s firm founda on stands, having this seal:
‘The Lord knows those who are His’ ” (v. 19). That is to say, though false
teachers may subvert many in the visible church, the true and invisible
church nevertheless is preserved in those who cling to God by true faith,
people whom God alone knows.
The judgment about who the true, living members of the church are
cannot be from any other source than from the inner renewal of the heart.
But now, this knowledge belongs to God alone. 1 Sam. 16:7: “Man sees
those things that appear to the eyes, but the Lord beholds the heart.” 1
Kings 8:39: “You alone know the hearts of all the sons of men.” Jer. 17:9–
10: “The heart of man is depraved and perverse. Who can know it? I, the
Lord, know the hearts and try the reins.” Accordingly, Christ, too, transfers
the knowledge of His sheep to Himself alone. John 10:14: “I know My
sheep.” Therefore the true, living members of the church are visible to
God’s eyes alone, or, what is the same, the true church of the saints is
invisible.

Fourth, Christ alone knows His Bride

(4) The true church is described in Eph. 5:25–27; 2 Cor. [11]:2; and
many other places as Christ’s Bride, who clings to Christ in the Spirit; that
she is subject to Him with the true obedience of faith; that she loves Him
sincerely; that Christ in turn loves her, takes care of her, sanc fies her,
cleanses her, and begins to make her glorious. But now, we do not and
cannot recognize with our eyes what people are like that. Therefore the
true church is invisible. Augustine, Contra Donatist., bk. 4, ch. 3:
Those churches are not devoted that appear to be in Christ and live against Him, that is,
which act against Christ’s commandments. One must not judge that such belong to that
church which He cleanses for Himself with the washing of water through the Word, that He
may present her to Himself as a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or anything of
that sort. But if they are not in that church to whose members they do not belong, then
they are not in the church about which it is said: “One is my dove; she is the only one of her
mother” [Song 6:9], for she is without spot or wrinkle. Or whoever can, let them claim that
there are members of this dove who renounce the world in words but not in deeds.

In connec on with this, in Rev. 21:10 John was carried off “in spirit” by
an angel in order “to see the holy city coming down out of heaven from
God.” In v. 9 it is called “the bride and wife of the Lamb.” If that church had
been visible to physical eyes, what need would there have been for John to
be carried off in the spirit to see it?

Fifth, only the Shepherd knows His sheep

(5) The true church is described as being the assembly of those who are
“the sheep of Christ that hear the voice of their Shepherd” and render
obedience to Him (John 10:27); Luke 8:15: “who hear the Word, and keep
it in a good and honest heart, and bring forth fruit with pa ence”; Matt.
7:24: “who build not on sand but on the rock.” But now, we cannot
recognize with external seeing who truly are such people and who truly
belong to that assembly. Therefore the true church is invisible. Augustine,
Contra Donatist., bk. 5, ch. 27: “The number of the righteous who have
been called according to His purpose [Rom. 8:28] and about whom it is
said, ‘The Lord knows those who are His’ [2 Tim. 2:19], that number is a
closed garden, a sealed fountain, a well of living water, a garden with the
fruit of apple trees [Song 4:12, 15; 5:1].” But it is evident that “a closed
garden, a sealed fountain,” etc., in the Song of Songs means the church
catholic. Therefore the church catholic is the number of the righteous who
have been called according to His purpose and about whom it is said, “The
Lord knows those who are His.”

Sixth, the mystical Body is invisible

(6) Every mys cal body is invisible. The church is Christ’s mys cal Body.
Therefore the church is invisible. The Head of the church catholic in this life
is invisible. Therefore the church itself is invisible. The antecedent is clear
because in this life “we do not see” Christ (1 Pet. 1:8), who is the mys cal
Head of the church. The consequence is also obvious because the head is
the primary member of the body. Whoever does not see the head,
therefore, does not see the body. Gregory, Moral., bk. 35, ch. 9: “Christ
and the church, that is, the Head and the Body, is one person.”

Seventh, the warfare of the church is invisible

(7) The church militant and triumphant is invisible. Therefore the en re
church catholic is invisible. With regard to the church triumphant this is
obvious, for who sees patriarchs, prophets, apostles, martyrs, etc.,
triumphing with Christ in heaven? We prove this about the church militant
in this way: She is called the church militant because of the warfare that
she performs. This warfare, however, is spiritual and invisible, her enemies
are invisible, her weapons are invisible, the Judge is invisible, etc. Eph.
6:12: “For we are not contending against flesh and blood but against the
principali es, against the powers, against the lords of the world, the rulers
of the darkness of this world, against the spiritual wickedness in high
places.”

The statements of the fathers about the invisible church

§ 78. Here we should cite tes monies from the fathers: (I) In which they
define the church as “the gathering of the saints,” for who can recognize
with an external seeing which people truly are saints?
 Cyprian, bk. 1, Le er 3 ad Cornel. (elsewhere it is Letter 59): “Those are
the church who remain in God’s house. Those are not a plan ng planted by
God the Father whom we see not fastened together with the stability of
grain but being sca ered like chaff because of the wind of a hos le spirit.”
Origen, on Jeremiah, homily 3, at the beginning: “The treasury of the
Lord is His church. In this treasury, that is, in the church, quite o en people
are hiding who are vessels of wrath. There will come a me, then, when
the Lord will open the treasury of the church. The church is now closed,
and vessels of wrath dwell in it with vessels of mercy; the chaff is with the
grain; the fish to be destroyed and thrown away are kept with the good fish
that have come into the nets.” On Genesis, homily 1: “Those who do not
have spot or wrinkle or anything of that sort are the true church.”
Basil, on Psalm 44: “The church is one, perfect, a dove [Song 6:9] that
receives into its place at the right hand of Christ those who have been
trained in doing good. Like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
He separates the upright from the wicked.”
** Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyr., bk. 4, p. 114: “Whenever you hear the
church, know that the holy mul tude of believers is speaking to you.”
Clement of Alexandria, Strom., bk. 7, p. 514: “Now, I do not call the church
a place but the gathering [τὸ ἄθροισμα] of the elect.” **
Chrysostom, on 2 Timothy, homily 5, on the words “in a great
household,” etc. [2 Tim. 2:20]: “He is not rela ng this comparison to the
church but to the en re world. You see, in the church there is no vessel of
clay or wood. Rather, they are all gold and silver. For there is Christ’s Body,
a chaste virgin, not having spot or wrinkle.”
Jerome, on Job 26: “The church herself is the gathering of all the saints.”
On Ephesians 5: “One cannot say that a person who is a sinner and is
stained with a blemish belongs to the church of Christ, nor can it be said
that he is subject to Christ.” Lest anyone claim with Sixtus Senensis
(Biblioth., bk. 6, annot. 305) that “Jerome is speaking about the church
triumphant,” he should note what Jerome adds a bit later: “If his wounds
are cured, then he can become part of the church, which is the Body of
Christ.” On Psalm 87: “Christ’s church is nothing other than the soul of
those who believe in Christ” (with an internal, living, saving faith, as the
context shows).
 Ambrose, on Psalm 35: “Just as the saints are members of Christ, the
wicked are members of the devil.”
Augus ne very o en repeats that and forces it upon the Donatists, De
bapt., bk. 7, ch. 51: “All things considered, I think I am not saying rashly
that some people are in God’s house in such a way that they themselves
also are the very house of God, which is said to be built upon the Rock,
which is called the one dove, a beau ful bride without spot or wrinkle, a
locked garden, a sealed fountain, a well of the water of life, a garden with
fruit of apple trees. Others, as is evident, are in the house in such a way
that they do not belong to the structure of the house nor to the fellowship
of fruit-bearing, peacemaking righteousness. Rather, they are said to be
like the chaff in the grain.” Book 1, ch. 17: “Whether the reprobate seem to
be within or are clearly outside, they are always separated from the unity
of the church, which is without spot and wrinkle.” Book 4, ch. 2: “The
church herself is uncorrupted, chaste, and modest. Therefore the greedy,
thieves, the usurers—not only those who are outside but also those who
are inside—do not belong to her.” He has similar statements in bk. 3, ch.
18; bk. 5, chs. 16 and 27; bk. 6, chs. 24 and 31; bk. 7, ch. 8; etc. In Letter
57 he teaches: “The faithful are gathered into one Spirit and one Body,
whose Head is Christ.” He also says that “this gathering is the building of
the temple of God and is built by spiritual regenera on.” On Psalm 37 he
says, “The church is the mys cal Body of Christ,” and he adds: “We are in
His Body, but only if our faith in Him is sincere, if our hope is certain, and
our love kindled.” De catech. rudib., ch. 20: “All sanc fied people who have
been, are now, and ever will be are ci zens of the heavenly Jerusalem.” De
unit. ecclesiae, ch. 12: “Wicked throngs of the church cannot be regarded
as in the church.” Chapter 18: “Certainly within the good is that church
about which is said, ‘As a lily among thorns, so is my love among the
daughters’ [Song 2:2]. For the church is in those who build upon the Rock,
that is, who hear the words of Christ and do them, etc. Therefore she is not
in those who build upon the sand, that is, who hear the words of Christ
and do not do them.” Contra literas Pe liani, bk. 2, ch. 118: “We should
not think that they” (the wicked) “are in Christ’s Body, which is the church,
just because they par cipate bodily in His Sacraments, etc. They are not in
that structure of Christ’s church which increases in the members of Christ
through connec on and contact into the increase of God [cf. Col. 2:19], for,
in fact, the church is on the Rock, etc.”
[Augus ne], tractate 45 on John: “The church is Christ’s sheepfold, and
His sheep are those that no one will snatch, for they have their names
wri en in the book of life.” [Gregory the Great,] Homily 38 in evang.: “The
kingdom of heaven is the church of the righteous; for while their hearts
embrace nothing on earth, the Lord is already ruling in them as if in
heavenly people through their yearning for things above.”
Hugh, De sacram., bk. 2, ch. 2: “Whoever does not have the Spirit of
Christ is not His member. In one body there is one spirit. There is nothing
dead in the body, nothing alive outside the body.”
Here belong also the words of Stapleton and Hoffmeister that we cited
earlier toward the end of § 51. The Council of Worms, preface: “We
believe that the catholic church has been redeemed by the price of His
blood and will reign with Him forever.” (Yet only the saints will rule with
Christ forever.) Joh. Picus, Theorem. 13: “First and principally, the church is
called ‘catholic’; it includes all people of right and apostolic faith and of
love unfeigned.”
(II) [Here belong the tes monies of the fathers] in which they claim that
the church is the assembly of the elect, for who can recognize, by an
external seeing, who the elect are?
Clement, Strom., bk. 7: “The church is the assembly of the elect into
which are gathered the faithful and righteous whom God predes ned
before the crea on of the world.”
Augustine, De bapt. contra Donat., bk. 5, ch. 27: “ ‘Locked garden,’
‘sealed fountain,’ ‘lily,’ ‘sister,’ ‘Bride of Jesus Christ’ mean only the holy
and righteous, those who are Jews in secret with the circumcision of the
heart, among whom there is a set number of saints, predes ned before
the founda on of the world.”
Prosper, on Psalm 106: “The church catholic is in the elect whom God
has foreknown, the sons of promise, the members of the Body of Christ.”
Gregory, on Job, bk. 28, ch. 5: “All the elect are contained within her
limits; outside stand all the reprobate.” On Song of Songs: “The garden is
the holy church because, when she gives birth to many peoples in faith, it
is as though the good ground is sending forth beau ful flowers. She is well
called a ‘closed garden’ because love protects her with a wall all around,
lest a reprobate person enter within the number of the elect.”
Bernard, on Song of Songs, sermon 68: “The church is the assembly of
the elect, predes ned before the ages.”
Here we should also cite the confession of our adversaries themselves.
Biel, Can. Miss., lect. 22: “Therefore ‘the church’ is taken as the en re
mul tude of the predes ned.”
** Biel, loc. cit.: “The mys cal form of Christ’s Body, which is the church,
is true faith because of which those who define the church say that the
church is the mys cal Body of Christ with the faith of Christ as its soul [fide
Chris animatum].” Catech. Roman.: “The church militant is she that wages
constant warfare with her monstrous enemies: Satan, the flesh, and the
world.” It also calls the church of the elect “the number of the devout who
are joined and bound together not only by confession of faith and the
communion of the sacraments but also by the Spirit of grace and the bond
of love.” It also says that the church is called “the house of God because it
is like one family that one father governs and in which there is a sharing of
all spiritual goods.” **
Erasmus, Symb. catech., 4, p. 145: “The church in the proper sense is
the secret society of people predes ned for eternal life. A large part of it is
already living with Christ. That part which remains is called to strive for the
greatest purity. We are correct in saying it has neither spot nor wrinkle
either by synecdoche or from its aim or end, from which the dialec cians
admit that its name is taken. Some mes, however, the word ‘church’ is
taken so broadly that it includes all who have been washed with Bap sm,
whether they live devoutly or otherwise.”
Enchir. Christ. ins t. Colon., de sacram. ordinis, p. 171: “When they
contend that the church is invisible, which we do not deny with regard to
the church of the predes ned, they nonetheless will concede to us, as we
think, that that church is visible which has bad people mixed with the
good, joined together by a visible confession of faith and the communion
of the Sacraments.” (But we freely admit this, as is obvious from the
Augsburg Confession, art. VII and VIII).
(III) [Here belong the tes monies of the fathers] in which they say that
to the church catholic belong all the saints who have lived from the
beginning of the world un l now, for who can see them in this life with an
external seeing? Augustine, on Psalm 90, conc. 2: “The Body of this Head
is the church, not the one that is in this place but the one that is in this
place and throughout the world; nor is it the one that is in this me but the
one that is from Abel to those who will be born un l the end of me and
will believe in Christ. It is the en re people of the saints who belong to one
city, which city is the Body of Christ, whose Head is Christ.” De bapt. contra
Donat., bk. 1, ch. 16: “There are two ci es, that is, two churches, one of
which gave birth to Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and the prophets,
the apostles, martyrs, and all good Chris ans; and the other, which gave
birth to Cain, Ham, Ishmael, Esau, Judas, Simon Magus, and all the other
pseudo-Chris ans who persist stubbornly in their physical affec ons un l
this me, whether they are mingled with its unity or disagree with it by
means of obvious separa on.”
Bede, on Song of Songs 6: “Just as there is one Lord, one faith, one
Bap sm, one God and Father of all [Eph. 4:5–6], so also there is one
church, the mul tude of all the elect in all places of the world and all mes
of the ages, subject to one God and Father.”
Gregory, Homily 19 in evang.: “Our Creator has a vine, namely, the
church universal, which, from righteous Abel to the last elect person who
will be born in the world, has produced as many saints as if it sent forth
shoots.”
(IV) [Here belong the tes monies of the fathers] in which they teach
that the church triumphant, too, belongs to the fellowship of the church
catholic, for who can see the fellowship of the blessed triumphing in
heaven?
When Augustine, Enchirid. ad Laurent., ch. 56, explains this ar cle of
the Creed: “I believe there is the catholic church,” he teaches that this
means “not only the church militant but also the church triumphant.” He
says: “This en re [church] is to be taken not only according to a part, by
which it sojourns on earth from the rising of the sun to the going down of
the same, praising the name of the Lord [Ps. 113:3] and singing a new
song a er the cap vity of oldness. It is also to be taken according to the
part that always clings to God in heaven, by whom that part was created,
and which has never experienced any evil of its falling.” And later: “Both
will be in a fellowship of eternity and are now one in the bond of love. The
whole church has been established to worship one God.” De civ. Dei, bk.
10, ch. 7: “With them” (the blessed angels) “we are one city of God, to
which it is said in Psalm [87:3]: ‘Glorious things are spoken of you, O city
of God.’ Part of it sojourns among us; part of it provides relief among
them.”
Here we should men on Bellarmine’s confession, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 5,
second-last paragraph: “The church triumphant is united or, rather, is one
with the church militant.” If the church triumphant is invisible, one cannot
deny that the church catholic is invisible, for whatever fits a part ought to
be a ributed to the whole because of that part. Turrianus (tract. 2, bk. 3,
ch. 4) seems to acknowledge this when he writes: “One en re church is
partly visible, partly invisible.”
(V) [Here belong the tes monies of the fathers] in which they admit
that the primary worship of God and adornment of the church is internal.
Jus n, Epist. ad Diogn., p. 384: “The invisible soul has been set in a
visible body that acts as a guard. This is also how Chris ans are recognized
while they dwell in this world. Their divine worship, however, is invisible.”
Origen, on Numbers, about the middle of homily 23: “The Sun of
righteousness is Christ. If the moon, that is, His church, which is filled with
His light, has been joined to Him and clings very closely to Him, it
celebrates the feast of the new moon, etc. It is at that me when human
sight can neither see nor grasp it.”
Augustine, on Psalm 44: “He who has loved her appearance has known
she is beau ful within. What are the internal things of her beauty? The
conscience. It is there that Christ sees and loves and speaks and punishes
and crowns.”
What Bellarmine admits in ch. 2 belongs here: “Some belong to the soul
of the church, though they do not belong to the body.” Chapter 6: “Some
are in the church in mind but not in body or external communica on, and
that is sufficient for their salva on.” Chapter 15: “Many invisible things are
in the church, such as faith, hope, charity, etc.” But now, one cannot pass
judgment by external seeing as to who belongs to the soul of the church
and in whose hearts those internal gi s—faith, hope, and charity—are
present. And yet those very people cons tute a par cular fellowship
because they are joined together by the bond of the Spirit, and the church
properly and principally consists in them. Therefore one cannot deny that
that church, which is the gathering of the saints, is invisible.
 The book Interimis cus, ch. 9, admits the same thing: “Insofar as the
church consists of such members who live according to love, it is a church
of saints only, and to that extent it is spiritual and invisible.” So, then, the
truth accepts tes mony from the mouth of its adversaries.

The antithesis of the Papists: the church is visible

§ 79. Before trying to prove that the church is visible, Bellarmine (ch. 9,
response to argument 8) presupposes that we imagine that there are two
churches and (ch. 11, § 1) that we claim that “the church is visible in name
but invisible in fact.” We, however, do not acknowledge those
presupposi ons. We say that in a diverse respect one and the same church
is visible and invisible: visible with regard to its external fellowship that
consists of the profession of faith and use of the Sacraments; invisible with
regard to its internal fellowship, which is to be sought in the internal gi s
of the Holy Spirit. We also dis nguish between a par cular church and the
church catholic. We do not deny that par cular churches are visible. But
we assert that the church catholic is invisible, whether one takes the
expression “church catholic” for the gathering of the saints or for the
embrace of all par cular churches, just as we have explained this already in
detail [§§ 13, 34, 70].
Bellarmine speaks more accurately about our belief in ch. 10, rat. 4:
The Lutherans establish some visible and external signs of the church, namely, the preaching
of the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments. They are consistent in teaching that
wherever one sees these signs, there also is Christ’s true church. Yet because they claim that
only the righteous and devout belong to the true church, and because no one can know for
sure who the truly just and devout are among so many people who let their righteousness
and piety be seen on the outside—because it is certain that there are many hypocrites and
false brothers everywhere—therefore we conclude that they are making an invisible church.

Those are Bellarmine’s words. We can easily bring them back to a sound
sense, as long as the conclusion is drawn from the premises not simply but
in a certain respect, namely, that the church is called “invisible” because of
faith and the other internal gi s that human eyes cannot see. Yet we also
say that it is and is said to be visible because of the preaching of the Word
and the administra on of the Sacraments, which do externally meet the
eyes and ears. You see, we define the church in this way: it is the assembly
of human beings who confess divine doctrine and who use the divinely
ins tuted Sacraments. In this assembly are the saints, that is, those who
truly believe and are elect, who are true, living members of the church.
Mingled with them in this life there are nonsaints. Nevertheless those who
belong only to the external fellowship of the church are in agreement in
doctrine. But let us weigh Bellarmine’s arguments with which he tries to
prove that the church is visible.

First, no statement of Scripture can be cited in favor of the

invisibility of the church
He says, first, that “we can prove this from all the passages of Scripture
in which the word ‘church’ is found, because the word ‘church’ always
means the visible gathering. Not even one passage can be cited that
a ributes this word to the invisible gathering.” We respond. On the
contrary, wherever the word “church” is taken properly and specifically and
is used for the church catholic, it denotes the invisible assembly of the
saints and true believers, because there are no true members of the
church catholic except true believers and saints, as we showed earlier. So
that it may not be necessary to pile up many scriptural statements, we
repeat the ar cle of the Apostles’ Creed: “I believe there is the holy
catholic church, the gathering [congrega o] of saints.” Bellarmine offers
some statements of Scripture by which to prove that the word “church”
always means the visible gathering, but they are not of the same genus.
Some are speaking about par cular churches, which we admit are visible;
some, however, are about the church catholic, which is the invisible
gathering of the saints.

Numbers 20:4: “You have brought the church into the

wilderness”
[1] “Num. 20:4: ‘Why have you brought the church into this
wilderness?’ Here the very well-known people of Israel that has gone out
of Egypt is called ‘the church.’ ” We respond. None of us denies that that
par cular church of the Israelites was visible; from that, however, it does
not yet happen that the church catholic was visible, because not all those
who were in that visible and external assembly belonged to the church
catholic, that is, to the gathering of the saints, but only the devout and true
believers, such as Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, etc. Yet one could not
judge from an external seeing as to who were truly devout and holy in that
gathering. Furthermore, to the church catholic belonged not only the
devout who were s ll alive at that me but also the saints who had already
died, such as Adam, Seth, Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. Yet
when they were triumphing in heaven, they were not percep ble to
human eyes.

1 Kings 8:14: “The king blessed all the church”

(2) “1 Kings 8:14: ‘Then the king faced about and blessed all the church
of Israel.’ Here Scripture is obviously speaking about the visible church.”
We respond. This passage is also speaking about a par cular church,
namely, the assembly of the people of Israel gathered into the temple at
that me. But one could not judge with an external seeing who of that
assembly were true members of the church catholic, because Solomon
adds clearly there: “You, O Lord, alone know the hearts of all the sons of
men” (v. 39). In fact, this passage is not even speaking about the en re
visible church of Israel since many were absent from that assembly.

Matthew 16:18: “Upon this rock I will build My church”

(3) “Matt. 16:18: ‘Upon this rock I will build My church.’ Here, whether
we take the word ‘rock’ to mean Christ or the confession of faith or Peter,
the founda on of the church is always something the senses can grasp.
Hence the church is percep ble to the senses or visible. Although we now
see neither Peter nor Christ, at that me both were exposed for the
physical senses to see. Now we see both, not in themselves, but in their
vicar or successor.”
We respond. This passage is speaking about the church catholic in the
proper sense. The gates of hell quite o en prevail against par cular
churches, as experience teaches. No force and power of Satan, however,
can overthrow the church catholic. Those who are in only the visible
assembly of a par cular church, that is, those who belong only to the
external fellowship of the church, can be overthrown by the gates of hell.
On the other hand, the adversarial power of the devil cannot overthrow
those who belong to the church catholic so long as they cling to Christ with
true faith. In John 10:28 Christ tes fies: “No one will snatch My sheep
from My hand.” Christ is the founda on of this church catholic. 1 Cor. 3:11:
“No other founda on can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ
Jesus.” No one will be able to say that this founda on is visible, that is, that
physical eyes see it, because the devout believe in Christ, whom they “do
not see” (1 Pet. 1:8). Although people could see Christ when He dwelt on
earth in the days of His flesh, yet people could not see outwardly how He
was the founda on of the church and how true believers are built like
living stones upon this cornerstone. A er all, this en re construc on is
mys cal, spiritual, and internal. When Peter had confessed that Christ was
the founda on of the church, Christ Himself responded: “Flesh and blood
have not revealed this to you” (Matt. 16:17). But if Christ, according as He
is the founda on of the church, could have been seen, surely flesh and
blood, namely, eyes of flesh, would have revealed this to Peter. Therefore
the church, too, about which Christ is speaking here, is invisible. Just as
Bellarmine wanted to conclude on the basis of a visible founda on that the
church was visible, so also we conclude more correctly on the basis of an
invisible founda on that the church is invisible. There is scarcely anyone
who will believe that he sees Christ and Peter in the pope as their vicar and
successor, if that person wants to compare the teaching and life of Christ
and Peter with the teaching and life of the pope. In fact, this image is
exceedingly far from its prototype, and this successor is exceedingly far
from his predecessors. So this passage quite strongly confirms our posi on.
Christ is speaking about the sort of church that is built upon the rock in
such a way that not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. But this
cannot be understood as a visible church but as a reference to the invisible
church catholic of the true believers and elect. Here let me cite the
outstanding statement of Lyra, who writes in his commentary on this
passage: “The church does not consist of people with regard to
ecclesias cal or secular power or dignity, because many princes and
supreme pon ffs, as well as other lesser people, are found to have fallen
away from the faith. Because of this the church consists of those persons in
whom there are a true knowledge and confession of faith and of truth.”
Matthew 18:17: “Tell it to the church”
(4) “Matt. 18:17: ‘Tell it to the church; and if he does not listen to the
church, let him be to you as a heathen.’ But neither command can be kept
if the church is invisible.” We respond. The word “church” here means
either the elders and presbytery or the visible assembly of the called; by no
means does it mean the church catholic, which is the gathering of the
saints. We concede that the senate of the church and the assembly of the
called are visible, but we deny that the church catholic is visible.

Acts 20:28: “Take heed to yourselves and to the flock”

(5) “Acts 20:28: ‘Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which
the Holy Spirit has made you bishops, to rule the church of God.’ But how
could they rule a church that they did not know?” We respond. Confusion
is the mother of obscurity and error. The word “church” here means the
flock or listeners in the visible, par cular church of the Ephesians, as is
clear from the circumstances of the text and from Peter’s statement: “Feed
the flock of God that is among you” (1 Pet. 5:2). But we are speaking here
about the church catholic, to which belong only the true believers and
saints, whom the shepherds cannot discern from the rest of the flock of
the called. Nonetheless they can and should feed for salva on the flock of
the church that has been commi ed to their care.

Acts 15:3: “Being brought on their way by the church”

(6) “Acts 15:3–4: ‘Being brought on their way by the church, they
passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria.… When they came to
Jerusalem, they were received by the church.’ Acts 18:22: ‘Paul went up
and greeted the church.’ How can those things be fi ng for an invisible
church?” We respond. How, on the other hand, is it fi ng, on the basis of
these and similar passages that speak about par cular churches, to want
to draw a conclusion that applies to the church catholic? Par cular and
domes c churches consist of the en re assembly of the called. The church
catholic in the proper sense, however, embraces in its bosom only the
saints and elect. One can approach, see, and greet par cular churches; but
we confess in the Creed that we “believe there is the catholic church.”
Paul persecuted the church, 1 Corinthians 15:9
(7) “Paul tes fied that he persecuted the church (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13;
Phil. 3:6), and he knew whom he was persecu ng.” We respond. Neither
Saul nor anyone else can persecute the en re church catholic, because
part of it is triumphant in heaven, elevated above all the threats and might
of persecutors. Tyrants do persecute some members of the church catholic,
that is, some who truly believe and are devout, but not according as they
are members of the invisible church catholic but according as they confess
the faith of Christ in the visible assembly of the called. Those who
persecute the devout and truly faithful persecute Christ Himself (Acts 9:4).
Nonetheless persecutors see neither Christ nor the church catholic.
Therefore how can one infer the visibility of the church catholic from the
persecu on of some people in a par cular church?

1 Timothy 3:15: “That you may know how you should conduct
yourself in the house of God”
(8) “1 Tim. 3:15: ‘These things I write to you, O Timothy, that you may
know how you should conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the
church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.’ But he really
could not conduct himself in it without knowing which one it was.” We
respond. The apostle is speaking about the church of the Ephesians, which
was visible and par cular, which Timothy could see. This, however, does
not yet cause the church catholic, which is the gathering of the saints, to
be visible. One can say with regard to the church of the Ephesians and any
par cular church that it is God’s house because of the true believers and
elect who are in it, in whom God dwells by His grace. Here what befits only
certain people is being a ributed by synecdoche to an en re par cular
church or to the en re assembly of the called in which those people are.
See Luther, Contra coelest. proph., Jena German, vol. 3, p. 91.
In fact, Bellarmine himself sets down the rule (ch. 7, resp. ad 1):
“Through a figure of understanding, Scripture o en a ributes something
to the whole that befits only a part.” He proves this here with examples.
But now, one cannot judge with external seeing which people in par cular
churches are truly the house of God, “the pillar and support of the truth,”
that is, who the true believers and saints are in whom God dwells by His
grace and Spirit and who persevere consistently in the truth that they
know. Therefore the true church of the elect is invisible.
** Reihingius, Excub. contra Meisn., p. 15, argues from Ps. 89:[36–37]:
“His throne is like the sun in My sight, and like the moon it is perfected
forever.” We respond. The psalmist is speaking about the internal splendor
of the church that it has before God, not about the external splendor that
it has in the world in the eyes of humans. For Jehovah says, “His” (David’s)
“throne is like the sun in My sight.” **

Second, Scripture teaches that the church is visible. Psalm

19:[4]: “He has pitched His tabernacle in the sun”
§ 80. Bellarmine takes his second argument from those passages of
Scripture where the church is not named but where it obviously is being
described. (1) “Ps. 19:[4]: ‘He has pitched His tabernacle in the sun.’
Augus ne explains this as follows, Epist. Joh., tractate 2: ‘He has placed His
church out in the open so that, just as the sun cannot hide, the church also
cannot be hidden.’ ”
We respond. The Hebrew sources have: “He pitched a tabernacle for the
sun in them,” namely, in the heavens. Therefore the sense is literal, that
God pitched a tent for the sun, that is, a splendid seat, in the heavens.
Augus ne’s allegory had its origin in the Greek and La n versions. But now,
we all know what force allegorical interpreta ons have in the proof of
dogmas, especially allegorical interpreta ons taken from a faulty version.
Furthermore, as far as Augus ne is concerned, his business was with the
Dona sts who were closing off the church only in one corner of the world.
Against them Augus ne is correctly se ng forth the many par cular
churches of Christ sca ered throughout the world. We, however, do not
deny that par cular churches are visible, though they are not always of the
same splendor, as we shall say later [§ 104].

Isaiah 2:[2]: “The church is a great and conspicuous mountain”

(2) “In Isa. 2:[2]; Dan. 2:35; and Mic. 4:1, the church is compared to a
great and conspicuous mountain that can by no means be hidden,
according to Jerome’s explana ons of those passages and Augustine’s
Epist. Joh., tractate 1.”
We respond. Isaiah and Micah are describing the size and splendor of
the church that was going to exist at the me of the Messiah through the
universal preaching of the Gospel. The outcome corresponded to this
prophecy, but what can be inferred from this against our posi on? Even if
at the beginning of the New Testament the status of the church was such
that by the preaching of the Gospel—disseminated far and wide in all
direc ons among all na ons—the splendor of the par cular churches was
very great, nevertheless one cannot infer from this that throughout the
me of the New Testament such splendor of Christ’s church would
con nue, for we will show the opposite from Scripture in its own place [§§
86–103]. Furthermore, at that very me when the splendor of the
par cular churches was shining its brightest, the catholic church of the
saints was invisible; for no one could by any means judge with external
seeing who the true believers and saints were in those very large and
splendid assemblies. Daniel prophesies that, though all other kingdoms will
be overthrown, Christ’s kingdom will endure forever. This proves the
firmness of the church catholic but by no means its visibility. Jerome
teaches on Ezekiel 20: “The church is being compared to a great
mountain, not because of an external splendor that shines forever but
because it is established on the heights of holy doctrines.” The prophets
allude to Mount Zion on which Jerusalem was built, the chief city of Judea,
and they teach that Mount Zion was small, that is, that the church of Israel
was gathered together in one people and one region, but that at the me
of the Messiah that mountain would be enormous. That is, by the
preaching of the Gospel, the church would be transferred to all na ons,
but in that very large number of the called, no less than in the very limited
assembly of the children of Israel, the true believers and saints are not
percep ble to external eyes. Therefore the true church of the elect also in
the New Testament is and remains invisible.

Matthew 5:14: “A city set on a hill cannot be hidden”

(3) “Matt. 5:14: ‘A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.’ In De unit.
ecclesiae, ch. 14, and elsewhere, Augus ne explains this as referring to the
church.”
We respond. Christ here is addressing the apostles, whose teaching and
life, as He tes fies, are apparent to the sight of all. Christ precedes these
words with “you are the salt of the earth … you are the light of the world.”
This is the way Chrysostom and Theophylact treat that passage. Augus ne
uses this tes mony with reference to the church and sets it against the
Dona sts, who were teaching that the church had remained only in one
part of the world. He refutes them on the basis of the large crowds and
renown of the churches that existed in those days. From this, however, one
cannot infer that par cular churches will always be so glorious, crowded,
and well-known. Much less can one conclude from this that the catholic
church of the elect is visible. In Cont. Faust., bk. 13, ch. 13, Augus ne
explains that the church was placed on a mountain “because the truth
does not look for corners and hiding places.”

Gospel parables of Matthew 13

(4) “The Gospel parables about the threshing floor, the net, the
sheepfold, the banquet, etc., all show that the true church, which is the
kingdom of heaven, is visible.”
We respond. These parables are speaking about the status of par cular
churches, namely, that in them the wicked are mixed with the good, the
chaff with the wheat, the ro en fish with the good, the goats with the
sheep, etc. By no means, however, do they prove that wicked people
belong to the church catholic, properly speaking, or that this church is
visible.

Third, the origin and growth of the church prove the same
thing
§ 81. Bellarmine takes his third argument from the origin and growth of
the church:
In the Old Testament, the church was so visible that in the flesh itself they bore the visible
sign of circumcision. In the New Testament the en re Chris an church without doubt was at
the beginning in the apostles and disciples of Christ who were so visible that the Holy Spirit
visibly descended on them on the day of Pentecost. Then about three thousand people were
added to them visibly in one day by confession of faith and Bap sm. Following that, all those
 and only those were considered to be of Christ’s church who added themselves to those first
ones by Bap sm and confession of faith, etc.

We respond. (1) In Rom. 2:28–29 Paul dis nguishes between a Jew

inwardly and a Jew outwardly and between a circumcision of the flesh and
of the Spirit. In Rom. 9:6 he denies that “all who are descended from Israel
are Israelites.” In v. 8 he dis nguishes between sons of the flesh and sons
of the promise. In John 8:39 Christ says these words against the Jews: “If
you were Abraham’s children, you would do Abraham’s works.” From these
and similar passages one concludes that not all people born of Abraham’s
seed and reckoned among the children of Israel by circumcision were true
members of the church catholic or belonged to the assembly of the elect.
Rather, one concludes that the spiritual sons of Abraham who were reborn
to God through spiritual circumcision were the true church catholic.
Outward circumcision was common to the devout and to the wicked, on
account of which Paul declares that “the circumcision of breakers of the
Law becomes uncircumcision” (Rom. 2:25). Hence from the visible sign of
circumcision one could not conclude who of the children of Israel belonged
to the church catholic, which is the gathering of the saints. Indeed,
circumcision was the visible sign of the visible church of Israel just as
Bap sm today is the visible sign of the Chris an church, and through this
sign that church is dis nguished from the other assemblies—of the Jews,
Turks, and Gen les. The church catholic, however, does not have any such
sign, because the internal virtues that are required for one to be a true
member of the church catholic cannot be seen by human eyes.
(2) One cannot declare without loss of truth that the en re Chris an or
catholic church was only in the apostles and disciples, because to the
church catholic belong also the patriarchs, prophets, and the other saints
of the Old Testament who were translated into the church triumphant and
were not visible to human eyes. Consequently, the church catholic also at
that me was invisible. In fact, not even the whole church militant was only
in the apostles and disciples of Christ, because in Galilee, Samaria, and
other places there were many clinging to Christ by true faith, who were not
known to the apostles and the other disciples who publicly followed Christ.
Consequently, a er Christ’s resurrec on, a great number of disciples that
increased to five hundred brethren could so suddenly be gathered in
Galilee (Matt. 28:16; 1 Cor. 15:6). Also, the example of Nicodemus (John
3:1) shows that in the city of Jerusalem itself, among the sworn enemies of
Christ—chief priests, Pharisees, and scribes—a church of the devout was
gathered who were repressed by fear from confessing Christ publicly.
Those upon whom the Holy Spirit descended visibly and who joined
themselves to this assembly through Bap sm and the confession of faith
were a par cular and visible church. In that very external assembly of the
visible church, however, hid the catholic and invisible church of the elect.
In that par cular and visible church that the ministry of the apostles had
gathered at Jerusalem there undoubtedly were some hypocrites. Although
the true believers and elect could by no means be discerned from the
hypocrites by external seeing, yet those hypocrites did not belong to the
church catholic.

Fourth, the church is a society of people

§ 82. [Bellarmine] draws his fourth argument from the very nature of
the church. “The church is a society—not of angels, not of souls, but of
humans. But something cannot be called a society unless it consists of
external, visible signs. You see, something is not a society unless those who
are called ‘associates’ recognize one another. But people cannot recognize
one another unless the bonds of the society are external and visible.”
We respond. (1) When Bellarmine denies that the church catholic is a
society of souls, by that denial he excludes from the church catholic all the
dead saints and thereby also denies that the church triumphant is part of
the church catholic. Now, how does that agree with Bellarmine’s words in
ch. 5, second-last paragraph: “The church triumphant is united or, rather, is
one with the church militant”? In fact, how does it fit with the pages of
divine truth? Heb. 12:22–23: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the mul tude of
many thousands of angels, and to the universal assembly [πανηγύρει] and
church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to the spirits of just
men made perfect.” Finally, how does this fit with the ar cle of the
Apostles’ Creed: “I believe there is the holy catholic church, the
communion of saints”? Surely we cannot banish the souls of the dead
saints from that communion of saints.
 (2) The church militant is indeed a society of humans who cons tute the
visible church according as they are gathered into one fellowship by the
preaching of the Word and administra on of the Sacraments as visible and
external signs. They belong to the church catholic, however, according as
they are bound together with their Head and with one another by the
internal, spiritual, and invisible bond of faith, hope, and love. Because this
bond and connec on is invisible, the church catholic thereby is also caused
to be invisible.
(3) Bellarmine tries to confirm this argument on the basis of the custom
of all human socie es. He says, “People are enrolled into military service,
into a kingdom, into ci zenship in no other way except by visible signs.” We
explain this without difficulty. The church is a military service, but a
spiritual one. It is a kingdom, but a heavenly one. It is a city, but mys cal
and supernal. All other human socie es are external and visible, but the
society of the church catholic is internal and invisible. A er all, who can see
how the truly devout believers are joined with Christ, their Head, by a
spiritual bond? Who can see the communion of living saints with the
blessed spirits of the dead? Who can see the spiritual joining among the
members of the mys cal Body? If there is no society except among those
members who can recognize one another through external and visible
signs, then absolutely all fellowship between Christ and the church catholic
and its members must be denied, because in this life we do not see Christ
with our physical eyes.

Fifth, at the time of Christ the devout practiced fellowship

with the church of Israel
§ 83. Bellarmine shapes his fi h argument in this way: “According to
Philipp Melanchthon and [Ma hias] Flacius Illyricus, the church at the me
of Christ existed only in Zechariah, Anna, Simeon, Mary, and a few other
devout people, but not in the pon ffs [i.e., chief priests] and a certain
mul tude of Jews. Yet it is evident that Zechariah, Simeon, and the others
communed with the chief priests in the temple and the sacrifices, etc.
Therefore either they were ac ng badly by being in fellowship with a false
church, or the Lutherans are ac ng badly by not being in fellowship with us
and in not obeying the pon ff.”
 We respond. (1) We accept the comparison that compares our church
with Simeon, Zechariah, and the rest of the devout and, on the other hand,
the Roman church with the chief priests and the rest of the Jewish
mul tude. From this we draw the unshakable conclusion that our church is
true and that theirs is false.
(2) If this argument were to have any strength, it would not prove that
the church catholic is visible but that we should not have deserted the
Roman church. But this ques on belongs to another place. Therefore the
argument is beside the point.
(3) If we want to weigh the ma er carefully, this argument, rather,
confirms our opinion. In the Jewish church there were pon ffs [i.e., chief
priests], priests, Levites, Pharisees, etc., all of whom were claiming the tle
“church” for themselves. Actually, they were not members of the church
catholic because they were persecu ng Christ, the Head of the church
catholic, and Christ’s disciples, members of the church catholic. The church
was being preserved in these few people: Simeon, Zechariah, Elizabeth,
Anna, etc., who were visible as human beings but who could not be seen
according as they were members of the church catholic. They would go up
to the temple with the other Jews, celebrate the sacrifices with them, and
were joined to them in an external associa on. Nevertheless only they
alone, not the other Jews, were members of the church catholic.
Consequently, because one could not recognize with external eyes who of
the indiscriminate assembly of the Israelites belonged to the church
catholic, it follows that the church catholic was invisible. From the same
argument one also concludes that the visible church is not always evident
in the same way, nor is it immune from every error, as the Papists think.
We shall debate this ma er in the following ques ons [§§ 86–125].
(4) There is a difference between the Israelite and the Roman churches.
The chief priest in the church of Israel was divinely established; the Roman
pon ff, however, does not enjoy such an establishment. God had ins tuted
the temple, the sacrifices, and the en re Jewish polity and had added the
promise that these would endure un l Christ came and that, before the
Messiah came, the temple would be destroyed, the sacrifices abolished,
and the Jewish government overthrown. Despite this, the truly devout
remained in the external fellowship of the Jewish church and used the
same temple and sacrifices. One cannot show, however, as far as the
Roman church is concerned, that it has the same promises nor that the
church is bound to the city of Rome by a divine promise, as divine worship
in the Old Testament was bound to the temple.
(5) In fact, just as Chris ans in the apostolic church a er Christ’s ascent
finally le the external fellowship of the Jewish church because the priests
and Pharisees and the other Jews were banishing them from the
synagogue and were plo ng against their lives, so also we—impeded by
the thunderbolt of excommunica on from the Roman pon ff and driven
out of the fellowship of the Roman church by the violence of persecu ons
—have departed from their communion, not so much fleeing from them as
chased away. If the confession of true doctrine and the legi mate use of
the Sacraments had been le free for us, perhaps we would not have
departed from the external fellowship of the Roman church.
(6) Just as God saved for Himself a holy seed in that u erly corrupt
condi on of the Israelite church when all things were seen to be filled with
corrup ons of doctrine, with idolatry, and with supers ons, so also God
preserved for Himself a holy seed in later mes when the papacy had
spread far and wide, when again all things were seen to be depraved and
corrupted. S ll today in the very middle of Rome He gathers a church to
Himself, a church that, though it has not yet been separated from the
external fellowship of the Roman church, nevertheless does have an
internal communion with the church catholic and in this respect is invisible.

Sixth, we are bound to join ourselves to the church

§ 84. The sixth argument is taken from necessity. “We are bound under
the peril of eternal death to join ourselves to the true church and to
persevere therein. Yet this cannot be done if the church is invisible.”
We respond. (1) We must necessarily take this to mean the church
catholic outside of which there is no salva on. We are joined to the church
catholic when by true faith we are joined to Christ, her Head. This faith in
Christ is effectual through love, by which we are associated with the other
members of this mys cal Body.
(2) Although neither Christ, the Head of the church catholic, nor its true
and genuine members are visible to external eyes, nevertheless it is
sufficient for our salva on that we be joined to them by the inner bond of
the Spirit.
(3) It is indeed necessary that we join ourselves in an external fellowship
also with the visible church in which the heavenly doctrine sounds forth
and where the Sacraments are administered legi mately. But this union
with the external fellowship of the visible church is not simply and
absolutely necessary.
(4) There can occur the sort of me in which one cannot find any such
par cular church that is publicly renowned and conspicuous for the purity
of its doctrine and right use of the Sacraments, and when the external
ministry of the church is corrupt and depraved, as we shall show a bit later
with examples of the Israelite church in the Old Testament and of the
Chris an church in the New Testament [§§ 86–125, 176–80].
(5) And then one must also dis nguish between the two entrances to
the church. The first is the local and manifest entrance to a par cular
church through the external profession of faith. The second is the spiritual
and hidden entrance to the universal church through the inner assent of
the heart. Even if the former may be impossible in a me of persecu on
and overflowing corrup ons, nevertheless the la er always has a place in
the church.
(6) Bellarmine cannot deny this if he looks back at the examples of
Zechariah, Simeon, Anna, and other devout people who lived before the
coming of the Messiah. They never were able to find any par cular church
that was free of all corrup ons and had the pure ministry of the Word.
Therefore they joined themselves to the church catholic by faith and the
inner assent of the heart, though they maintained external associa on
with a corrupt and depraved church.
(7) It is possible for someone to be carried off into Turkish cap vity and
to be hidden alone in prison. He surely can have no external associa on
with a par cular church. Therefore an internal joining with the church
universal is enough for his salva on.
(8) Bellarmine admits that “a person who is unjustly excommunicated
can be saved because he is s ll in the church in heart or by desire, though
not in body nor in the external communion” (ch. 6, resp. ad 1). Therefore
one cannot and should not take that necessity of joining with the church to
mean the external joining with the visible church, but rather the internal
and spiritual joining with the church catholic. A person unjustly
excommunicated is deprived of the external communion and connec on
with a par cular, visible church. Yet he is not deprived of the internal
communion and connec on with the invisible church catholic. Hence he
also is not deprived of his salva on.

Seventh, the church is the gathering of people who use the

sacraments
§ 85. The seventh argument is taken from the defini on: “If the church
is the gathering of people who use the same sacraments and who profess
faith in Christ under the governance of lawful pastors, it necessarily follows
that the church is visible.”
We respond. Bellarmine himself is admi ng that no inner virtue is
required for anyone to be of that church which he has defined in this way.
We, on the other hand, are speaking here of the church catholic, which is
the gathering of the saints, to which, consequently, no one belongs unless
he is endowed with faith, hope, love, and the internal gi s of the Holy
Spirit. We explained earlier [§§ 52–53] what is lacking in Bellarmine’s
defini on.

Eighth, the statements of the fathers

His eighth and final argument is taken from some statements of the
fathers, but those statements are not at all opposed to our posi on. Origen
(on Matthew, homily 30) says: “The church is filled with splendor from
east to west.” This, however, does not oppose us, for that external
splendor of par cular churches is not perpetual. Even in the most brilliant
splendor of par cular churches the church catholic or the gathering of the
truly devout is invisible. Moreover, Origen himself explains in the same
place that this splendor is the truth revealed in Holy Scripture. He says:
We should know this, too, that the splendor of the truth of the Scriptures does not appear
and is not established just here and there in this or that passage, but it is defended on the
basis of every passage of Scripture, whether it be a wri ng of the Law or of the prophets or
of the Gospels or of the apostles. As this splendor of the truth goes out from the sunrise,
that is, from the beginnings of Christ, it shines all the way to the dispensa on of His Passion,
in which is its “se ng.”
We must give the same response to the tes monies of Cyprian,
Chrysostom, and Augus ne. They are speaking about the state of the
church as it was in their day. It was evident, dis nguished, and conspicuous
in the size and renown of par cular churches, in its victory against heresies
and persecu ons, in its pure ministry of the Word, etc. From this, however,
one cannot infer that the state of the visible church is always like this.
Much less can one conclude from this that the church catholic, which is
hidden in that visible and evident assembly of the called, is visible.
Furthermore, some statements of the ancients speak about the perpetuity
of the church and about its internal splendor. Such statements by no
means prove that the external and visible splendor of the church is
permanent and unchangeable. The sun shines with its bright light and is
never ex nguished, yet it can be hidden by clouds and fog. In the same
way, the church at mes is overshadowed by a cloud of persecu ons and
heresies so that its external splendor is not apparent. We shall speak in
greater detail about this in the following ques on.
Chapter VIII: Whether the Church Can Cease
to Exist
§ 86. We have now explained the material of the church, namely, of
what people it consists. The next point was that we would go on to the
marks of the church in which what we might call the “external form” of the
church consists. Then we were going to deal finally with the adjuncts of the
church. However, because ques ons as to whether the church can cease to
exist or err have a close rela onship with the ques on of the visibility of
the church, Bellarmine treats them together before his disputa on on the
marks of the church. Therefore we shall follow the order that he has
observed, especially because one cannot fully understand the disputa on
about the invisibility of the church unless an explana on of the ques on as
to whether the church can cease to exist is added.
In ch. 11 Bellarmine sets up the state of the ques on in this way: “Does
the visible church some mes err so grievously in faith and life that it
ceases to exist completely?” He himself embraces the nega ve side (ch.
13) and a ributes the affirma ve to us (ch. 16).
** The Pho nians claim that “the church can cease to exist completely.”
Pisecius, preface to his Resp. ad 10 ra ones Campiani, A. 2:
We owe much to the men who were the first to join in ba le courageously against the
Papists and to lay the great founda ons of the truth that had to be brought forth from the
pit of darkness into the light. We owe even more to their descendants whose efforts God
used in interpre ng them truthfully and more fully. The earlier men carefully exposited
everything they judged worthy of exposi on. It was not the exposi on, however, but the
eraser that had to be employed. It was that first integrity of divine light that they had to
bring out into public view.

The same Pisecius, Resp. ad 1. ra onem, p. 7:

On the basis of arguments drawn from the actual principles of the Chris an religion, we
confirm that the Roman church cannot be reformed in such a way that, purged of the dross
of opinions and supers ons, it would take back that former luster of truth and religion.
Rather, we declare that it must be so transformed that that ancient worship of religion is
called back to the original and ancient principles.

Later, however, he contradicts himself and writes more accurately, Resp. ad

3. rat., p. 32:
 Does Christ’s church ever perish? Absolutely not! Christ has ruled and s ll does rule His
church without interrup on. The church does not fall when faith and integrity of behavior
fall. Princes rule their people by laws, even though the people may turn aside from the way
of jus ce and obedience. Christ has ruled, though His kingdom does not con nue to stand in
the state in which it began and in which it ought to stand because the people have
wandered far from the correct norm of faith and life. They were acknowledging the name
and sovereignty of Christ, though they wandered in different direc ons far from the
statement of the Law that had been prescribed, etc. So long as the name of Christ exists on
earth, there is an assembly and number of those who profess it. If there exists an assembly,
why not also the church? The church of Christ, therefore, has not yet ceased to exist, insofar
as it acknowledges Christ as its king and prince.

Page 35:
We are speaking about the church generally and universally, and we consider it as
contradis nc ve to the heathen. I shall go on to the church that belongs to Christ and that is
opposed to heresies. When I consider its nature, it is not the kind that would not cease to
exist at some me. The former church has not ceased to exist, whose nature does not
defend its permanence. The la er church has ceased to exist, on the other hand, in which
no absolute necessity prevents defec on. Let us weigh carefully the causes that establish
the church. What do you seek from the efficient cause? God has never promised the
perpetual dura on of the church, but only that the gates of hell would not overpower it. Its
material is the people. Now if God had ordained that the church would not ever fall away,
He would not have picked for Himself volunteer troops but troops that would obey Him by
coercion and necessity. That which one does freely and of his own will can be subverted
with the same freedom of the mind from good into a corrupt evil. Furthermore, no one
denies that the church consists of parts that are subject to chance and destruc on. Its
dura on, therefore, is not absolutely necessary and eternal, etc. I go on to the form of the
church, which is truth and piety. Both are always prac ced freely and simply. If the
cul va on of both is free and if this is so burdensome, so opposed to human nature that
many people repeatedly fall away from it to the prac ce of vanity and impiety, then there is
no doubt that the nature of the church is also such that it can cease to exist. An en re thing
ceases to exist if the form of the en re thing falls away from its parts, etc. Salva on and that
heavenly glory are the end of the church. But this is denied to no one who at any me
confesses Christ. Let the church endure con nuously; let it be dissolved; let it be gathered
again—the reward remains certain for the devout. Are you surprised that the church has a
nature that may cease to exist? Place before your eyes the cross and the persecu ons of it,
etc. The church that now exists in the world is called the church militant. But the armies of
emperors are some mes the victors, some mes the vanquished; some mes reduced in
number, again increased; some mes oppressed by the power of enemies or dissipated by
their own vice. So also in the church militant, Christ’s people ba le against the various
enemies they have. Some mes they are the victors; some mes, the vanquished. Now they
are crushed by the power of tyrants; soon their number grows; and again they are
oppressed by the power of tyrants or by the a rac ve appearance of their teachers or by
the violent authority of corrupt opinions; or, finally, they become the architects of their own
destruc on as they please themselves too much with the fumes of their own opinions and
lay aside the limits of their office—their obedience to their Ruler. Surely Christ rules and
gathers His church not to be as it once was, not to con nue without interrup on, but that
 He may gather again in heaven the mul tude of believers that He had gathered on earth at
any me. The church flourished, withered, flowers again now, and will be strong with a great
number of believers on earth.

Socinus, Le er 1 ad Ma h. Radecc., p. 75:

The defec on of the church that followed the mes of the apostles was not of the sort as to
have le no church worthy of being seen and as to have removed its founda on, which is
Jesus Christ. For everywhere the teaching of Christ, which has to do with His commands, has
been preserved unharmed, there without a doubt Jesus Christ can be said to have truly
been. It was not un l idolatry was foisted upon the en re assembly of Chris ans (as they
were called), an idolatry that was completely opposed to the precepts of Christ and of His
apostles, that the defec on became complete.

Le er 2, p. 84: “I do not deny that there was a complete defec on under

the An christ.” In harmony with the Pho nians is Simon Episcopius, an
Arminian. He writes, Disp. priv. de ecclesia, thesis 10: “We add that it
nevertheless follows from this” (namely, that any church can cease to exist)
“that the en re universal church on earth can cease to exist.” Ibid., thesis
11: “On the other hand, we do not believe that it is necessary that some
true church always exist for the purpose of having Christ remain as king
and head on earth.” **

The true state of the question

In order that we may see more clearly the state of the controversy, the
following points should be observed. (I) We by no means claim that the
church catholic can cease to exist or perish, because Christ is the eternal
king and perpetual bridegroom of the church. By virtue of that rela on,
therefore, He has an eternal kingdom and always gathers to Himself the
church out of the human race. He fosters this church, as His Bride, and
loves her, protects her, and eventually brings her to the joy of a heavenly
marriage. Therefore those Papist writers are engaged in worthless labor
when they assail us with great effort, as if we claimed that Christ’s church
could perish and cease to exist completely. They are figh ng without an
opponent because none of us has ever affirmed that. Bellarmine himself
acknowledges this and writes as follows, beginning of ch. 13: “We must
note that many of us are was ng our me trying to prove absolutely that
the church cannot cease to exist. Calvin and the other here cs concede
this. But they say that this should be taken to mean the invisible church.”
 (II) On the other hand, we do say that this and that par cular church
can cease to exist. That is, wherever God gathers the church today through
the preaching of the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments, as
me passes, the purity of the divine Word can be driven out from it and
destroyed through persecu ons and heresies. God has not given to any
par cular church the absolute promise that it would last forever and not at
all be suscep ble to defec on. On the other hand, though this and that
par cular church may cease to exist, yet the church, speaking absolutely
and simply, never ceases to exist, because God perpetually gathers the
church to Himself from the human race un l the end of the world—if not
among this people, then among another.
(III) Therefore we deny that the church is bound to a certain seat in such
a way that the church would endure with visible splendor in that seat with
a perpetual succession, as our adversaries say about the Roman church:
“Only that is the catholic church in which the pope is the vicar of Christ and
successor of Peter, whom all must obey. In this church alone the purity of
heavenly doctrine has been preserved un l these days, through the
perpetual and uninterrupted succession of popes. This church has had and
will have perpetual external splendor so that all can see it,” etc.
(IV) We say that not only this and that par cular church but all
par cular churches without excep on, and even the en re visible church,
can be overshadowed by clouds of corrup ons, errors, scandals, heresies,
persecu ons, etc. It can be reduced to such a state that its exterior
splendor and brightness can cease to exist, that no clear and evident
assembly remains to rejoice in the pure ministry of the Word sounding
forth publicly. Nevertheless there always remain some who retain the
founda on of faith, and even through a corrupt ministry God produces
sons and daughters who belong to the invisible church catholic.
(V) Therefore we dis nguish between the internal splendor of the
church—which consists of faith, hope, love, and the internal gi s of the
Holy Spirit—and the external splendor, which consists of mul tude of
people, tranquility from persecu ons, the clarity and purity of doctrine
that sounds forth publicly, an uncorrupted ministry of the Word, etc. The
internal splendor of the church is essen al to it and perpetual. The
external, on the other hand, is accidental and temporal. The invisible
church catholic never ceases to exist; it never loses its internal splendor in
the eyes of God. Par cular visible churches, however, can cease to exist in
the sense that an evident, public assembly is no longer found that is
obvious to the eyes of all, an assembly in which the purity of the Word
sounds forth publicly and freely and in which the legi mate use of the
Sacraments flourishes. Rather, there are mes when pious confessors are
put to flight, driven away, and hide in caves. When persecu ons and
corrup ons of doctrine spread, then a public and uncorrupted ministry of
the Word no longer has a place in the visible church.
The Papists, on the contrary, claim that “the church is an assembly as
visible and palpable as the Roman people or the kingdom of France or the
republic of Venice,” which are the words of Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 3,
ch. 2). As the splendor and majesty of those kingdoms and republics are
always percep ble to human eyes, so also they believe that the external
splendor of the church is perpetual. As the majesty of those kingdoms and
republics consist of external power, the extent of their provinces, the
wealth of their subjects, poli cal tranquility, etc., so they think that the
church consists of an external succession of popes, the large size of their
provinces, and temporal felicity.
(VI) We deny that this external splendor of the church is permanent,
and we claim that there are two states of the church that recur one a er
the other. Here is a comparison. Christ is considered as the Head of the
church according to His two states: of emptying and of exalta on. In the
former, His majesty did not appear outwardly but seemed to be covered by
the weakness of His flesh. In the la er, on the other hand, His glory and
majesty shine in their full light. In the same way, in the mys cal Body of
Christ, which is the church, these same two states can be observed. One is
of emptying or humilia on, when the force of persecu ons, the cleverness
of here cs, or the large number of growing scandals oppress the church.
The other is of exalta on or glorifica on, when the church enjoys the
peaceful administra on of its holy things, when it shines with the splendor
of an uncorrupted ministry, when it gleams publicly with the quiet exercise
of pure divine worship. In this state the church is visible, manifest, and
glorious; in the other it is invisible, hidden, and shameful.
(VII) We explain this same thing by using a comparison drawn from the
phases of the moon, with which Ambrose compares the church (Hexaëm.,
bk. 4, ch. 8). At mes the moon shines with its full light, but at other mes
it ceases shining and becomes invisible. It has various phases: se ngs and
risings, wanings and waxings. In the same way, Christ’s church at mes
shines through the public and free exercise of pure divine worship. At
mes it is overshadowed by the burden of increasing persecu ons and
heresies. Finally, however, it emerges again from its obscurity and brings
back a glorious victory over persecu ons and heresies, as Vigilius writes so
beau fully, Contra Eutych., bk. 1: “The for tude of the church experiences
nothing new, nothing alien, when it is agitated so u erly by such
whirlwinds of ques ons from every here c. It gains the victory over its
gainsayers and cannot be moved by its adversaries.”
Indeed, Becanus (De ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 4, num. 94) denies that the
fathers compare the church with the moon in this respect, but the words
of Ambrose are clear (Hexaëm., bk. 4, ch. 2): “The church can become
shadowed, but it cannot cease to exist.” [Ambrose] on Luke, bk. 10, ch. 21:
“When many people fall away from religion, bright faith will become
shadowed by the cloud of faithlessness. Just as the moon wanes when it
goes away from the vicinity of the sun in its monthly cycles, so also the
holy church cannot borrow the brilliance of divine light from the rays of
Christ when the vices of the flesh stand in the way of the heavenly light.”
(VIII) We certainly do not deny that the promises about the perpetuity
of the church are of certain and immovable truth. We do add, however,
that those promises are not fulfilled in the manner that the Papists
imagine, as if the external splendor of the church would be perpetual and
the ministry of the Word would always be free of corrup ons. Those
promises are fulfilled, if not in the visible church, that is, in the flourishing
and manifest assembly of the called, then in the invisible church, that is, in
the hidden sheepfold of the elect. Christ always gathers to Himself and
preserves the church, if not in populous ci es and regions, then in
deserted solitudes; if not in public cathedrals, then in caverns hidden
underground.
(IX) The church is never so hidden that it is not no ced by some people
—if not by the worldly and faithless, then by the devout confessors who
together are in exile and in hiding. In fact, as Christ, the Head of the
church, in the depths of His state of emptying s ll revealed some rays of
His divine majesty from which one could recognize His true divinity, so also
in the depths of the church’s oppression the confessions of some martyrs
sparkle and give a very clear tes mony to the perpetuity and truth of the
church. Augus ne writes, Letter 48 ad Vincent.: “This is the church. At
mes it is overshadowed and beclouded, as it were, with a mul tude of
scandals. There are mes when sinners bend their bows to shoot arrows in
secret at the upright of heart. Even at those mes, the church is prominent
on its very firm founda ons.”
** “The church is never herself, always another, though always herself
when another.” Here let us apply, not absurdly, the words of Tertullian that
were spoken in a different context: “To be sure, the church is always one,
but its appearance is not always of that one. In faith it is always one and
upright, but it is not always of the same splendor.” **
I think that on the basis of these points one can recognize clearly the
state of the ques on and the genuine sense of our posi on. Let us now see
its founda ons.

Arguments that prove that the church can cease to exist:

First, our first parents fell away from God
§ 87. In ch. 16, Bellarmine forms some arguments in favor of our
posi on. A er he has sha ered those, he claims to have given an
outstanding refuta on of our posi on. Some of his arguments, however,
we do not acknowledge as our arguments, and the rest Bellarmine has not
yet sa sfied. The first argument is as follows: (I) “At the beginning of the
world, the en re church consisted of Adam and Eve alone, at least in
virtue. Yet both of them lost their faith and forsook God.” We respond. We
do not acknowledge this as our argument, if those who employ it intend
only to say that even the elect themselves can become entangled in very
serious errors temporarily.
Nonetheless let us see what Bellarmine responds to this argument, such
as it is. He says: “If ‘our first parents sinned’ is the same as ‘the church
ceased to exist,’ it will follow that not only the visible church ceased to
exist but also the invisible.” We respond. That does not follow, because the
holy angels belonged to the invisible church catholic. They neither fell away
nor forsook God. Also, because our first parents later were converted to
God through true repentance, with respect to divine predes na on they
were members of the church even in that very serious apostasy. Now, if
you consider our first parents with respect not to elec on but to their state
at that me, then you will certainly have to admit that the en re church of
human beings did cease to exist temporarily. But now that the covenant of
grace has been made and the promises of the perpetuity of the church
have been given, we no longer have to fear that the en re church may
cease to exist in the future.
Bellarmine has something else to set against this argument. He denies
that “our first parents were the church, because they were only two
people.” He does claim that “they were both the material and formal
beginning [principium] of the church.” We respond. Christ says, Matt.
18:20: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I
in the midst of them.” But now, where Christ is present in the manner
about which He is speaking here, there is the church. The apostle calls a
Chris an family of one house “the church” (Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col.
4:15; Philem. 2). But now, two people—husband and wife—cons tute a
family. Therefore they can also cons tute the church. In Noah’s ark there
were “only eight souls” in which the church was preserved (1 Pet. 3:20).
But if only two in the ark had been saved, they surely would have been the
church, and the church would have been preserved in them. Bellarmine
himself, in the last chapter of his book, cites the tes monies of certain
Catholics: Alexander of Hales (part 3, last ques on, art. 2) and Joannes de
Turrecremata (De eccles., bk. 1, ch. 30, and bk. 3, ch. 61). They claim:
“During the Passion of the Lord, true faith remained only in the most holy
Virgin Mary. They believe that this is signified by that one candle that alone
is kept burning for the three days [triduum] before Easter during the night
office.” But if true faith was preserved only in Mary at that me, surely the
church was preserved in her alone. Therefore Tertullian writes correctly in
his book De poenit.: “The church can be in one person or another.” Also,
Exhortat. ad cast.: “Where there are three, there the church is, even if they
are laypeople.” Surely one cannot deny that our first parents were created
in the image of God, were devout and faithful and worshiped God in
holiness. But now, wherever there is any number of the devout and faithful
who rightly worship God, there is a church, whether that number be small
or great. We do not deny that Adam was the material beginning
[principium] of the church; yet we must also add that he was not only the
beginning and origin of the church but also was part of the same because
he, along with Eve, cons tuted the church.
What Bellarmine adds does not properly belong to this point: “Adam
was the formal beginning [principium] of the church because he was the
head or teacher or master of God’s people while he lived. The head of the
church cannot err in teaching false doctrine, though he may err by living
badly and even by having bad thoughts.” It is a very bad misuse of
language to call a teacher of the church its formal principle, and it is a very
false opinion, diametrically opposed to Holy Scripture, to say that a teacher
of the church cannot err by se ng forth false doctrine. If he “can have bad
thoughts,” which Bellarmine concedes here, he will also be able to err and
to teach incorrect doctrine. Let Bellarmine remember his own words, De
concil., bk. 2, toward the end of ch. 2: “Individual bishops undoubtedly can
err. At mes they do err, and some mes they disagree among themselves.”

Second, the church of Israel fell away from God, Exodus 32

§ 88. (II) “At the me of Moses the en re church forsook God, for Aaron,
the high priest, set forth a calf for them to worship. All the people shouted:
‘These are your gods, O Israel,’ Exod. 32:8.” Bellarmine makes the
excep on:
At that me neither the head nor the body of the church fell away. The head was Moses
alone, and we are sure that he made no mistake. Aaron surely was not yet the high priest,
for he became that later, as we see in Exodus 40. Also the body did not fall away, for all the
Levites were guiltless of that sin, as is clear from the same chapter of Exodus, ch. 32, where
Moses says: “If anyone is on the Lord’s side, let him come to me,” and all the sons of Levi
gathered to him.

Becanus repeats the same thing in his trea se De ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 4,

num. 82.
We respond. (1) This passage shows clearly that the church can fall away
or cease to exist in the way we have described and can become invisible.
A er all, the en re people of Israel at that me were prac cing idolatry,
and there was no unharmed, visible assembly in which the sincere and
pure worship of God flourished publicly. Undoubtedly there were some
among the Israelites whom that idolatry displeased, because 1 Cor. 10:7
declares that “some” of the Israelites were idolaters. The former, however,
were hidden and did not cons tute a visible assembly.
 (2) Moses was the leader of and mediator for the people, not the high
priest. This high office had been assigned to Aaron by divine command. In
Ps. 99:6 Moses and Aaron are said to be “among the priests”; the Hebrew,
however, has the word ‫כֹּהֵ ן‬, which means a chief man (2 [Sam.] 8:18).
Although at the me when the calf worship was ins tuted Aaron had not
yet been consecrated by Moses, nevertheless the calling of Aaron to the
high priesthood preceded it (Exodus 28). Not only had Aaron already been
named and des ned by divine authority to be the high priest, he also had
been put in charge of governing the people by public authority. But now,
the Epistle to the Hebrews 5:4 teaches that Aaron became the high priest
not by virtue of his inaugura on and consecra on, but of the calling. His
priestly office depends not on his inaugura on and consecra on but on his
calling. The la er makes him a priest and equips him with the gi s
necessary to perform his duty. The former declare with certain rituals that
some person has been called to the priesthood.
(3) Therefore though Moses was superior to Aaron in his prophe c
office and in the authority of his magistracy, Scripture never declares that
he was ever a colleague of Aaron or was superior to him in the priestly
office. Instead, Scripture always calls the Levi cal priesthood the “Aaronic”
priesthood from its chief, Aaron. Nicephorus (Hist. eccles., bk. 2, ch. 4) lists
the series and succession of the Jewish high priests and begins with Aaron,
whom he calls “the first pon ff,” who was anointed by his brother, Moses.
Here one should especially note that Moses was tarrying on the mountain
at that me and that in his place he had established Aaron and Hur, whom
the people were supposed to obey. As a result, the people said, Exod.
32:1: “As for this Moses, who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do
not know what has become of him.” Therefore it was not Moses but Aaron
and Hur who were the heads of the visible church. It is clear, then, that the
very head erred and fell away when Aaron established the idolatrous
worship of the calf. As for Hur, we read nothing from which it could be
certain whether or not he fell away. The Hebrews say that “rebels killed
him while he was courageously resis ng the demand of the crowd.”
(4) We readily concede that there were some among the people who
had not been defiled by this idolatry. Nevertheless, with respect to the
rest, they were few and they could not stop the public exercise of divine
worship from being corrupted by idolatry. For this reason it is said in an
indefinite sense that “the people” demanded molten gods ([Exod. 32:]1);
that “the people” offered Aaron their earrings (v. 3); that God was angry at
“the people” and wanted to destroy “them all” (v. 10); that, as he
descended from the mountain, Joshua said that “he heard the sound as of
a great army” (v. [17]); and that the apostle declares that “the people sat
down to eat and drink and rose up to play” (1 Cor. 10:7). It is not in any
way likely that none of the Levites at all agreed with this calf worship, since
the chief of that family was Aaron, whose example and authority many
undoubtedly followed. The fact that they later gathered around Moses
([Exod. 32:]26) and punished the rebels argues that they were led by true
repentance and returned to a sounder mind. Therefore by no appearance
of truth can anyone deny that the en re visible church of Israel fell away at
that me, that is, that the public exercise of divine worship in the visible
church was corrupted by idolatry. Yet God preserved the invisible church
for Himself in the midst of the assembly of idolaters.

Third, at the time of Elijah the entire visible church had

ceased to exist
§ 89. (III) At the me of Elijah the en re visible church had ceased to
exist. In 1 Kings 19 Elijah says, “I alone am le .” The Lord answers him: “I
have le for Myself seven thousand people in Israel who have not bent
their knees before Baal.” There is no doubt that these people were hidden,
because not even Elijah perceived them.
Bellarmine makes two excep ons here. (1) He says:
The Jewish people and the Chris an people are not of the same kind. The Jewish people was
not the church universal as the Chris an people is. Rather, they were a par cular church.
Consequently, there were found even outside that people faithful and just men such as
Melchizedek, Job, and, later, Cornelius the centurion, the eunuch of Queen Candace, and
several others, etc. Therefore even if the en re synagogue of Jews had fallen away, the
en re church of God on earth would not as a result have ceased to exist.

Harding responds in the same way, Confut. apol. Anglicanae, ch. 12: “If at
some me the Jewish synagogue was wiped out, must it necessarily follow
that the church, too, could be reduced to a few and completely cease to
exist?” Likewise, Becanus, De ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 4, p. 76, says: “It does
not follow that, if the synagogue ceases to exist, therefore the church will
cease to exist. This is because: First, the church has a promise about its
firmness and stability that the synagogue did not have. Second, the church
is free while the synagogue was a handmaiden. Third, the church is catholic
while the synagogue was not catholic.” Those are their words.
We respond. Certainly we do not deny that there is a difference
between the Israelite church of the Old Testament and the Chris an church
in the New Testament. We explained this disparity earlier (§ 34). Yet they
agree in this point: that if the Old Testament church could descend to
obscurity, be reduced to a few, and its public ministry be corrupted, then
this could also happen to the church of the New Testament. A er all, the
church of the Old Testament did not have another God, another theology,
another faith, another hope from those of the New Testament church. In
fact, the en re church of Israel before the coming of Christ was no less a
part of the church catholic than is the Chris an church a er the coming of
Christ. The former received promises no less important, as we shall show
[§ 91]. Bellarmine should recognize his own words, De bapt., bk. 1, ch. 1:
“Speaking absolutely, the assembly of the Israelites was the church, even
the church of the true God, before it denied Christ.” When Bellarmine
presses the argument that “the Israelite church was not universal,” he is
speaking ambiguously. It was not universal in the sense in which the
Chris an church is called universal, namely, because the la er is gathered
by the preaching of the Gospel from all na ons and tribes, without any
dis nc on of places and persons, and because it is no longer confined
within the narrow limits of Jewish territory. Yet because at the me of the
Old Testament there was no visible church other than the Jewish church,
and because God did not have any other par cular churches at that me
other than the Jewish church, therefore in this sense and respect it is
correctly called universal. It contained within its embrace par cular
churches gathered in ci es and homes. All the Gen les who were
converted to the true God were also members of this Israelite church. They
were connected to it, if not in loca on and external fellowship, then in
desire, heart, affec on, and internal fellowship. The public exercise of
divine worship occurred in the Israelite church alone, and nowhere else
were temple, priesthood, and sacrifices acceptable and pleasing to God. It
is the consensus of all that Melchizedek and Job lived before the
establishment of that church. The centurion Cornelius and the eunuch of
Queen Candace were proselytes who a ached themselves to the church of
the Jews. The eunuch traveled a long way to the temple at Jerusalem to
worship there. How, then, can anyone deny that they were members of the
Jewish church?
Tell me, whom will Bellarmine be able to name among the Gen les who
were truly faithful and who held public and par cular exercise of divine
worship free of all corrup ons when the church of Israel and Judah had
become corrupt with idolatry? What Bellarmine declares, then, is false and
absurd, that “even if the en re synagogue of Jews had fallen away, the
en re church of God on earth would not as a result have ceased to exist.”
You see, if by this he means the visible church (as he is compelled to do to
maintain his hypotheses), he will have to point out some visible church in
the Old Testament other than the Israelite church. If he is speaking about
the invisible church, he actually confirms our posi on. We, too, say that,
even if the ministry of the visible church is corrupted and the church is
reduced to so few that its outward appearance is scarcely visible, God s ll
always preserves an invisible church. If those few who were discovered
outside the Jewish people were the church and were establishing a church
apart from the Jewish church, why do Bellarmine and other Papists reject
our posi on when we say that in all ages and mes there have been some
who have spoken against the Roman pon ff and that the church could
have been preserved in those?
(2) So Bellarmine responds in a different way: “The synagogue of the
Jews never fell away before the coming of Christ.” But he adds:
Elijah is not speaking of all the Jewish people but only about that part which had been
subject to the king of Samaria. It is evident from 1 Kings that Asa was ruling in Jerusalem at
the me of Elijah and that Josaphat ruled a er him. These were very good kings, and under
them the people and priests in Jerusalem obviously remained in the true religion. Thus in
the divine oracle one observes an emphasis: “in Israel,” that is, among those who were
under the king of Samaria, those seven thousand people had been le .

The Englishmen of Rheims, Annot. on Rom. 11:4, respond that “in Judea at
that me the church was visible because ten thousand soldiers were
numbered, 2 Chronicles 17.” (They seem to want to give a more exact
number than the Lord Himself, for He says only seven thousand.) Becanus
(De ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 4, num. 84) repeats the same thing and adds: “The
prac ce of the sacrifices according to the Law of Moses seems to have
endured always in the temple of Solomon.”
 We respond. We must repeat the state of the ques on. We are by no
means ba ling over whether the church of the Old or New Testament can
completely perish or cease to exist. Therefore when Bellarmine a ributes
this idea to us, he is taking the posi on of those about whom he himself
writes in ch. 13: “We must note that many waste me proving that the
church cannot cease to exist absolutely, for our adversaries admit this.”
Because in this very ch. 16 he writes: “Melanchthon claims that at the me
of Elijah the church was in Elijah, Elisha, and a few priests.” Why does he so
strenuously urge against us that the synagogue, that is, the church of the
Jews, never ceased to exist completely before the coming of Christ? This is
what we are saying: the church of both the Old and the New Testaments
can cease to exist in this way, that as corrup ons increase, the public
ministry is no longer pure so that in that place where there was a large and
obvious church, no church appears any longer. Thus the true church of God
goes into hiding and is preserved in those who do not make up a visible
and manifest assembly, etc.
All these things can be proved clearly from the words of Elijah and from
the divine oracle. The condi on of the Israelite church at that me is
obvious from the prophet’s complaint. Elijah says [in 1 Kings 19:10]: “I
have been very jealous for the Lord, the God of hosts; for the sons of Israel
have forsaken the covenant of the Lord, thrown down Your altars, and slain
Your prophets. And I, even I only, am le ; and they seek my life to take it
away.” The public exercise of true divine worship had been taken away, the
idolatrous worship of Baal was reigning everywhere, Jezebel was seeking
out the true confessors to kill them, so that there would no longer remain
any visible and manifest assembly of true worshipers of God. Those “seven
thousand men who have not bent their knees before Baal” did not make
up a visible church, or else Elijah would have known about them. Rather,
they were hidden and concealed in order to escape the madness of
Jezebel.
We have the same situa on in 1 Kings 18:4 in the case of Obadiah, who
was in charge of the household of King Ahab. “When Jezebel killed the
prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them in
caves, bringing them bread and water.” Therefore whatever may be true
about the church at Jerusalem gathered during the reigns of Asa and
Jehoshaphat, it is sufficient for us that “in Israel,” that is, by the
interpreta on of Bellarmine, “among those Jews who were under the rule
of Ahab and Jezebel and were subject to the king of Samaria,” there were
seven thousand le who did not establish a visible, apparent church but an
invisible, hiding church.
Moreover, Elijah also seems to complain about the state of that church
which existed in Jerusalem among the Jews because, when he heard that
Jezebel was intent on his death, he fled first into Judea, and then into the
wilderness. However, if in Judea there had existed a visible and apparent
church whose public ministry the worship of Baal had not at all corrupted,
he surely would have stayed there and would not have fled into the
wilderness on a forty days’ journey to be safe there.
Furthermore, he complains about the throwing down of the altars. But
now, there were no lawful altars except at Jerusalem; the Baal worshipers,
therefore, threw them down. Elijah would not have complained about the
throwing down of idolaters’ altars.
Also, the apostle in Rom. 11:3 shows clearly that Elijah was speaking in
general terms. He explains that one must take the word “Israel” to mean
the en re people of Israel, because he calls himself an Israelite of the tribe
of Benjamin. The apostle’s aim is to demonstrate this: At the me of Elijah
there seemed to be no church le among the Jews, because Elijah said,
“They have destroyed Your altars and killed Your prophets, and I alone am
le ,” and yet at the same me God has saved several thousand true
worshipers for Himself. In the same way, [the apostle says,] not even at this
me has the en re Jewish church fallen away, but some remnants are s ll
preserved. If anyone claims that Elijah is not speaking of the en re Israelite
people of his me, such tes mony will not fit with the apostle’s aim and
intent. The Jews, you see, could have made this very objec on to the
apostle that Bellarmine makes to us: “The en re church of Israel did not
cease to exist but only that church which was subject to the king of
Samaria; at Jerusalem there was an obvious assembly of true worshipers,
but now the en re people has fallen away.” The apostle’s aim, however,
powerfully crushes this objec on. As a result, Chrysostom, too (on
Matthew, homily 22; and on Romans, homily 11), takes the words of
Elijah as a general expression.
If Elijah had known that in Judea so great a number of those who
worshiped God in the true and pure manner s ll remained, he would not
have been so sad and concerned so as to prefer death over his anxiety.
Therefore it seems that not even in the kingdom of Judah at that me was
the worship of God so pure and uncorrupted, something that the history of
the kings of Judah proves clearly. In the descrip on of the reign of
Rehoboam, the first king of Judah, we read, 1 Kings 14:22–23: “Judah”
(that is, the Israelites in the kingdom of Judah) “did what was evil in the
sight of the Lord, and they provoked Him to jealousy with their sins that
they commi ed, more than all that their fathers had done. For they also
built for themselves high places and statues and groves on every high hill
and under every leafy tree.”
Rehoboam’s successor was his son Abijam, who himself “walked in all
the sins of his father” by permi ng and prac cing idolatrous worship in
the high places (1 Kings 15:3).
Abijam was succeeded by Asa, who indeed removed the idols his
fathers had made, but there is also the addi on that “he did not take away
the high places” (1 Kings 15:14).
Asa’s successor was Jehoshaphat, who allied himself with King Ahab of
Israel in an unnecessary war (1 Kings 22:5). Such partnerships with
idolaters generally bring with them a corrup on of religion. Thus it is also
said clearly of Jehoshaphat that he did not take away the high places and
that contrary to the express Law of God “the people s ll sacrificed and
burned incense on the high places” (1 Kings 22:43).
Jehoshaphat’s successor was Jehoram, about whom we read that “he
walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done,
for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. He did evil in the sight of the Lord”
(2 Chron. 21:6). To this Jehoram came a le er from the prophet Elijah in
which the prophet charges him with having “walked in the ways of the
kings of Israel” (v. 13) and having “caused Judah and the inhabitants of
Jerusalem to fornicate, having imitated the fornica on of the house of
Ahab.”
Jehoram’s successor was Ahaziah, who himself “walked in the ways of
the house of Ahab, for his mother” (Ahab’s daughter) “drove him to act
wickedly, and in religion” to embrace Baal worship (2 Chron. 22:3).
Ahaziah was succeeded by Athaliah, who broke up the temple of God
and adorned the shrine of Baal with the things sanc fied to the Lord (2
Chron. 24:7).
 Athaliah was succeeded by Joash. As long as the priest Jehoiada was
alive, Joash ruled in a devout and praiseworthy manner. He destroyed the
temple and altars of Baal (2 Chron. 23:17) and repaired the temple of the
Lord (2 Chron. 24:13). A er the death of Jehoiada, however, he was
en ced by the fla ery and honors of the princes of Judah. He and the
nobles of the kingdom “forsook the temple of the Lord and served the
groves and the graven images” (v. 18). When God “sent prophets among
them to bring them back to the Lord, they refused to hear” (v. 19).
Joash’s successor was Amaziah, about whom we read that “he did what
was right in the eyes of the Lord” (2 Chron. 25:2), but there is the
addi on: “yet not with a perfect heart, because he did not remove the high
places” (2 Kings 14:4; [2 Chron. 25:2]). In 2 Chron. 25:14 it men ons
expressly about him that a er the slaughter of the Edomites, “he brought
the gods of the men of Seir and set them up as his gods and worshiped
them and burned incense to them,” and in v. 27: “he turned away from the
Lord.”
Amaziah was succeeded by Uzziah, who arrogated to himself the duty
of burning incense that had been commanded to the priests. As a result,
he was afflicted with leprosy (2 Chron. 26:19).
Uzziah’s successor was Jotham. He is said to have done right in the eyes
of the Lord, yet there is s ll added that “the people s ll offended in
sacrificing,” namely, on the high places (2 Chron. 27:2).
Jotham’s successor was Ahaz, about whom we read that at his
command Uriah the priest built an altar for idolatry a er the example and
likeness of one that the king had seen at Damascus (2 Kings 16:11). In 2
Chron. 28:[2–]3 it is said that “he made molten images of the Baals; he
burned incense in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom and brought his own
sons through fire according to the abomina on of the heathen.” In vv. 24
and 25 we read that “he broke in pieces the vessels of the house of God,
and he shut up the doors of the temple of God, and he made altars in
every corner of Jerusalem. In every city of Judah he built churches to burn
incense to foreign gods.” So, then, the king, the chief priest, and the people
in all the ci es of the kingdom of Judah publicly prac ced idolatry.
Under Hezekiah, Ahaz’s successor, they began a reforma on of the
church.
 His successor, however, was his son Manasseh, who “erected altars for
Baal, made groves, and worshiped all the host of heaven and served them”
(2 Kings 21:3); who “caused Judah to sin” (v. 11); “who did evil in the sight
of the Lord according to the abomina ons of the heathen” (2 Chron.
33:2); “who built altars for all the host of heaven in the very courts of the
temple” (v. 5); “who made his sons pass through the fire” (v. 6, etc.); “who
seduced Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem so that they did evil more
than all the heathen” (v. 9).
Who, then, would believe that the public exercise of divine worship
remained pure and uncorrupted in the kingdom of Judah? One must note
carefully here that in the descrip on of the state of the church in the days
of Hoshea, who succeeded Ahab, it is said explicitly that people publicly
prac ced idolatry everywhere, not only in the kingdom of Israel but also
that “the kingdom of Judah walked in the errors of Israel and did not keep
the commandments of the Lord” (2 Kings 17:19). Therefore by what
appearance of truth can one say that the public exercise of religion was
uncorrupted in the kingdom of Judah at the me of Elijah?

Fourth, complaints of the prophets about the corrupt state of

the church
§ 90. (IV) [There is an argument] from some statements of Scripture that
speak about the state of the church in the Old Testament. Isa. 1:3: “The ox
knows its owner and the donkey its master’s crib, but Israel has not known
Me, and My people has not understood.” Verse 6: “From the sole of the
foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it.” Jer. 2:26–27: “The
house of Israel has been shamed, they, their kings, their princes, and their
priests and prophets, who say to a tree: ‘You are my father.’ ” Verse 29:
“Why will you contend with Me in judgment? You have all forsaken Me,
says the Lord.” 2 Chron. 15:3: “Many days shall pass in Israel without the
true God, and without a priest, a teacher, and without the Law.”
Bellarmine responds: (1) “The prophets and apostles at mes reproach
the en re people as if no one there was good, even though very many are
good. On the other hand, at mes they comfort everyone as if all were
good, though it is evident that many there are evil.” To this he relates the
following statements of Scripture. Ezek. 3:7: “All the house of Israel is of a
hard forehead and of a stubborn heart,” though in Ezek. 9:4 he men ons
“men who sigh and groan over all the abomina ons that are commi ed
among the people.” In Gal. 3:1 the apostle says: “O senseless Gala ans!
Who has bewitched you that you do not obey the truth?” Yet in Gal. 6:1 he
says: “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual,
instruct such a one in the spirit of meekness.”
We respond. We do not at all disapprove of that rule of Augus ne in De
unit. ecclesiae, ch. 12, and in the book that he published a er his
conference with the Dona sts [Contra Dona st. post collat.], ch. 20, that
“the prophets and apostles usually rebuked the reprehensible in a people
as if rebuking all among that people, and addressed the praiseworthy as if
praising all who were there.” But we admit that Scripture does this quite
o en through the use of synecdoche. Nevertheless the power and force of
our argument s ll remains. We certainly are not saying that in a corrupt
condi on of the church there survive no good and elect people. They can,
however, be reduced to so few that they do not make up a visible and
apparent assembly, but are hidden like a kernel of wheat in a haystack. In
this way, Isaiah complains that those who occupy the chief posi on in the
visible church—priests, kings, and even almost all the people—had
forsaken true religion and piety. Yet he adds, [Isa. 1:]9: “If the Lord had not
le us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and similar to Gomorrah.”
Jeremiah also complains that few good men were le —not that none were
le . Yet that is sufficient for our purpose, for we are not arguing that the
church can cease to exist completely but that the public ministry of the
church can degenerate and be corrupted, something that the complaints of
Isaiah and Jeremiah prove very clearly.
This is how Isaiah thunders out, 1:2: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O
earth; for the Lord has spoken: ‘Sons I have reared and brought up, but
they have despised Me.’ ” Verses 4–5: “Woe to the sinful na on, a people
laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ruined children; they have forsaken the
Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they have gone away
backward.… The whole head is sick, and the whole heart languishes,” etc.
Verses 21–22: “How has the faithful city become a harlot?… Your silver has
become dross; your wine is mixed with water.” Verse 29: “For they shall be
confounded by the idols in which they delighted.” Isa. 2:8: “The land”
(Judea) “is filled with idols; they worship the work of their hands, which
their fingers have made.” Isa. 5:4: “I looked for My vineyard to yield
grapes, and it yielded wild grapes.” Isa. 10:11: “Shall I not do to Jerusalem
and her images as I have done to Samaria and her idols?” (Therefore at the
me of Ahaz, under whom Isaiah prophesied, the public exercise of divine
worship at Jerusalem and in the kingdom of Judah was not so pure and
uncorrupted by idolatry as Bellarmine supposes.)
Jeremiah u ers a similar complaint, 5:1: “Go about through the streets
of Jerusalem, and see and consider and seek in the broad places thereof if
you can find a man who executes judgment and seeks faith.” Jer. 2:8: “The
priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the Law did not
know Me; the shepherds transgressed against Me; the prophets
prophesied by Baal and followed idols.” Verses [10–]11: “See if there has
been done anything like this among the na ons, if a na on has changed
their gods. But My people have changed their glory into an idol.” Verse 13:
“My people have commi ed two evils: they have forsaken Me, the
fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken
cisterns that can hold no water.” Verse 28: “For according to the number of
your ci es were your gods, O Judah!” Jer. 3:6: “Have you seen what
rebellious Israel has done? She went up on every high mountain and under
every green tree and fornicated there” (by means of idolatry, which is
spiritual fornica on). Verse 8: “And her treacherous sister Judah saw, and
went and fornicated also.” (Therefore not even in the kingdom of Judah
was the public condi on of the church free of idolatry.) Verse 11:
“Rebellious Israel has jus fied her soul, in comparison with treacherous
Judah.” Jer. 6:13: “From prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely.” Jer.
7:28: “This is the na on that did not hearken to the voice of the Lord their
God and did not accept discipline. Faith is lost and is carried away out of
their mouth.”
Ezek. 7:26: “The Law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the
elders.” Ezek. 22:26: “Her priests have suppressed My Law and have
defiled My sanctuaries.” Verse 28: “Her prophets have daubed them with
improperly mixed limestone, seeing vain things and divining a lie.” Verse
30: “And I sought for a man among them who would set up a hedge … but I
found none.”
Hosea 4:1: “There is no truth, and there is no mercy, and there is no
knowledge of God in the land.” Verse 6: “My people are destroyed for lack
of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I have rejected you
from doing the office of priesthood to Me.” Verse 9: “The people is like the
priest.” Verse 12: “The spirit of fornica on has deceived them, and they
have commi ed fornica on against their God.”
Mic. 7:2: “The holy man has perished out of the earth, and there is
none upright among men.”
We can gather a much longer list of such complaints of the prophets.
They show that the decay of idolatry and corrup on had invaded the en re
body of the visible church; and yet God preserved for Himself a holy seed
in that corrupt state of the visible church and of the public ministry. We say
the same thing about the me of the papacy, namely, that God preserved
for Himself some remnants in which the church catholic was preserved.
(2) Bellarmine responds to 2 Chron. 15:3, saying, “This means the
kingdom of Israel, not the kingdom of Judah.” Yet we have shown earlier
that corrup ons of doctrine had prevailed not only in the kingdom of Israel
but also in the kingdom of Judah. Especially under Manasseh and Ahaz was
the state of the church most wretched and corrupt, something that is
proved by the various vessels of idolatrous worship that, according to 2
Kings 23:4ff., were destroyed by Josiah, the successor of Ahaz and
Manasseh.
(3) Finally, Bellarmine adds: “Perhaps Scripture is speaking about the
me that would happen a er the advent of the Messiah, for now many
days are passing in Israel without God, without priest, without the Law.”
We respond. On the contrary, from the circumstances it is obvious that this
prophecy properly deals with the state of the church, how it would be
under Ahaz and Manasseh and at the me of the Babylonian cap vity. You
see, the prophet Azariah foretold that tragic state of the church, that
“many days were going to pass in Israel without the true God, without
priest, without teacher, and without the Law,” that is, that for a long me
there would be among the people of God no priests to teach correctly the
true religion in the public ministry, that the public exercise of divine
worship was going to be marred and corrupted, and that the Law of God
would be an object of great contempt, etc. Then Azariah adds [in 2 Chron.
15:]4: “When in their distress they turned to the Lord, the God of Israel,
and sought Him, they found Him.” This was fulfilled under the rule of
Hezekiah and Josiah, as the historical sequence shows clearly. At that me,
the book of the Law was again plucked out of darkness, the priests of Baal
were removed, the idolatrous altars were destroyed, and a reforma on of
doctrine was ini ated. Almost the same prophecy is repeated in Hosea
3:4: “For the children of Israel shall sit for many days without king and
without prince and without sacrifice and without altar and without ephod
and without teraphim.” Verse 5 adds: “A erward the children of Israel shall
return and seek the Lord, their God, and David, their king; and they shall
reverently worship the Lord and His goodness in the end of days.” Some
take this to mean the Jewish people, drawn out of their land and sca ered
among the na ons by the Romans because of their idolatry and contempt
for the Messiah; and yet in the la er days, shortly before the Last Day, they
will be converted. Actually, this refers more correctly to the exile of the ten
tribes in the kingdom of Assyria and to their conversion to Christ through
the preaching of the apostles.

Fifth, the visible church shall cease

§ 91. (V) Bellarmine says that we take our third argument from those
passages of Scripture “in which there is a prophecy that the visible church
will cease.” Dan. 9:27: “He shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease.”
Luke 18:8: “Nevertheless when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith
on the earth?” 2 Thess. 2:3: “Christ will not come to judge unless the
defec on comes first and the man of sin is revealed.” A er saying this,
Bellarmine thinks that we are adding the prophe c statement in Jer. 7:4:
“Do not trust in these lying words: ‘The temple of the Lord, the temple of
the Lord.’ ” He says: “Just as those ancient Jews did not believe the
prophets when they preached desola on because they saw that they had
the temple of the Lord and the external ceremonies, so the Papists boast
that they have the ancient temples, the succession of bishops, the
apostolic see. But meanwhile, they do not pay a en on to the Scriptures,
which clearly foretell desola on.”
Bellarmine makes excep ons to every passage. (1) He says that Dan.
9:27 “must not be taken to refer to the me of the An christ,” in which
point (he writes) Hilary (can. 25 on Matthew), Hippolytus, and Apollinarius
(according to Jerome, on Daniel 9) were deceived. “Rather,” he says, “we
must take it to refer to the destruc on of Jerusalem and the cessa on of
the sacrificing of the Jews.”
We respond. We do not use this tes mony of Daniel in this ques on, for
we acknowledge that the prophet is speaking about the cessa on of the
sacrificing of the Jews and the destruc on of Jerusalem, as is clear from
Matt. 24:15. The Papists themselves agree with us that at that me the
synagogue of the Jews ceased to exist. And we remind Bellarmine that he
himself writes (De pon f. Rom., bk. 3, toward the end of ch. 7): “At the me
of the An christ the daily, public sacrificing of the church will cease
because of the harshness of the persecu ons.” He tries to prove this from
Dan. 12:11: “And from the me that the con nual sacrifice shall be taken
away … there will be 1,290 days.” Also, the Englishmen of Rheims declare
in their notes on Matthew 24: “This will be fulfilled chiefly at the me of
the An christ, when the sacrifice of the Mass will be completely
abolished.” But if the con nual sacrifice and the public exercise of divine
worship in the Chris an church of the New Testament can cease, as
Bellarmine there concedes, could not such a me have befallen the Jewish
church so that none of the lawful sacrifices were unpolluted by idolatrous
corrup ons? This argument is confirmed from the Papists’ arguing that
promises more illustrious were given to the New Testament church than to
the Jewish synagogue. (We shall say more about this later.)
(2) Against Christ’s statement in Luke 18:8, Bellarmine says “that He is
not speaking simply about faith but about an extraordinary faith, which He
discovers in few people and which will con nue to be in very few in the last
days. This is the way Jerome (Dial. contra Lucif.) and Augus ne (De unit.
eccl., ch. 13) explain this.”
We respond. On the contrary, Christ is speaking about the true,
common faith of Chris ans as can be understood from the context and
from a comparison with other passages of Scripture. Preceding it is the
parable of the widow who kept pressing the unjust judge with her
requests. That recommends to us persistence in prayer. To this Christ adds
His complaint about the scarcity of true believers, as if to say that in the
end mes of the earth there will be few who are like this widow, who will
cry out for God day and night, because few will have true faith. From this, a
serious and God-pleasing invoca on ought to arise. This interpreta on is
clearly proved by the adversa ve par cle πλήν [“nevertheless”]. In
Matthew 24, Christ Himself explains the source from which this scarcity of
true believers will originate in the end mes of the world. Verses 11–12:
“Many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because
wickedness will abound, the love will grow cold.” Verse 24: “False christs
and false prophets will rise up and show great signs and wonders so as to
lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” He is showing that there will be a
general corrup on and that heresies and deceits will prevail everywhere in
such a manner that true faith will be found only in a very few and that,
with the excep on of the few elect, all will be led astray. But how does this
agree with the convic on of the Papists about the external splendor,
renown, and size of the church?
Augus ne does not reject this interpreta on of ours. Although that
statement in the passage just cited had been interpreted as referring to the
perfec on of faith, he immediately adds another explica on, namely, that
“there will be a scarcity of good people,” or (he says) “because of that
abundance of wicked people and scarcity of good ones, it says that Christ
will scarcely find faith.” In his commentary on Psalm 60, when he had
men oned the words “Wickedness will abound and love will grow cold,” he
adds: “But that church which cries out from the ends of the earth exists in
those about whom it follows, saying, ‘He who endures un l the end will be
saved.’ ” Cyprian also (De simplic. praelatorum) interprets this passage as
being about the common faith of the saints. He says: “The vigor of faith
has dwindled in us; the strength of believers has weakened. Because of
this, as the Lord looks at our mes, He says in His Gospel: ‘When the Son of
Man comes, do you suppose He will find faith on the earth?’ We see that
what He foretold is happening.” Theophylact takes this passage as referring
to the me of the An christ when, he says, “there will be a great scarcity of
the faithful,” and that “when Christ will come in the clouds, He will not find
faith on the earth.” The Glossa ordinaria, from Bede: “I say, I shall become
the vindica on of the righteous, but there will be very few of them. When I
appear on Judgment Day in the form of the Son of Man, there will be such
a scarcity of righteous people that the ruin of the whole world shall have to
be hastened, not so much because of the shouts of the faithful who are
being unjustly condemned as because of the bodies of those who will be
justly condemned.”
 Bellarmine himself acknowledges this. He therefore abandons his earlier
response and adds another: “Or let us say with Theophylact that the Lord is
speaking about faith absolutely and wants to say that there will be few
faithful at the me of An christ. Yet there will not be none, nor so few that
they do not make the church.” Yet we, too, say this very thing; so
Bellarmine voluntarily is going where we are trying to take him. We by no
means intend to say that there can occur a me in which no faithful people
survive anymore or that so few survive that they do not make the church.
Instead, we are saying that as persecu ons and heresies prevail, true
believers can be reduced to such a scarcity that, compared to the
mul tude of the others, their assembly is insignificant and despised, so
that they do not cons tute an evident assembly, conspicuous to all, and
even that the true church is preserved in a few people.
(3) Against the apostle’s statement in 2 Thess. 2:3, Bellarmine says:
“Some of the fathers—such as Ambrose, Sedulius, and Primasius—take this
to mean a defec on from the Roman Empire. Others—such as Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, and Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 20,
ch. 19)—think it refers to the An christ himself, who is ‘departure’ by
metonymy, for he will be the cause for many to depart from Christ.”
We respond. On the contrary, this statement of the apostle must be
explained properly and par cularly as referring to an apostasy from the
faith, for that is how the apostle himself explains it in 1 Tim. 4:1: “Now the
Spirit manifestly says that in the last mes some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of devils.” Furthermore,
the apostle is speaking about a future apostasy through the An christ. But
now, the An christ was going to a ack faith and religion, not the
commonwealth. Therefore this prophecy must be taken to mean an
apostasy from faith. In the same passage the apostle adds: “The mystery of
lawlessness is already at work” [2 Thess. 2:7]. But now, the Roman Empire
at that me was not faltering by any means, and it con nued to flourish for
a long me. This is also how it is interpreted by Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk.
5, ch. 21; Chrysostom, on 2 Thessalonians, homily 3; Augustine, De civ.
Dei, bk. 20, ch. 19; Damascenus, Orth. id., bk. 4, ch. 27; Lyra,
commentary; Adrichomius, Chron., fol. 285.; etc. In fact, the Englishmen of
Rheims themselves (in their Annotat. on 2 Thessalonians 2, sect. 6)
acknowledge that the defec on of which the apostle is speaking will be a
defec on from the chief ar cles of the Chris an faith. With these authors
agree exactly those who take the apostasy to mean the An christ himself,
being so called because he will be the cause for many to depart from Christ
and from faith in Christ.
Bellarmine himself admits this and therefore adds: “In the apostle’s
words, this ‘departure from the faith’ is taken not as general but as
par cular; that is, it is a departure not of all but of many, or indeed of all
who, nevertheless, are secret here cs and will depart from the church
when the An christ comes and will join with him.” We respond. Even at the
me when the apostle was wri ng this, many here cs were depar ng from
the church: 1 Tim. 1:20; 2 Tim. 2:17; 4:10; 1 John 2:19. But now, the
apostle is speaking about a singular apostasy that would occur at the me
of the An christ before the final coming of Christ to judgment. Therefore
this cannot be taken as a par cular defec on but as a general and more
universal defec on such as had not yet happened in the me of the
apostles. Here, similar prophecies about the condi on of the church under
the An christ should be listed: Rev. 12:6; 13:3, 8, 16–17; and 18:3. S rred
by the clarity of these prophecies, the Englishmen of Rheims (Annotat. on
2 Thessalonians 2, sect. 6) admit that “it will be a defec on of en re
kingdoms, peoples, and provinces, and the public companionship of the
faithful with the Roman church at that me will cease” so that they will be
in fellowship with it only in heart.
(4) Against the statement of Jeremiah [7:4], Bellarmine says: “The
Papists do not boast of their temples and succession of bishops and
apostolic see according to themselves, but because of Christ’s promise:
‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church’ [Matt. 16:18].
Such a promise the Jews never had.”
We respond. We treat elsewhere [§§ 79, 96, 107] this statement of
Christ and its true meaning. If the Israelites who always cried out: “The
temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!” had been educated in
Bellarmine’s school, they could have said the same thing against the
prophets who were censuring corrup ons of doctrine and threatening the
destruc on of the temple. A er all, the Israelites had greater promises
about their temple than the Papists can show from Scripture about the
Roman church. The promises concerning the church of the New Testament
are general; therefore they must by no means be limited to the Roman
church alone. The Israelites, on the other hand, had the specific promises
about the temple at Jerusalem that “God wills to dwell there forever”
(Deut. 16:2; 2 Chron. 6:2; Neh. 1:9; Isa. 31:9; etc.). Lest we enumerate all
those magnificent and broad promises given to the people of Israel, what
can be broader than the one in Lev. 26:11–12: “I will set My tabernacle in
the midst of you, and My soul shall not cast you off. I will walk among you
and will be your God, and you shall be My people”? Nonetheless, when the
Jews neglected the Word of God and true divine worship and s ll appealed
to those promises about the temple of the Lord, Jeremiah reproached
them for “trus ng in the words of a liar” [Jer. 7:8]. All the more correctly
do we reproach the Papists for this, who are unable to show from Scripture
such specific promises about the Roman church; and even if they could,
those promises s ll would not be absolute. The promises God made about
the preserva on and governance of the church are firm and certain; yet
those promises must not be referred to just any assemblies and governors,
regardless of how they act. Rather, they pertain to the true church and to
those who allow the Word of God to rule them; who look to the Law and
the tes mony; and who teach, judge, and act according to the norm of the
divine Word.

Sixth, the Council of Basel deposed the Roman pontiff

§ 92. (VI) Bellarmine says that we take our sixth argument from the
history of the Council of Basel [AD 1431–43]:
That council deposed Eugenius as a here c and all his adherents and elected Felix. Yet once
the council had been concluded and dissolved, Eugenius crept back onto his throne without
any canonical elec on. From him arose all who were popes, cardinals, and bishops
a erward. Therefore at least from that me the Roman church that followed the pope was
not the true church. Because there was no other visible church, it follows that the visible
church perished.

Bellarmine responds:
At the beginning, the Council of Basel was legi mate because the legate of the Roman
pon ff was in a endance. At the me that it deposed Eugenius, however, it was not a
council of the church but was a schisma c and sedi ous mob with no authority at all. In
opposi on to this council, the other one in Florence was ini ated at the same me. There
the Roman pon ff presided, and more of the bishops were in a endance.
 We respond. This argument properly belongs to the uncertainty and
interrup on of the succession of Roman popes, because “a doub ul pope
is considered as no pope,” as Bellarmine explains, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 19.
As to the verity of the decrees of councils, we must by no means pass
judgment on the basis of the authority of the Roman pope but on the basis
of their harmony with the Holy Scriptures. As a result, the Council of Basel
was certainly not wrong when it decided that “a council is above the
pope.” Rather, the Roman pope proved himself guilty of intolerable
ambi on when he disapproved of this decree of the council. Bellarmine
himself (bk. 2, ch. 17, § Ad hunc locum) does not dare to call here cs those
who claim the contrary, because he must hold that “the primacy of the
pope above a council has not been defined in any council as being a ma er
of Catholic faith.” The theologians of Paris defended the authority of the
Council of Basel with a public document. One cannot deny that Nicholas V
confirmed the decrees of that council, as is obvious from his bull appended
to the same council. Bellarmine responds very coldly to this, De concil., bk.
2, ch. 19, toward the end: “Nicholas approved them only in part.” But who
gave the popes that power to approve of a council in the one part that
pleases them but to disapprove in the other part that does not please
them? The council defines as a tenet of the Catholic faith that a council is
above the pope and that whoever a acks this truth stubbornly must be
judged a here c. Therefore, since this decree pertains to a ma er of faith,
we must judge that it is confirmed by Nicholas V, for his bull speaks
generally and approves of all those decrees that this council made on
ma ers of faith.
Now, to express some gra tude to Bellarmine for wan ng to men on in
his argument the state of the church at the me of the Council of Basel, let
us add the very serious complaint about this ma er—not of the
Waldensians or Wycliffites but of the Roman church itself, oppressed under
the yoke and tyranny of the An christ and groaning gravely with this
accusa on. Those who had assembled at the Council of Basel speak to all
the faithful in Christ in this way in their Epist. synodal.:
Note especially, O worshipers of Christ, and place before your eyes the pi able and
lamentable state of the Chris an religion: it has been reduced to the point that each man
who has been placed as chief pon ff has been successful in not having to fear any correc on
from general councils, no ma er how much he may scandalize the church and disrupt and
 corrupt its state. Even if he sold all ecclesias cal offices and benefices; if he transferred all
prelates—even unwilling ones—and expelled them unjustly as he willed; even unseated
kings and princes notoriously and unjustly; labored with his pernicious behavior to destroy
the souls of people everywhere; commi ed horrible cruel es; confounded the Law of God;
destroyed all the salutary ins tu ons of the church; squandered and lost possession of the
temporal property of the Roman church and all the other par cular churches; perpetrated
countless other shameful acts, wickednesses, and crimes; and showed that he is incorrigible
—s ll, the whole church gathered together could in no wise restrain him from such things.
In fact, no free council could restrain him, even if he straightway wished to transfer or
disband those who persist in a ending the council contrary to his will; if he wished to
persecute, excommunicate, deprive, disqualify, inflict insults and injuries, arouse physical
a acks against them; and, finally, even if he wished to completely despise, reject, and
condemn whatever the council might decide, order, dictate, and ordain. For the fear of God,
look at what sort of entry this situa on gives to the enemy of mankind to subvert the
Chris an religion! By misleading one man, he could turn Chris anity into the greatest
desola on, pervert its morals, destroy all ecclesias cal canons and rules, upset kingdoms
and provinces, despoil them of their spiritual and temporal goods, and introduce enormous
vices. Open your eyes and see what sort of entry this provides to the An christ! But
consider also how this situa on may confound and violate the catholic faith, which is the
first founda on of the ecclesias cal building, which, if it is overturned, all things fall into
ruin!

Those are their words. In the same place there is much more, in which
they note correctly that the Roman church has groaned deeply, being
oppressed by the papal yoke; that according to the tes mony of those
fathers the catholic faith will be corrupted and subverted and a way will be
prepared for the An christ if such power is conceded to the pope—that he
is above a council and if it is denied that he can err. Surely, if those fathers
were to see the state of the Roman church today in which those dogmas of
the supremacy of the pope are defended and supported, they would
undoubtedly declare that the catholic faith has been driven from the
church and that the An christ rules supreme in the church. Already long
ago, Bishop Eberhard of Salzburg, Bishop Arnulphus of Orleans, a bishop of
Florence, and others adorned the Roman pon ff with that inscrip on.

Seventh, the statements of the fathers

§ 93. (VII) Bellarmine says that we draw our seventh argument from the
tes monies of the fathers. Hilary (Contra Auxen., toward the end) writes:
“A love of walls badly holds you in its grasp. You badly venerate God’s
church in roofs and buildings. You badly repeat the word ‘Peace’ under
them. Mountains and lakes, prisons and holes are safer for me.” Here he is
saying that the true church had become so concealed at his me that it
could be found only in caves and hiding places. Next, Jerome (Dial. cont.
Luciferianos), speaking about the same period, says, “The whole world
groaned and was surprised that it was Arian.” Basil (Letters 69 and 70,
etc.), likewise, and Bernard (on Song of Songs, sermon 33) so deplore the
faults of all the prelates of their me that they show sufficiently that “at
that me they all turned aside to their own ways, and there was no visible
church.” Finally, Chrysostom (on Matthew, homily 49) teaches that “at
mes there was no visible sign by which to recognize the true church. At
that me, therefore, one’s only recourse was to the Scriptures.”
(I) Bellarmine responds to Hilary’s statement, saying, “The church at
mes is concealed by a mul tude of scandals, but yet in such a way that it
shines forth in its strongest members,” according to Augustine, Letter 48.
We respond. That is a very true statement, but it is opposed to the Papist
idea about the perpetual size and splendor of the church. The church is
preserved and remains conspicuous in a me when the most serious
persecu ons and most destruc ve heresies prevail, and this happens in its
strongest members, namely, its confessors and martyrs. However, these
are few and despised in comparison with the rest. And those who are
stronger than the rest, these people, because of their faith, “partly live
bravely in exile and partly hide throughout the earth,” as Augus ne adds in
the same place.
Therefore Bellarmine looks for another response, for he adds: “Hilary is
speaking only about the church at Milan; hence, this cannot be referred to
the universal church.” We respond. On the contrary, Hilary is declaring in
general that the church of God at that me was to be sought not in
temples and ci es, but in prisons, mountains, and pits, that is, in caves and
hiding places. This very thing comes out more clearly from Hilary’s book De
synodis, in which he says: “When the ten provinces of Asia were in exile,
they did not know God, for they were infected with the Arian heresy.
Among the Eastern peoples it was rare to discover a catholic bishop or
catholic people. Instead, everywhere there were scandals, everywhere
faithlessness, everywhere schisms.” Athanasius, Ad solitar. vitam agentes:
“What church now worships Christ freely? In fact, whatever church is
devout is subject to peril. If there are devout pursuers of Christ anywhere
(and there are many of these everywhere), they, too, as was that great
prophet Elijah, are hidden and conceal themselves in the caves and caverns
of the earth or wander about and live in the desert.” Lest one object that
the Roman church at that me had remained pure, we should note that in
the same book Athanasius relates that “Liberius, the bishop of Rome, spent
two years in exile and then was changed and induced by the Arians’ threats
of death into subscribing.”
(II) Bellarmine responds to the statement of Jerome, saying: “Jerome
calls a great part of the world ‘the world’ and calls those people ‘Arians’
who, deceived by the Arians at the Council of Ariminum, decreed out of
ignorance that the word ὁμοούσιος [“consubstan al,” “of the same
substance”] must be removed.” We respond. Not only the fathers of that
council but also the largest por on of Chris an bishops, infected by the
Arian heresy, expressed those words to Jerome, as one can understand
from the recently cited complaints of Hilary and Athanasius. Jerome also
writes on Psalm 133 as follows: “The church does not consist of walls but
in the truth of dogmas. Where there is true faith, there is also the church.
Furthermore, fi een or twenty years ago, the here cs” (Arians) “possessed
all the walls of the churches, yet the church was there, wherever there was
true faith.” He also writes, Chronicon ad ann. 364: “All the churches in
almost the whole world were corrupted by their fellowship with the Arians
under the name of peace and of the king.” Vincent of Lérins, Adv. haeres.
nova ones, ch. 6: “The poison of the Arians had contaminated not just a
small por on but almost the en re world, so that a er almost all the
bishops who spoke La n were deceived either by force or by trick, a
darkness was being poured upon their minds,” etc. And later: “Because
that profane novelty of the Arians, like a Bellona or Fury, first had captured
the emperor of all the people and then had subjugated all the important
people of the palace to new laws, therea er it never ceased disturbing and
troubling all things.” Erasmus, Prefat. in Hilar.: “At the me of Hilary, the
Arian sect had spread its roots so far and had become so strong that the
world for some me was uncertain in which of the two direc ons it would
go, especially when Emperor Constan ne compelled them with exiles,
plunderings, threats, and terrors to join the Arian party.”
(III) Bellarmine responds to the statements of Basil and Bernard, saying:
“The former deplores the wretched condi on of the church because of the
infesta on of here cs; the la er, however, censures the faults of behavior
but not the faults of doctrine.” We respond. It is enough for us that the
church can become so obscured by an infesta on of here cs and by a
mul tude of scandals that its exterior, conspicuous splendor is no longer
apparent. Bernard complains about the pi able state of the church in many
places. De convers. Pauli, sermon 1, col. 81:
O Lord, the en re Chris an people from least to greatest seems to have conspired against
You. Iniquity has gone out from the elders, judges, Your vicars, who seem to rule Your
people. Alas, O Lord God, because those are first in the persecu on who seem to love the
chief posi on in Your church and who exercise sovereignty. They have seized the citadel of
Zion, they have taken the ramparts, and they commit all power freely and powerfully to the
flames.

On Song of Songs, sermon 33, col. 602:

They are ministers of Christ and serve the An christ. The honored walk from the good things
of the Lord and do not give honor to the Lord. Thence comes what you see daily: whorish
elegance, theatrical garb, regal trappings. Thence, gold is in their reins, saddles, and spurs,
and their spurs gleam more than their altars. Thence, their tables are brilliant with food and
bowls. Thence, reveling and drunkenness. Thence, lute, lyre, and flute. Thence, winepresses
overflowing and full storehouses belching forth from this to that. Thence, jars of cosme cs.
Thence, filled purses. In favor of such things are those who wish to be and who already are
the leaders of the churches—deacons, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, etc.

He explains what the condi on of the Roman Curia was in his books De
considera one ad Eugenium.
(IV) [Bellarmine] responds to Chrysostom’s statement, saying: “The
author of that Opus imperfectum is an Arian here c, or at least the Arians
corrupted that book.” We respond. We admit that those commentaries in
some places favor Arianism, but must we consequently take away all its
authority? Several mes Bellarmine quotes some tes monies from it. In
fact, the Roman church in its ecclesias cal office reads those homilies and
with its authority strengthens “the ordinary glosses, the Gospel catenas,
the papal decrees, and the theological summas” in many places. In the
work itself, Chrysostom argues against the Arians piously, learnedly, and
explicitly. These parts should not be rejected with the rest of the dross. To
the same class belongs also the statement that we cite from homily 49 to
support our posi on, which none of the ancients has rejected. In that
statement Chrysostom, or whoever else the author may be, responds
neither as a here c nor as an Arian but in an orthodox and catholic manner
to the ques on “Does Christ send us back to the Scriptures?” He responds
in this way:
In this me, since heresy took possession of the churches, there can be no proof of true
Chris anity, nor can there be another refuge for Chris ans who want to know the firmness
of the faith, other than the divine Scriptures. Previously, one could show in many ways
which one was Christ’s church and which one was heathenism. Now, however, for those who
want to know, there is no way to learn which one is the true church of Christ, except through
the Scriptures alone.

The history of the Old Testament church shows that the

church can cease to exist
§ 94. Those are the arguments that Bellarmine a ributes to us in this
ques on and whose force he tries to break. Now, in order that it may be
more clear as to whether the external appearance of the church has always
been bright and shining or whether at mes it has been concealed by a
mul tude of scandals, the seriousness of persecu ons, and the spread of
corrup ons, errors, and heresies, we shall run briefly through the history of
the church in the Old and New Testaments.
(I) A er their sad apostasy, our first parents had been summoned by the
voice of the Gospel to the fellowship of the church and—within their own
family, that li le domes c church—were propaga ng the promise about
the woman’s Seed who would bruise the serpent’s head. Then Cain raised
up a horrible scandal in it by murdering his brother. Soon he, too, went
away “from the face of the Lord,” that is, from the fellowship of the true
church. He established new forms of worship outside of the Word and,
along with his descendants, persecuted the true church as an enemy. That
is why Gen. 4:26 has the addi on that at the me of Seth, when Enosh was
born, “men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” The name “Enosh”
signifies that the church had been oppressed by the plo ng and
persecu ons of the Cainites. But then it began to flourish again, and the
Word of God was taught with great success in the public assemblies, as Dr.
Luther correctly interprets this passage.
(II) In the me before the flood, the increasing offspring of the Cainites
drew the children of God—that is, the ci zens of the true church, the
offspring of the patriarchs—over to their side with their wisdom, inven on
of arts, wealth, successes, etc., that is, with their fla ery, so that the
children of God would have no manner of religion, devo on, and honesty
and would marry the Cainites and join themselves to the church of the
Cainites. The dissuasion and arguing of the Holy Spirit through the ministry
of devout prophets was in vain (Gen. 6:2–3). As a result, the waters of the
flood destroyed the whole world, and the church was preserved in the ny
assembly of “eight souls” that hid in the ark for an en re year, as if in a
prison. Among them, that wicked mocker Ham had a place. What was the
size and splendor of the true church at that me?
(III) A er the flood, as idolatry was increasing everywhere, God called
Abraham and led him out of Ur of the Chaldeans, Gen. 11:31. It is evident
on the basis of Josh. 24:2 that even Abraham himself was given over to
idolatrous worship in the house and family of his father, Terah. From this it
is clear that before the calling of Abraham one could nowhere find a pure
ministry of the Word completely free of idolatry. Augustine, De civit. Dei,
bk. 16, ch. 12:
Also at that me, impious supers ons prevailed among the Chaldeans, as was true among
the other na ons. The household of Terah, of which Abraham was born, was the only one in
which the worship of the one true God had remained and, if one can believe it, in which the
Hebrew language was preserved. Joshua, son of Nun, is our witness that even that family
served strange gods in Mesopotamia, just as now a more obvious people of God was doing
in Egypt, etc. And, thus, just as the single household of Noah had lasted through the flood of
waters to rebuild the human race, so also in the flood of many supers ons throughout the
en re world there had remained only the household of Terah in which was preserved the
transplan ng of the city of God.

Also, on Psalm 128:

There was a me when the church existed only in Abel, and his lost and wicked brother Cain
a acked him. There was a me when the church existed only in Enoch, and he was
translated away from the wicked. There was a me when the church existed only in the
family of Noah, when only the ark floated on the waters. There was a me when it existed
only in Abraham.

(IV) When Ishmael and Esau le the fellowship of the true church, it was
preserved in the family of Jacob. Besides the fact that it was in exile in the
land of Canaan and was an insignificant and contemp ble assembly with
respect to the other idolatrous groups, we should note that not even the
family of Jacob was completely free of idolatry, because “Rachel stole her
father’s gods,” Gen. 31:19. Also, Jacob called together all the people who
were with him and commanded them, Gen. 35:2: “Put away the foreign
gods that are among you.” From this we know clearly that those who had
followed Jacob out of Mesopotamia did not immediately renounce the
idolatry in which they had been trained in Laban’s house. Furthermore,
there were also very serious scandals, which miserably disfigured the true
church in the house and family of Jacob. Dinah commi ed shameful
unchas ty, and Simeon and Levi punished the Shechemites with excessive
cruelty. Reuben commi ed incest with his father’s concubine; Judah did
the same with his daughter-in-law; Joseph’s brothers sold him into Egypt;
etc.
(V) When the true church that had been preserved in the descendants
of Jacob was sojourning in Egypt, its condi on was very wretched. The
Israelites were subjected to the harshest slavery; they were afflicted with
burdens; their children were thrown into the river. Ezekiel men ons
explicitly that “they followed the customs of the Egyp ans and defiled
themselves with much idolatry” (Ezek. 20:[8]). This is also quite clear
considering that, when they worshiped the golden calf (Exodus 32), they
were following the worship of the Egyp ans in this point. In the royal city
of Memphis, the Egyp ans worshiped Apis, that is, the ox, and its mother,
Anubis. (Apis was the figure of a cow having a white forehead and some
white spots on its skin. Otherwise it was black.)
** Ezek. 23:2–3: “There were two women, the daughters of one
mother. They fornicated in Egypt; they fornicated in their youth. There
their breasts were pressed, and there they bruised the paps of their
virginity.” Verse 8: “She did not give up her fornica ons from Egypt” (which
she learned in Egypt). **
(VI) When the Israelites had been freed from their slavery in Egypt and
were wandering in the wilderness, how o en they murmured against God!
How o en they spoke against Moses, the servant of God! Thus Christ
declared without restric on: “Your fathers ate the manna in the
wilderness, and they died” (John 6:49), namely, with eternal death, as is
understood from the an thesis. Also, the apostle says, “In most of them
God was not pleased” (1 Cor. 10:5). According to Exodus 32, the en re
people was running a er idolatry. On this point, Aaron, the chief priest,
presents himself as their leader. Thus in v. 25 we are told that Moses saw
the people “stripped,” that is, wandering around without God, without the
Word of God, without the true worship and obedience due to God. In v. 10
God threatens that He intends to destroy that en re people. Nadab and
Abihu “offer strange fire” (Lev. 10:1). Aaron and Miriam speak against their
brother Moses (Numbers 12). Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as well as their
followers, s rred up a rebellion (Numbers 16). The Israelites defiled
themselves terribly with the idols and fornica on of the Moabites
(Numbers 25). These scandals and idolatries severely oppressed,
shamefully corrupted, and wretchedly obscured the church of the Israelites
as it wandered about the desert wasteland.
(VII) When the Israelites had been led into the Promised Land, divine
worship did not remain pure and uncorrupted for long a er the death of
Joshua. Judg. 2:7–8, [10–13]:
The children of Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua and of the elders who lived a
long me a er him and saw the great works of the Lord. But when Joshua, the son of Nun,
had died, and all that genera on also had been gathered to their fathers, and another
genera on had arisen a er them who did not know the Lord … then the people of Israel did
evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals, and they forsook the Lord, the God of their
fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt, and they went a er other gods
from the gods of the peoples who dwelt round about them, and they worshiped them and
provoked the Lord to anger, forsaking Him and serving Baal and Ashtaroth.

The children of Israel preserved and spread that idolatry of Baal, which had
originated among the Moabites, for a very long me. In fact, they even
broadened and embellished it in various ways, for they built high places for
Baal (Num. 22:41); they worshiped him on the roofs of houses (Jer. 32:29);
they built statues for him (2 Kings 3:2); they built him a house (2 Kings
10:21); they built him altars (Judg. 6:25); they dedicated groves, temples,
and vessels, etc., to him (2 Kings 23:4); they worshiped him by bending
their knees (1 Kings 19:18), with a kiss (ibid.), with perfume and incense
(2 Kings 23:5; Jer. 7:9); they established feast days and solemn fes vi es
for him (2 Kings 10:20); they offered him sacrifices (v. 19); they ordained
special slaves, priests, and prophets to his service (1 Kings 18:19; 2 Chron.
23:17); they worshiped him with gold, silver, etc. (Hosea 2:8).
Furthermore, the state of the church of Israel at the me of the judges
is described summarily in Judg. 2:16–19: “The Lord raised up judges who
freed them. And yet they did not want to listen to them, for they
fornicated with other gods and worshiped them.… Whenever the Lord
raised up judges for them, the Lord was with the judge, and He freed them
from the hands of their enemies.… But a er the judge had died, they
turned back and did things much worse than their fathers had done, going
a er strange gods, serving them, and worshiping them.” Judg. 3:5–7: “The
children of Israel dwelt among the Canaanites, the Hi tes, the Amorites,
the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; and they took their daughters
to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons;
and they served their gods. And the people of Israel did evil in the sight of
the Lord and forgot God, serving the Baals and Asheroth.” Judg. 8:27:
“Gideon made an ephod and put it in his city, in Ophrah, and all Israel
fornicated in it there.” Judg. 10:6: “The children of Israel again did evil in
the sight of the Lord and served the Baals and Ashtaroth, and the gods of
Syria, of Sidon, of Moab, of the sons of Ammon, and of the Philis nes; and
they forsook the Lord and did not worship Him.” In Judg. 17:5, Micah the
Ephraimite established his own idolatrous cult in his own house, and the
tribe of Dan later transferred that to the city of Laish and preserved it un l
the day of cap vity—all the me that “the house of God was at Shiloh”
(Judg. 18:30–31). In the same book, this is repeated quite o en: “In those
days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own
eyes.”
So, then, during all that me when the judges were ruling the people,
the kindness of God and the idolatry and wickedness of the people of Israel
ba led with each other, as it were, to see which of them was superior. Yet
because there was no other visible church outside of the people of Israel,
with what concealment of the truth can one say that the public exercise of
divine worship was pure and uncorrupted at that me?
(VIII) Concerning the days of Eli, the priest who ruled the people of
Israel shortly before the mes of the kings, we are told clearly, 1 Sam. 3:1:
“The word of the Lord was precious” (or very rare) “in those days; there
was no manifest vision.” 1 Sam. 2:12: “The sons of Eli were sons of Belial.”
1 Sam. 2:17: “They withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord.”
Therefore the appearance of the church was filthy at that me because of
corrup ons of doctrine and with the public scandals of the priests.
(IX) Eli’s successor was Samuel, and he restored divine worship.
However, when the Israelites wanted a king because of the greed of
Samuel’s sons, they received Saul, who “consulted a woman with a divining
spirit” (1 Sam. 28:7) against the express command of God and who died in
his sins. In 1 Chron. 13:3 it is said that “the ark of God was not sought in
the days of Saul.” At that me, therefore, the public exercise of divine
worship was neglected.
Saul’s successor was David, under whom the condi on of the church
and state of the Israelites flourished very much. David’s successor in the
kingship was his son, Solomon, who built the temple for the Lord. Toward
the end of his life, however, “his foreign wives turned away his heart to
follow a er other gods and to worship Ashtoreth, the goddess of the
Sidonians; Chemosh, the god of the Moabites; and Moloch, the
abomina on of the Ammonites” (1 Kings 11:4–5, [7]). Therefore by the
public authority of the king, those idolatrous rituals were received among
the Israelites with a very great scandal. It is impossible to doubt that most
of the people followed the king’s example.
(X) A er the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel was split apart.
Jeroboam received ten tribes, and Rehoboam, the son of Solomon,
received only the tribe of Judah. To that tribe, however, the Lord added the
tribe of Benjamin as a sort of increase. It was in that tribe that the city of
Jerusalem, which had the royal throne and the temple of the Lord, was
located. So, then, the realm of the Israelites was divided into the kingdom
of Israel in the specific sense, to which belonged ten tribes, and the
kingdom of Judah, to which belonged two tribes: Judah and Benjamin.
Regarding Jeroboam, the king of Israel, 1 Kings 12:28 men ons that he
was afraid that the subjects of the kingdom of Israel would return to the
house of David if they went up to Jerusalem every year to sacrifice. A er
taking counsel, he made two golden calves, placing one at Dan and the
other at Bethel. Then he told his subjects: “ ‘It is a difficult thing for you to
go up to Jerusalem. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of
the land of Egypt.’ … But this ma er became a sin for all the people of
Israel” [1 Kings 12:28, 30]. Consequently, in 1 Kings 14:16 it is said about
Jeroboam that “he made Israel to sin.” That is, by establishing new cults he
provided an opportunity for idolatry. This public exercise of idolatrous
worship in the kingdom of Israel lasted un l the Babylonian cap vity. As a
result we have those tragic complaints about Nadab, Baasha, Elah, Zimri,
Omri, and Ahab, that “they walked in the ways of Jeroboam”; that “they
made the children of Israel sin”; and that “they provoked the Lord to anger
by the works of their hands” (1 Kings 15:26 and 34; 16:7, 13, 19, 25 and
30). Especially do we read about Ahab that “it was not enough for him to
walk in the sins of Jeroboam,” but “he also served Baal and erected an altar
for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. He planted a grove
and did more to provoke the Lord to anger than all the kings of Israel” (1
Kings 16:31[–33]). Ahab’s successor was Jehoram, who removed the
statues of Baal but did not depart from the worship of the golden calves (2
Kings 3:3). Jehu succeeded Jehoram and also destroyed the temples of
Baal, but “he did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel
to sin” (2 Kings 10:31).
In the kingdom of Judah God raised up some devout kings who restored
the true worship of God and abolished idolatry. Not even in that kingdom,
however, did the exercise of divine worship remain perpetually pure and
uncorrupted, as we have shown above.
** Hosea, who prophesied under Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah,
the kings of Judah, and under Jeroboam, king of Israel (Hosea 1:[1]),
speaks as follows about the Jewish synagogue: “Judge your mother, judge
her, for she is not My wife and I am not her husband; let her put away her
fornica ons and her adulteries from between her breasts” (Hosea 2:2). **
(XI) The Lord finally began to weary of Israel because of its con nued
idolatry (2 Kings 10:32). As a result, Shalmaneser, king of the Assyrians,
overthrew the en re kingdom of Israel along with Samaria, the chief city of
the kingdom, and led the ten tribes into permanent cap vity in the year of
the world 3231 (2 Kings 17). Also the Jews (in the specific sense) were
carried off into the Babylonian cap vity from Jerusalem, the chief city of
the kingdom of Judah, when Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, captured
and burned that city in the year of the world 3364. There the status of the
Jewish church in the Babylonian cap vity was very wretched for that en re
seventy years.
(XII) A er the return from the Babylonian cap vity and a er the
restora on of the temple and of the city Jerusalem under its rulers, a
tranquility came upon the church of the Israelites and the pure exercise of
divine worship flourished for a while. But in the year of the world 3804, the
campaign of An ochus Epiphanes against Jerusalem succeeded. The city
was pillaged, the temple plundered, and most of the ci zens butchered. At
that me, again, the appearance of the church was wretched, for
An ochus was commanding that the Jews “should give up their laws” (1
Maccabees 1:[43]). 1 Maccabees 1:[45]–63:
 And many of Israel consented to his service and they sacrificed to idols and profaned the
sabbath. And the king sent le ers by the hands of messengers to Jerusalem and all the ci es
of Judah, that they should follow the laws of the na ons of the earth and should forbid
whole burnt offerings and sacrifices and atonements to be made in the temple of God, and
should prohibit the sabbath and feasts to be celebrated. And he commanded the holy places
and the holy people of Israel to be profaned. And he commanded altars to be built, and
temples and idols, and swine’s flesh to be immolated, and unclean beasts; and that they
should leave their sons uncircumcised and let their souls be defiled with all uncleannesses
and abomina ons, so that they would forget the Law and change all the ordinances of God.
Whoever did not do according to the word of King An ochus would die, etc.… And many of
the people were gathered to them that had forsaken the Law of the Lord, and they did evils
in the land. They drove away the people of Israel into secret places and into the hidden
places of fugi ves. The king also set up the abominable idol of desola on upon the altar of
God, and they built altars throughout all the ci es of Judah round about. They burned
incense and sacrificed (to idols) at the doors of their houses and in the streets. And they cut
in pieces and burned with fire the books of the Law of God. And everyone with whom the
books of the covenant of the Lord were found, and whoever observed the Law of the Lord,
they put to death according to the edict of the king.… The women who circumcised their
sons were slain.

Josephus repeats the same thing, De bell. Judaic., bk. 1, ch. 1. What else
could have befallen that lamentable state of the Jewish church? What
place did the external splendor of the church have at that me? The true
confessors were either executed or they hid in caves. Public sacred rites
were abolished, the books of the Law were burned, etc. And nowhere in
the en re world outside of the people of Israel was there any other visible
church placed in shining splendor and brightness.
(XIII) Before Christ was born into this world, what was the appearance
of the Israelite church? Three sects were dominant in it: Pharisees,
Sadducees, and Essenes. Each of these fostered its own peculiar errors,
which Josephus lists in De bell. Judaic., bk. 2, ch. 7. They made tradi ons
equal, and even preferred them, to the Word of God. The doctrine of the
Law had been corrupted terribly, for they were teaching that only an
external obedience was required in the Law. The doctrine of the Messiah
and of His benefits had been almost completely ex nguished, for they
were teaching that His kingdom would be physical and earthly, etc. Where
at that me could anyone find a conspicuous, visible church resplendent
with a pure and uncorrupted ministry of the Word and the pure exercise of
divine worship? That church at that me existed in only a few obscure
people: Joseph, Mary, Simeon, the shepherds of Bethlehem, etc. When
Christ began to teach, He took with Him a small and despised group. The
Pharisees said: “Have any of the rulers believed in Him? But this crowd that
does not know the Law is accursed” (John 7:48–49). Nonetheless that
insignificant, despised group (Luke 12:32) was the true church. The chief
priests, scribes, Pharisees, rulers of the priests and elders, who were
assuming the tle “church” for themselves, men who were illustrious in
their dignity, authority, wisdom, power, and their reputa on for erudi on
and piety, were by no means the true church—rather, they were a acking
and persecu ng the true church. This argument most especially confirms
our posi on and completely destroys the posi on of the Papists. You see, if
we must look for the church in this external splendor, in its succession, in
its large size, in its tle, etc., then Christ with His disciples was not the
church, but the chief priests, scribes, Pharisees, and their adherents were.
Bellarmine skipped over this argument without stopping. Stapleton (De
princ. doctrin., bk. 2, ch. 11) tries to break its force and descends to such
wickedness that he claims that “those few, obscure people who believed in
Christ and followed Him were not the church. The church, instead, was the
en re mul tude of people who venerated the synagogue and the temple
and who submi ed to the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees in the
doctrine of faith and behavior.” But this is totally an -Chris an, for can the
name “true church” be given to those who a ack Christ, resist His Word,
and persecute those who confess Him? And, on the other hand, shall we
take the tle “church” away from those who were Christ’s sheep and
embraced His Word in faith? Hosius goes on with such impudence as to
claim, Contra Bren um, bk. 2: “The council of the chief priests, scribes,
Pharisees, and elders that condemned Christ was the representa ve
church, a lawful council; and the Holy Spirit was present at that council and
governed it.”

The history of the New Testament church shows that the

church can cease to exist
§ 95. Let us go on now to the state of the New Testament church. (I) At
the me of Christ’s Passion, what was the appearance of the church? What
was its condi on? The chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees—who were
assuming the tle “church” for themselves and who were boas ng of their
Aaronic succession—had condemned Christ in council. Judas had betrayed
Him. Peter had denied Him. The rest of the disciples had fled, were in
hiding, and closed themselves behind bars and gates because of their fear.
The people had approved the chief priests’ sentence and with loud shouts
had brought it about that Christ would be crucified. Only a thief, an u erly
worthless person, confessed Christ. Joseph and Nicodemus were giving the
appearance of a different confession, etc.
Consequently, Alexander of Hales (part 3, last ques on, art. 2) and
Johannes de Turrecremata (De eccles., bk. 1, ch. 30, and bk. 3, ch. 61) say,
“During the Passion of the Lord, true faith did not remain except in the
most holy Virgin Mary.” They believe that this is indicated by the one
candle that is kept burning by itself for the three days [triduum] before
Easter during the night office. Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 17) rejects
this, “because many who were not at Jerusalem had true faith.”
Nevertheless one cannot deny that their group was very small and
despised and did not cons tute a visible church, illustrious with external
splendor. The chief priests, on the other hand, with the scribes and
Pharisees, were, with great show, assuming for themselves the tle and
dignity of the church. Gregorius de Valen a (Comment. in Thom., vol. 3,
col. 173) likewise rejects the view of Alexander and Turrecremata; yet he
concedes something that clearly confirms our posi on. He writes as
follows: “Even if all the apostles had rejected the faith at that me, it s ll
does not follow that faith remained in no one besides the blessed Virgin.
A er all, other people could have persevered in the faith, even if nothing is
said about them.” Also, col. 174: “Although the apostles did not confess
their faith outwardly and suffered scandal as far as the external confession
of faith is concerned, they s ll could have kept the faith in their souls.”
(We, too, say the same thing, that some people under the papacy have
kept the faith, though nothing is said about them.)
(II) A er Christ’s ascent into heaven the church was spread among the
na ons. At the me of the ten persecu ons, it became quite obscured and
was reduced to a few people and to a contemp ble appearance. Therefore
being conspicuous in terms of external splendor is not a permanent and
proper characteris c of the church. The truth of the antecedent is clear
from Eusebius, Zonaras, and other writers. As Bap sta Mantuanus sings:
Then Cajus, who the Roman protector hid in deep caves, etc.,
Then many holy fathers, seeing such destruc on, fled the ci es and like beasts
 Wandered through the wilderness and hid in caverns.

The last of the ten persecu ons, under Diocle an, surpassed the other
nine in savagery and dura on. During it, temples everywhere were
destroyed; bishops, presbyters, and deacons were executed; and
confessors of Christ were brutalized with various kinds of exquisite
tortures. According to Damasus, Vita Marcellini: “Within thirty days,
17,000 Chris ans were carried off to various punishments.” Jerome was
surprised in his own century that “relics of Chris ans were discovered
because of the savagery of the earlier persecu ons.” Fulco relates: “Some
tyrants boasted that they had completely wiped out the name ‘Chris ans’
and that the supers ous belief in Christ had been destroyed everywhere,
as some marble panels [marmora] at Salamanca tes fy.” Yet God preserved
for Himself a holy church that was not conspicuous with an illustrious,
external splendor but that was lying hidden in caverns and crypts. A er all,
what can the external splendor of a church be, what can its conspicuous
brilliance be, when its shepherds are butchered and its sheep sca ered,
when the true confessors are either killed or driven into exile?
** Blasius de Viega (commentary on Revelation 6) describes the
persecu on of the church under Diocle an and Maximian in this way:
“The heaven departed like a book folded up” [Rev. 6:14]. That is, the church, which is called
“the heaven,” hid itself because of fear of persecu on, with the excep on of a few people
who were ablaze with a burning zeal for the faith and offered themselves for martyrdom.
This becomes clearer when the following is added: “Every mountain and island were moved
out of their places” [Rev. 6:14], because on cliffs and islands and very remote places they
were seeking Chris ans, to put them to death. Finally, people of every age and condi on
were hiding in hideaways and places underground because of their fear of persecu on. That
is what the following words mean: “And the kings of the earth, and the princes and tribunes,
and the rich and the strong, and every bondman and every freeman hid themselves in the
dens and in the rocks of mountains. And they say to the mountains and the rocks: ‘Fall upon
us, and hide us from the face of Him who sits upon the throne!’ ” [Rev. 6:15–16], namely,
because the faithful would think that God and the Lamb were angry with them and because
of this were avenging their sins with such great bi erness. **

(III) Peace was restored to the church under Constan ne the Great, and
the storms of persecu ons were calmed. But then various heresies,
especially the Arian heresy, swept over the church like a flood and covered
it with thick darkness. The Arians were taking over the episcopal sees; the
emperor and his nobles stood on their side; Athanasius with some other
confessors was driven into exile. Their exercise of religion was not free and
public, but instead they hid in caves and deserts, which we men oned
earlier [§ 93].
(IV) The Holy Scriptures tes fy clearly that when the An christ holds
sway in the church, the appearance of the church will be wretched (Matt.
24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; 1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 12:7; etc.). Augustine, commentary
on Psalm 9:
The first persecu on of the church was violent because with proscrip ons, tortures, and
murder the Chris ans were forced to sacrifice. The second persecu on is decei ul, for
here cs of this kind and false brothers are conduc ng it. The third is s ll to come through
the An christ. No persecu on is more destruc ve than it, because it will be both violent and
decei ul. It will have might in the empire; it will have trickery in miracles.

In De civ. Dei, bk. 10, chs. 8–9, he says: “At the me of the An christ the
devil will be turned loose. Hence that persecu on will be as much more
serious than all that went before it as the devil can be more savage running
loose than being bound.” Chrysostom, Opus imperf., homily 49: “At the
me of the An christ the faithful will hide in very secret places, as God
rather than a place conceals them, as it is wri en: ‘You will hide them in
the secret place of Your face from the disturbance of men’ [Ps. 31:20].”
** Lyra, commentary on Psalm 101, part 3, f. 237, C: “At the me of the
An christ there will be such tribula on that it will appear to some of the
church that the catholic faith should totally cease to exist.” In his
commentary on Psalm 9, f. 100, C: “You should know that the persecu on
of the church at the me of the An christ will be so bad that God will seem
to have deserted the church, if that could be possible.” **
Because the Papists cannot deny this, they pretend that the An christ
has not yet come. S ll, at whatever me the An christ will come, it is
enough for us that they admit that the external splendor of the church and
the public exercise of true religion will cease at that me. Bellarmine, De
Rom. pon f., bk. 3, ch. 7: “It is certain that the An christ’s persecu on will
be very serious and well-known, so that all public religious ceremonies and
sacrifices will cease.” And later: “The An christ will forbid all the divine
worship that is now being prac ced in the churches of the Chris ans.”
Stapleton, Princip. doctr., bk. 13, ch. 2: “Surely the church will be able to be
driven into the wilderness when the An christ rules. At that moment in
me it will be appropriate to look for the church in the wilderness, that is,
in secret places, caves, and refuges where the saints will withdraw.” The
[Englishmen] of Rheims, on 2 Thessalonians 2, sect. 10: “Shortly before the
end of the world, the external status of the Roman church will cease as
well as the public interac on of the faithful with it. Apostasy will then hold
sway everywhere. Nevertheless at that me the devout by heart and mind
will have fellowship with the pope and with the Roman church.” But if, at
the me of the An christ, all the ceremonies of public religion will cease,
and if even the public interac on of the faithful with the church will cease,
why do they argue that the church is always visible and conspicuous? Why
do they laugh at us when we say that under the papacy there have been
many faithful in heart and mind who were in fellowship with the church
catholic, even though those faithful had no public, external exercise of true
religion and of pure divine worship?
Regarding this point we should relate what the [Englishmen] of Rheims
confess in their commentary on Revelation 12: “It can happen that the
church at some me may have no public splendor, public status, or
organiza on, no free exercise of its holy offices”; and also what Gregorius
de Valen a admits, Analysis, p. 143: “The church has been disturbed by the
floods of errors, schisms, and persecu ons so o en that it can barely be
discerned by the inexperienced.” In the same place he declares from Hilary
and Jerome: “The church is not always to be sought in buildings and
external pomp, but rather in prisons and in caves.” Why, then, do they ask
us to show them the church before these mes in the lo y throne of a
bishop, in its large size, in a public ministry of pure preaching, etc.?
(V) The fathers teach the same thing. Some of their tes monies we cited
earlier [§ 93]. The following should be added to them. Jerome, on
Zephaniah 2, toward the end:
Regarding the church, it seems at first appearance to be a blasphemy to say that “it will be
impassable and deserted, and beasts will live in it, and a erward people will say to it
insul ngly: ‘Here is a city given over to evils, a city that dwells in hope, that says in her heart:
“I am, and there is none greater than I.” How has she become a desert, a pasture for
beasts?’ ” [cf. Zeph. 2:13–15]. One should have considered that statement of the apostle in
which he says: “In the last days there will come very bad mes. People will be lovers of their
own selves, covetous, arrogant, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful,
wicked, without affec on, without peace, accusers, intemperate, cruel, haters, traitors of
good things, rash, puffed up, lovers of pleasure more than of God, holding a form of
godliness but denying the power thereof” [cf. 2 Tim. 3:1–5]. Also, listen to what is wri en in
the Gospel, that “as wickedness increases, the love also of many will grow cold” [Matt.
24:12], so that at that me this will be fulfilled: “Yet when the Son of Man comes, do you
 think He will find faith on the earth?” [Luke 18:8]. He will not tarry over the external
devasta on of the church, which the prophet now describes, that when the An christ rules,
the church must be driven out into the wilderness and handed over everywhere to the wild
beasts.

Augustine, De consens. evang., bk. 1, ch. 31: “For many years the church,
which was to be among all na ons, has not appeared in Your children, that
is, among Your holy people.” Letter 48 ad Vincent.: “This is the church that
at mes is obscured and beclouded, so to speak, with a mul tude of
scandals.” Letter 80:
When the sun will be hidden, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from
the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, then the church will not appear. For
then wicked persecutors will rage beyond measure, and without fear, as if the happiness of
the world were smiling, they will say, “Peace and safety!” Then the stars will fall from the
skies and the powers of the heavens will be shaken, because many people who appear to be
radiant with grace will yield to the persecutors and fall. Even some of the strongest of the
faithful will be troubled.

** Chrysostom, on Matthew, homily 49, vol. 2, col. 1110: “Then the

faithful will be hidden in very secret places, and God rather than a place
will hide them, as it is wri en: ‘You will hide them in the secret place of
Your face from the disturbance of men’ [Ps. 31:20],” etc. Augustine, Letter
48: “Chaff is always mixed with the grain. But if at some me it would
happen that almost nothing other than chaff is visible to our eyes, the true
church is s ll not in the chaff but is hidden among the grain.” And again:
Those who at that me were very strong were able to understand the decei ul words of the
here cs. But they are few in comparison with the rest. S ll, they indeed went boldly into
exile for the faith; they indeed were hiding in the world. Yet that is how the church that
grows through all na ons has been kept in the Lord’s ra ons and will be preserved un l the
end, un l it has grasped all na ons, even the barbarians. **

Aretas (on Revelation 12) takes the woman fleeing into the wilderness
and hiding there to mean the church: “The flight of the woman into the
desert signifies the flight of the elect. At the coming of the An christ,
ac vated by the devil, the chief leaders of the church will flee from civic
clamor.” Primasius, on the same passage: “I take ‘the desert’ to mean
secret places in which the church shows itself because of fear of
persecu on.” But if the church is some mes forced to flee into the
wilderness and to hide there, how is its external brightness always visible
and conspicuous? Fortalit. fid., bk. 5: “Even if only two faithful men
remained in the world, s ll the church, which is the unity of the faithful,
would be preserved in them.” Aeneas Sylvius, De gest. conc. Basiliensis, bk.
1, writes: “Faith can be driven into such a small place that it is hosted in
the house of one miserable old woman.” A statement of Panormitanus
agrees with this, Extra, De elect., ch. Significas :
It is possible for true faith in Christ to remain in just one person. Yet it is also true to say that
faith does not cease to exist in the church. This became clear a er the Passion of Christ, for
faith remained only in the blessed Virgin because all the rest had stumbled. Yet before His
Passion, Christ had prayed for Peter that his faith would not cease. Therefore the church is
not said to cease exis ng, or even to err, if faith remains in just one person.

The antithesis of the Papists: that the church cannot cease to

exist
§ 96. So those are the founda ons for our posi on. Let us now see the
posi on and founda ons of the Papists. Bellarmine (De ecclesia, bk. 3, ch.
13) tries to prove that the visible church cannot cease to exist. There he
first explains the subject of the ques on and says that he takes the word
“church” to mean: “not one or two Chris an people but a gathered
mul tude in which there are both prelates and subjects.” In ch. 2 he
defines the church as “the assembly of human beings gathered together by
the confession of the same Chris an faith and by a communion of the
same sacraments, under the rule of lawful pastors and especially of the
one vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman pon ff.” He explains the predicate
of the ques on as follows, op. cit., ch. 2: “The church is an assembly of
people as visible and palpable as is the assembly of the Roman people or
the kingdom of France or the republic of Venice.” All these things are quite
clear from the marks that Bellarmine a ributes to the church, for he
believes that the truth and dignity of the church come “from the name
‘catholic,’ from its size, the succession of bishops, temporal felicity, etc.”
That is, he looks for the external splendor of the church and believes that it
is perpetual and inseparable from the church. He takes his first class of
arguments from those passages of Scripture in which the church is named
clearly.

First, passages of Scripture. Matthew 16:18: “The gates of

hell shall not prevail against the church”
 Matt. 16:18: “Upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.” He says 1 Tim. 3:15 is similar to that passage:
“That you may know how one ought to behave in the house of God, which
is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.” He says:
“Both passages are speaking about the visible church; yet we hear the
Truth Himself declaring that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the
church.”
We respond. (1) One must dis nguish between the perpetual dura on
of the church and its visible splendor. The passages he cites prove the
perpetual dura on of the church, which none of us denies. They certainly
do not teach, however, that the external splendor of the church will endure
forever. The gates of hell do not prevail against Christ’s church, even if they
do prevail against its external splendor and brilliance, which are separable
accidents. The church does not cease to be “the house of God, the pillar
and support of the truth,” even if the members of the true church are
hidden during persecu ons. Rev. 12:6: “The woman fled into the
wilderness”; nevertheless the dragon could not devour her, v. 4. Therefore
she fled into the wilderness that she might remain unharmed by the fury of
the dragon.
(2) The cited passages are speaking about the church that is “founded
upon the rock” and is “the house of the living God.” But now, those
expressions properly and adequately fit the church catholic. Therefore
those passages must be understood properly and adequately to refer to
the church catholic. The minor premise is clear because in the visible
church there are some “who hear the words of God and do not do them.”
They are not built upon the rock but on sand (Matt. 7:26). Therefore they
do not belong to that church of which Christ is speaking. Augus ne, De
unit. eccles., ch. 18: “The church is among those who build upon the rock,
that is, who hear the words of Christ and do them, because He says to
Peter, who confessed Him as the Christ, the Son of God: ‘Upon this rock I
will build My church.’ Therefore it is not among those who build on sand,
that is, among those who hear the words of Christ and do not do them.” So
also Heb. 3:6: “We are God’s house if we hold fast our confidence and
boas ng of hope un l the end.” Therefore they alone are the house of
God. Consequently, the apostle is speaking about those who hold fast the
true faith un l the end. But now, they belong to the invisible church
catholic. There are many par cular churches, but Christ is speaking about
the church in the singular number. Therefore He is indica ng properly the
one, catholic, invisible church, which no assaults or powers of Satan can
overthrow.
(3) We admit that “being founded on the rock, and the gates of hell
cannot prevail against it” and “being the house of the living God, the pillar
and support of the truth” can in some way be applied to the visible church
—not simply and absolutely, but in a certain respect and by synecdoche,
namely: With respect to the elect, who in the visible church are mixed with
wicked people and hypocrites. The gates of hell can do nothing against the
former, but they can easily overthrow the la er. Also, with respect to the
truly faithful, who are the house of God and the pillar and ground of the
truth according as and as long as they con nue to protect the truth
revealed in the prophe c and apostolic Scriptures and cling to God in true
faith. But what does this have to do with the external splendor of the
church? Those elect and truly faithful, in whom those promises are
fulfilled, are hidden when persecu ons come. As heresies become more
widespread, they form a very small and despised assembly.
(4) If we were to take Christ’s promise to refer absolutely and simply to
par cular, visible churches, then it would concern either all of them or
some one par cular church. We cannot say that the promise pertains to
all, because the gates of hell have destroyed many par cular churches, as
becomes clear from the induc on of very many churches. That very church
of the Ephesians, about which the apostle is speaking in 1 Tim. 3:15, does
not exist today.
(5) If they respond that this privilege properly befits the Roman church,
they are clearly begging the ques on. We demand certain and evident
proof of this privilege. The Roman church is a par cular and visible church
no less than the church of Corinth, Gala a, Ephesus, Alexandria, An och,
etc. But if the gates of hell could prevail against the other par cular
churches, why could they not also prevail against the Roman church? What
the Papists men on—in regard to Peter’s throne being permanently
a ached to the Roman church—cannot be proved with any tes mony of
Scripture. In fact, this very clearly conflicts with the condi on of the New
Testament, in which Christ’s church is no longer bound to a certain place
and a certain people. “Where the doctrine of the apostles sounds forth,
there the thrones of the apostles truly preside.” On the other hand, “those
who do not have Peter’s faith do not have Peter’s inheritance” (Ambrose,
De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 6).
(6) In fact, if our adversaries wish to be consistent, they cannot apply
this promise to the visible Roman church, for they write: “The An christ”
(who, they claim, will be the devil in disguise [personatus]) “will take away
all public ceremonies of religion and all divine worship that is prac ced in
the Roman church. Therefore the external status of the Roman church will
cease at that me so that the devout will be able to be in fellowship with
the pope and the Roman church only in heart and mind.” Surely, then, the
gates of hell will prevail against the Roman church at that me.
(7) They take the expression “Roman church” to mean either the church
of the city of Rome, which is properly called the Roman church, or all the
par cular churches that adhere to the Roman pon ff. In either way, the
Roman church can cease to exist. The apostle expressly declares regarding
the church circumscribed by the walls of the city of Rome, Rom. 11:22:
“See the goodness and the severity of God: toward them indeed that are
fallen, the severity; but toward you, the goodness of God, if you abide in
goodness—otherwise you also shall be cut off.” As for the par cular
churches that adhere to the Roman pon ff, very many of them defected
from the pope during the last century. Bellarmine can find proof for this
ma er from the accounts of the annual income of the Roman Curia, if
previous mes and our mes are compared. Those churches that are s ll
subject to the Roman pon ff likewise can fall away. Yet the en re church
catholic would not cease to exist on that account, because it is one thing to
fall away from Christ and another to defect from the Roman pon ff.
** Furthermore, Dr. Höpfner writes about this subject as follows:
When the words “rock” [Matt. 7:24; cf. Matt. 16:18] as well as “support” [1 Tim. 3:15] are
referred to the church, this is said: (1) Either in the order of the principal efficient cause for
the One who founds and preserves. It is in this way that Christ is called the rock in rela on
to the church, because He founds and preserves it, Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 3:11; Isa. 28:16. (2)
Or this is said in the order of the instrumental [efficient] cause, as the divinely inspired
doctrine and the prophets and apostles themselves, according as they preached and wrote
the divinely inspired doctrine through immediate inspira on, Rom. 15:20; Eph. 2:20; Rev.
21:14. You see, other theologians built their own teachings upon that divinely inspired
doctrine. Consequently, Clement of Alexandria (Στρωμ., bk. 5) calls them “Cogni ve
[γνωστικὰ] structures” (providing a fuller understanding) “upon the founda on of faith in
Jesus Christ.” Here belong all the statements of the fathers that take “rock” to mean Peter’s
 confession. (3) [Or] in the order of the material cause those things are called “rocks” that
have their own strength, but from another and through another. That is, they (the rock) are
founded and made solid on Christ through the founda onal teaching of the apostles. Thus
the faithful are o en called “rocks,” namely, “because of the firmness of their faith and the
weigh ness of their reasoning,” as Nazianzen says (Orat. 18); that is, because of their
ceaseless confession. Therefore, insofar as the Roman church keeps the faith, it is “rock”;
that is, it is founded on Christ, the rock and founda on of salva on. Thus the rock is the
subject or material of founding. But it does not have the nature of an efficient cause: either
principal, because the rock receives the force of solidity from Christ; or instrumental,
because in this way it is not a founda on but only a support, like a column, 1 Tim. 3:15.
Furthermore, the Roman church alone is not the rock in this way. Others are too. **

Second, other statements of Scripture: Matthew 28:20:

“Behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world”
§ 97. Bellarmine takes his second class of arguments from other
passages where there is an obvious promise without the noun “church.” (1)
Matt. 28:20: “Behold, I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world.” “These words were spoken to the visible church: to the apostles, of
course, and the rest of the disciples whom the Lord addressed on the day
of His ascension. Because those men were not going to remain in the body
un l the end of the world, it is necessary to say that this promise belongs
to their successors. Leo I and Leo II take this passage to refer to the
perpetual dura on of the church.”
We respond. Who of us denies the perpetual dura on of the church? By
force of this promise Christ is perpetually present with His church and
gathers to Himself an assembly of people who truly believe. This He does
through the preaching of the Gospel and the efficacy of the Holy Spirit. He
even “dwells in the hearts of believers through faith” (Eph. 3:17). But what
does this have to do with the external splendor and brilliance of the visible
church? Christ is speaking about true believers in whom He dwells by His
grace. From this, however, one cannot infer that there is some par cular
church, namely, the Roman, which cannot cease to exist and to which
Christ has promised His perpetual presence absolutely. Nor can one infer
from this that the visible church will always be shining and glorious,
because even if persecu ons, heresies, and scandals obscure the visible
church, Christ will s ll fulfill this promise of His in the truly believing and
elect. When the woman of Revela on fled into the desert because of the
dragon’s fury in order to hide there, Michael (that is, Christ) fought the
dragon, gloriously conquered it, and forbade the dragon to subdue the
woman completely with floods of persecu ons (Rev. 12:7).
We concede, therefore, that the church will be preserved forever by
power of the divine promises. But we deny that Christ always fulfills those
promises in a visible and external manner, evident to the whole world. We
deny that He perpetually preserves the church in a certain see and famous
place. We deny that the fulfillment of those promises is always obvious in a
great and conspicuous assembly of people. The promises about the
preserva on of the church, taken in the genus, are absolute, namely, that
God will always gather and preserve a church for Himself in the human
race. But if we descend to the species, they are not absolute but
condi onal, that is, God nowhere promises that the gathering and
preserva on of the church will be perpetual in this or that place, in this or
that episcopal see, in this or that people. Instead, one must add the
condi on, namely, if the people of that place hear the Word, keep, and
obey it. If they do not, that is, if they make themselves unworthy of the
promises because of their contempt for the Word, then God “will remove
their lampstand from its place” (Rev. 2:5), and He “will take away His
kingdom from them and give it to a na on yielding its fruits” (Matt. 21:43).

Ephesians 4:11: “He gave some, apostles,” etc.

(2) Eph. 4:11[–13]: “And He” (Christ) “gave some, apostles; and some,
prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the
perfec ng of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the
Body of Christ, un l we all meet into the unity of faith and of the
knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
age of the fullness of Christ.” “Here the apostle,” says Bellarmine, “is
teaching that the ministry of pastors and teachers will endure in that
church and that the building up of the Body of Christ will be con nuous.
Hence the visible church will endure un l Judgment Day. If only the visible
church existed in the world, those ministries would not be found, and they
cannot be exercised unless the shepherds and the sheep recognize each
other.”
 We respond. Un l the end of the world there will always be shepherds
and sheep who will recognize each other. Yet one cannot conclude from
this that those shepherds and sheep will always be visible and manifest in a
visible succession and a place that is well-known to the whole world. The
history of the early church shows that they o en concealed themselves in
caves and hiding places in the ground. The church at that me did have
ministries of pastors and teachers, but not in the same way that it had
them when peace and tranquility were restored at the me of Constan ne.
Thus during persecu ons, when true confessors are driven into exile, when
public assemblies and the public exercise of religion are hindered, there
indeed remain some shepherds and flocks who survive. But they are not
known to either the persecutors or to the world.
Next, even if there will always be pastors and flocks who recognize each
other un l the end of the world, yet one cannot conclude from this that
the ministry of pastors will always be pure and uncorrupted. Saying that
the visible church some mes becomes liable to errors does not conflict
with the permanent dura on of the church, because God can beget for
Himself sons and daughters even through a corrupt ministry, as we shall
explain more fully in its own place [§§ 178, 257].
Finally, from the fact that pastors and sheep will con nue to exist un l
the end of the world one certainly cannot conclude that there will always
be in the Roman see such pastors who have been placed above every
possibility of erring, who in a perpetual succession will propagate doctrinal
truth and ecclesias cal dignity to their successors, and hence who must be
heard by all without excep on. (Bellarmine’s en re disputa on on the
visibility of the church is aimed at this, as is obvious to anyone who
ponders the subject rightly.) Before proceeding from general and
indeterminate promises to a certain species, he first should have shown
the proof for this sort of a specific privilege and promise.

Psalm 48:9: “God has established the church forever”

(3) Ps. 48:9: “God has established it” (that is, His church) “forever.”
“This en re psalm is about the founda on of the Chris an church as a new
and visible city.”
 We respond. Certainly, the church will endure forever. But it does not
yet follow that its external splendor will always be evident and
conspicuous. One cannot proceed legi mately from the removal of a
separable accident to the removal of the essence itself. The external
splendor of the church, consis ng of its size, succession, tranquility from
persecu ons, the brightest shining of a pure ministry, etc., is its separable
accident. Consequently, even if that external splendor ceased to exist, even
if a me would occur in which the church is not seen (as happened at the
me of Elijah), one should not immediately claim that the church has
ceased to exist. That psalm of David in the literal sense contains the praise
of Jerusalem—that it had been freed so o en from the assaults of its
enemies. Yet despite this promise, the people of Jerusalem were led off
into exile in Babylon and at this me have been completely sca ered, and
Jerusalem has been destroyed. Therefore if we wish to apply the an type
of the church to this type, the consequence will be that the promises given
to the church must be understood in this way: the church can s ll be
reduced to scarcity and be obscured by heavy persecu ons, but God finally
leads the church out of that scarcity and hiddenness, just as He led the
Israelites back from the Babylonian cap vity to Jerusalem. The
consequence also will be that the promises given to the visible church are
not absolute but condi onal in the sense and respect that we explained a
li le earlier.

Isaiah 61:8: “I will make an everlas ng covenant with them”

(4) Isa. 61:8[–9]: “I will make an everlas ng covenant with them. Their
seed shall be known among the na ons, and their offspring in the midst of
the peoples; all who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the
seed whom the Lord has blessed.” “This passage,” says Bellarmine, “is so
clear that it requires no explana on, for how will that assembly be invisible
about which Isaiah says, ‘All who see them shall acknowledge them, that
they are the seed whom the Lord has blessed’?”
We respond. We concede that God has made an everlas ng covenant
with the church, but in Isa. 59:21 that covenant is described as follows: “As
for Me, this is My covenant with them, says the Lord: ‘My Spirit that is in
you and My words that I have put in your mouth shall not depart out of
your mouth nor out of the mouth of your seed,’ says the Lord, ‘from this
me forth and forevermore.’ ” Therefore this covenantal promise belongs
to that church which preserves the truth of the heavenly Word. That is, it
belongs to the church catholic. It does not belong to visible, par cular
churches except under this condi on and with this limita on: to the extent
that they preserve the purity and integrity of the Word. If not, they can
cease to exist. None of these has any absolute privilege and promise that it
could not cease to exist.
We also concede that the state of the visible church is some mes
glorious, such as it was especially when the ministry of the apostles spread
it among all na ons. From this, however, it does not follow that such a
state of the church will con nue forever. The prophet foretells that the
church would be spread among the na ons in the me of the New
Testament so that all who saw it would perceive that this was the seed
whom the Lord blessed. This was fulfilled at the me of the apostles.
Meanwhile, we must not completely remove from our eyes other
prophecies that God published about the very wretched state of the
church in the days when the An christ would come. These we have already
men oned [§ 91]. God does not love, protect, and preserve the church any
less when it flees into the wilderness than at the me when it is glorious in
the mul tude of its confessors and in its tranquility from persecu ons.

Third, parables
§ 98. Bellarmine takes his third class of arguments from the parables in
which, by the consent of all, the church is indicated.
The threshing floor on which are the grain and the chaff, the net in which are the good and
bad fish, the field in which are wheat and tares, the banquet at which are good and bad
guests, and the sheepfold in which are the sheep and the goats all signify the visible church
because the invisible church has only good people. Yet these same parables teach that the
visible church will never perish un l the end of the world. Matt. 3:12: “He will cleanse His
threshing floor and gather the wheat into His barn, but the chaff He will burn with
unquenchable fire.” This undoubtedly will not happen before Judgment Day. In Matt. 13:30
we read: “Let both grow together un l the me of harvest,” that is, un l the end of the
world.

We respond. (1) We do not deny that those par cular, visible churches
which are compared with a threshing floor, net, field, banquet, and
sheepfold are going to endure un l the end of the world. But from this one
cannot infer that they always will be established in external splendor and
brilliance.
(2) That external splendor of the church varies much in accord with the
diversity of the mes. There are mes when the church enjoys the status
of having kings and queens as its protectors, of frightening its foes and
persecutors, of having the public exercise of divine worship and the pure
ministry of the Word. At other mes it experiences the lot of being forced
to flee into the wilderness, of not being established in an illustrious place,
of running away from the hands and threats of persecutors, and of hiding
in a secret place.
(3) Christ’s disciples some mes hid behind closed doors because of
their fear of the Jews and at other mes preached publicly in the city the
name of Jesus. S ll, they made up one and the same church at both mes.
(4) Bellarmine thus seems to take our dis nc on between the visible
and invisible church incorrectly. We do not say that the church is invisible
in the sense that those who confess true faith cannot be seen, but in a
much different and double sense: First, that the elect, who belong to the
invisible church catholic, cannot by external senses be discerned from the
hypocrites with whom the elect are mixed in the visible church. In this
sense the true church is and remains invisible even at a me when
confessors of the true faith shine all over the world. Second, that the
church does not always enjoy external splendor nor has it been bound to a
certain place where its perpetual succession is evident, as we see the
kingdom of France and the republic of Venice. Rather, [we say it is invisible
in the sense] that such external splendor can be removed from the church
at a me when persecu ons and heresies prevail. We are not at all saying
that the church can cease to exist in such a way that there no longer
survive any who confess the true faith, but that there are so few that they
are not recognized publicly, and that they are contemp ble and few
compared with the mul tude of the others who boast that they have the
tle “church.” Therefore we deny that the church is visible in the way that
our adversaries claim it to be visible: that it is visible in its head, the Roman
pon ff, and in the succession of bishops; that it always shines with external
splendor and perpetually presents itself for all to see by its external
brightness and majesty, etc.
Fourth, passages about the kingdom of Christ
§ 99. Bellarmine takes his fourth class of arguments from those
Scriptures that speak about the kingdom of Christ. Ps. [89:36–37]: “His
throne as the sun before Me, and as the moon, perfect forever, and a
faithful witness in heaven.” Verse [29]: “I will make his seed to endure
forever, and his throne as the days of heaven.” Dan. 2:44: “In the days of
those kingdoms, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never
be destroyed, and His kingdom shall not be delivered up to another
people.” Luke 1:33: “Of His kingdom there will be no end.” “These
passages,” Bellarmine says, “cannot be understood except as referring to
the true and visible church of Christ that will never perish. The kingdom of
Christ is undoubtedly His true church. Some sca ered hidden people who
are separated from one another, who do not know one another—such as is
the invisible church of the Lutherans—cannot be called a ‘kingdom.’ This is
because a ‘kingdom’ is a mul tude of people gathered together and who
know one another.”
We respond. (1) One must dis nguish between the dura on of a
kingdom and its external splendor. Certainly, Christ’s kingdom is perpetual,
but it is not established perpetually in external splendor. Consequently, it is
not as visible and palpable as is the kingdom of France.
(2) The kingdom of Christ “is not of this world” (John 18:36). Instead, it
is a spiritual and internal kingdom (Luke 17:20). Therefore we must not
make judgments about it on the basis of its similarity to kingdoms of this
world. Christ, however, can maintain His kingdom in a few people, even
people who are contemp ble to the world and almost nonexistent in
comparison with the mul tude of others, as we read in Ps. 110:2: “Rule in
the midst of Your enemies.” In this respect the kingdom of Christ differs
from worldly kingdoms. Worldly kingdoms cannot consist in a few
sca ered people but require a mul tude and visible splendor. The kingdom
of Christ, on the other hand, can consist in a few people, even sca ered,
but joined by the spiritual bond of faith and love, as we have shown earlier
[§§ 12, 82]. The kings of this world rule in the midst of their subjects, but
Christ “rules in the midst of His enemies.” The governments of worldly
kings rest upon the shoulders of their subjects, but Christ’s government is
“upon His shoulder” (Isa. 9:6).
 (3) Ps. 45:[13]: “All the glory of the king’s daughter is within.” Therefore
the glory of this kingdom, too, is within and spiritual. Hence even if the
exterior splendor of the visible church may perish at mes, that takes
nothing away from the splendor and glory that is within and proper to the
true church.
(4) We admit that a visible church will endure forever. From this,
however, one cannot infer that in the same manner and in some one place
it will always be visible, illustrious, bright, and known publicly to all.
Therefore, as Bellarmine tes fies, those Papist writers have wasted their
me in proving that the church cannot cease to exist because we certainly
do not deny this. [Yet] Bellarmine himself also wastes me proving in detail
that the church will endure forever, because we also do not deny that. He
also wastes me proving that there will always be a visible church in the
world, because he should have proved that it would be visible in one and
the same place with a perpetual succession of bishops, conspicuous in its
exterior splendor, and visible in the way we explained earlier.

Fifth, the statements of the fathers

§ 100. Bellarmine takes the fi h class of his arguments from some
statements of the ancients. Augus ne (conc. 2 on Psalm 101; on Psalm
147; in De unit. ecclesiae, ch. 13, and elsewhere) censures the Dona sts
for saying “that the church of all na ons perished and fell into apostasy.”
Bernard, on Song of Songs, sermon 79:
So it is both then and therea er. The Chris an race has not ceased; faith has not departed
from the earth nor love from the church. Floods have come, winds have blasted and blown
against the church, and it has not fallen because it was founded on the rock, and the rock
was Christ. The words of philosophers, the scoffings of here cs, the swords of persecutors
have not and will not be able to separate it from the love of God.

Vincent of Lérins reproached the opinion of Nestorius, who said, “The

en re church erred in the mystery of the incarna on.”
We respond. (1) The statements of the ancients are to be accepted
according to the rule that they established for themselves, namely,
according to the norm of Holy Scripture.
(2) The statements that he cites here are not opposed to our posi on.
Augus ne rebukes the Dona sts for saying “that the church of all na ons
perished.” What do we have in common with the Dona sts on this point?
When the Dona sts were unable to charge the catholics with false
doctrine, they separated themselves from their fellowship because of
behavior alone, objec ng in place of a charge that the catholic bishops had
surrendered the sacred books to here cs in a me of persecu on. Yet we
have separated ourselves from the Roman church not only because of its
corrupt behavior but also, and especially, because of its corrup ons of
doctrine; but we have not separated from the church catholic. The
Dona sts said that the church had perished from the en re earth. We say,
on the contrary, that the church has always con nued and will endure
forever. Consequently, we not only acknowledge that the church has been
preserved under the papacy in earlier mes, we also profess that the
church is s ll being gathered to God by a loud voice in the middle of Rome.
The Dona sts enclosed the church within the borders of Africa alone. As a
consequence, they would say, “All good people have ceased to exist in the
world so that they remain only in the party of Donatus,” according to
Augus ne, De unit. eccles., ch. 13. But we believe and confess that the
church is catholic and universal. The Papists should see if they can free
themselves completely from the error of the Dona sts because they say
that all catholics have disappeared from the world except those alone who
have remained in the party of the bishop of Rome.
Bernard is speaking about the church that has been founded on the
Rock, that clings to God with a firm love, and that cannot be separated
from it. These two points, however, fit only the catholic church of the elect,
for it alone has been founded upon the Rock and it alone clings to God
with an inseparable love. Therefore he is speaking about the invisible
church catholic. Bellarmine objects in vain: “The swords of tyrants do not
persecute the invisible church; hence Bernard’s statement cannot be
understood as a reference to the invisible church.” Although the elect, as
such, are not visible to the external eyes, nevertheless to the extent that
they profess the faith of Christ and are members of the visible church, to
that extent their persecutors see them and some mes force them to feel
their swords.
The statement of Vincent of Lérins properly pertains to the following
ques on: “Can the church err?” What is the inference here? Vincent of
Lérins reproached Nestorius for saying that the en re church erred in the
mystery of the incarna on; therefore the status of the church will always
be such that it is visible and illustrious in external splendor? At the me of
Nestorius, the doctors of the church did not err in the ar cle of the
incarna on; therefore at the me of the papacy the bishops of the Roman
church have not erred in other ar cles of the Chris an religion[?]

Sixth, rational arguments

§ 101. Bellarmine draws his sixth class of arguments from three ra onal
arguments. (I) “If at some me only the invisible church would remain on
earth, then at that me salva on also would be impossible for those who
were outside the church. A er all, people cannot be saved unless they
enter the church, just as at the me of Noah those necessarily perished
who had no access to the ark. Yet people cannot enter a church of which
they are ignorant. Therefore they have no remedy.”
We respond. (1) We say that the church is invisible in a dual sense and
respect: First, because the catholic church of the saints is invisible, since by
human eyes the true believers and saints cannot be discerned from
hypocrites. In this sense, the true church is and remains invisible even if
there were the largest and most glorious par cular churches in all the
world. Second, because par cular churches can be reduced to a condi on
in which they are not visible to the en re world with external and
illustrious splendor, namely, when heresies prevail, persecu ons rage, and
a mul tude of scandals obscure the external appearance of the church.
(2) From neither of these meanings can one infer that only the invisible
church exists on earth at some mes. Although the catholic church of the
saints is invisible, it s ll does not exist by itself and separate from the
visible church, because one must not look for the elect outside of the
assembly of the called. Even though the church can be reduced to such
scarcity that it is not glorious and visible in its external splendor in the way
the Papists claim, yet one cannot infer from this that the church is not
visible, speaking absolutely and simply, because even if those few
confessors are not known publicly to the en re world, they s ll can be
known to one another, and even if they are not visible actually, s ll they
are visible poten ally. Just as the sun does not cease being visible even if it
is not actually seen at mes when clouds cover it—since its radiance later
shines with very brilliant splendor—so the church does not cease being
visible even if the true confessors are hidden in caves and secret places,
because they will again come out into public when the madness of their
persecutors cools and the darkness of heresy has ended. Augus ne, De
unitat. eccles., ch. 20: “Among some na ons, the spread of heresies and
the sedi ons of schisms o en oppress and overshadow some members of
the church. [But] because they were there, a er a while they became
apparent to all.”
(3) When a me occurs in which the external splendor of the visible
church perishes, it is not simply necessary for salva on that one join a
par cular, visible church. Rather, it is enough for one to be a member of
the church catholic through true faith. You see, this church is properly
understood in the phrase “There is no salva on outside the church.”
Bellarmine needs to remember what he taught earlier, namely, that “it is
enough for the salva on of catechumens if they are in the church by wish
and desire, though they actually are not in it.”
(4) There [are two] entrances to the church: external and internal. The
former happens by profession and place; the la er, by faith of heart and by
the mind. The former is not simply and absolutely necessary for salva on,
namely, when no such visible church, rejoicing in an uncorrupted ministry
of the Word, is known to which one could join himself. The la er is by all
means necessary to salva on and s ll has a place in the most savage
persecu ons and when public corrup ons spread.
(5) Thus, at the me of Elijah, there were seven thousand people whom
God had preserved for Himself who could have been saved though they did
not live in a visible, par cular church that was separate from the idolatrous
assemblies. Otherwise Elijah would have known about those people.
(6) Although the disciples locked themselves up in a secret, hidden
place at the me of Christ’s Passion because of their fear of the Jews, and
though they were not publicly known to the whole city of Jerusalem,
nevertheless the way of salva on was not closed off completely from those
who were outside the church, though the church was not visible in the way
about which we and the Papists are arguing.
(7) It is one thing to say simply that the church is visible; it is another to
say that it is visible to the world. The hundred prophets whom Obadiah
was hiding in two caves at the me of Elijah cons tuted two visible
churches, but they were neither visible nor known to Jezebel and the
world.
§ 102. (II) “Being visible belongs to the defini on of the one true church.
Therefore if the visible church perishes, no true church remains.”
We respond. (1) If the discussion is about the catholic church of the
saints, being invisible belongs to its nature and defini on. One part of it,
triumphant in heaven, we do not see; the other part, the church militant,
cannot be discerned by external senses from the hypocrites mixed with it.
(2) If the discussion is about par cular churches, we admit that being
visible belongs to its defini on. Thus there always remains in the world a
visible church. But from this one cannot infer that it is visible in the way
and sense that the Papists want.
(3) One must dis nguish between a thing and the manner of the thing.
A visible church remains perpetually on earth; but it is not perpetually in
any one place and visible with external splendor. At mes all people can
see it; at other mes few people can see it. If the state of the ques on is
observed, it will easily become clear what one must decide about this
argument.
§ 103. (III) “Either those hidden people who make up the invisible
church openly confess their faith and abstain from idol worship, or they do
not. If they confess, then the church is not invisible but most visible, just as
it was at the me of the martyrs. If they do not confess, then there is no
church; for that is not the true church in which there are no good people,
no people who are being saved. But those are not good people, are not
being saved, who do not confess their faith but keep it in their heart and
confess faithlessness and idolatry. Rom. 10:10: ‘For with the heart we
believe unto righteousness; but with the mouth confession is made unto
salva on.’ Matt. 10:33: ‘Whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny
him.’ ”
We respond. (1) The prophet Elijah could have argued against the divine
response in the same way: “Those seven thousand people either confess
their faith, or they do not. If they confess, how is it that I neither see nor
recognize them? If they do not confess, then they are not Your servants nor
do they belong to the church.”
(2) At the me of the very serious persecu ons under Diocle an and
other tyrants, most of the true believers, including the bishops of Rome,
were hiding in caves and caverns and were not publicly confessing the
Chris an religion. Shall we exclude all of them from the fellowship of the
church and salva on?
(3) As far as persons and mes are concerned, there is not the same
necessity for inner faith and for outward confession. Because of their age,
bap zed infants cannot yet confess Christ outwardly, but far be it from us
to deny that they are members of the true church! Among Chris ans,
adults ought always “be prepared to give an account of the faith that is in
them” (1 Pet. 3:15). Yet if no one asks for them, they can hide. If the glory
of God and the well-being of the church do not demand a public
confession, they can conceal it without injury to conscience and faith.
(4) Therefore in Bellarmine’s dilemma a part is lacking, which should
have been added by necessity, namely: “or they are keeping the faith
secretly and are refraining from idolatry.” At a me when persecu ons and
heresies are raging everywhere, some people confess the faith openly,
such as martyrs and confessors; others do not confess the faith openly and
yet keep it unharmed in their hearts and abstain from idolatrous worship.
As an example, there are the hundred prophets whom Obadiah divided
into two groups and hid in caves at the me of Jezebel (1 Kings 18:4).
Bellarmine himself claims, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 2: “Some are in the church
only in body; some, only in mind; some, in body and mind at the same
me.” Therefore one can be a member of the church catholic everywhere
through faith of the heart and inner assent, even if no exterior confession
of the mouth is added because of the tyranny of persecutors.
(5) Those hidden people indeed do confess their faith. This does not
result in their being known publicly to all, but only to those before whom
they make their confession. But now, it is not necessary for them to
confess publicly and everywhere, for in so doing they would have betrayed
themselves to their enemies. What is necessary is that, when God’s glory
demands it, they not hide the truth nor defile themselves with
par cipa on in impious worship.
(6) Bellarmine thinks we teach that the church is invisible most
especially “in order to maintain that the church was preserved during the
me of the papacy.” Yet histories tes fy that at that me not only were
there some hidden people who cons tuted the church but also that there
were always some who, having confessed the truth with their voice and
blood, spoke out against the papal errors. Many people at the point of
death renounced all trust in human merits and confessed true faith in
Christ, but we shall say more about this later [§ 178].
Chapter IX: Whether the Church Can Err
§ 104. This ques on is a common refuge to which the Papists flee in
every controversy. It is a kind of Pandora’s box, covering up all the
corrup ons, errors, and supers ons of the papacy. They have convinced
themselves with a strong but nevertheless foolish imagina on that “the
Roman church alone is the true church of Christ on earth,” whose privilege
it is to embrace no error, not even the niest, in ar cles of faith. From this
they conclude that “whatever is taught and observed in the Roman church
must be considered established and true,” whether that agrees with the
Scriptures or disagrees with them, because the judgment of the Roman
church is thought to be infallible. This is why, when Eck was about to
debate with Luther, he began with the ar cle on the church, since on it
Scripture’s authority and interpreta on, and even the firmness of all
dogmas, was thought to depend. We must explain carefully, therefore,
whether and to what extent the church can err. First, for greater suitability
and in order that the state of the ques on may be more clear, we should
explain the terms of the ques on, namely, its predicate and subject,
because both are afflicted with ambiguity.

An explanation of the terms

The word “church” is taken to mean either the church catholic or a
par cular church. The church catholic is so-called with respect either to all
the elect or to all the called. The catholic church of the elect includes not
only true believers and saints s ll doing ba le on earth but also the saints
rejoicing triumphantly with Christ in heaven. It is said correctly of the
church of the elect triumphant in heaven that it is suscep ble to no error,
not even the niest, because no error, not even the niest, remains with
the clear vision of God.
Regarding the church of the elect that is s ll militant on earth, we must
answer with proper dis nc on, since there are two kinds of errors. Some
are fundamental and overturn the very founda on of faith. Some are not
fundamental and exist together with the founda on of faith. Furthermore,
error can occur in two ways: temporarily or finally. The elect can be
entangled temporarily. Some are actually entangled in errors, not only
unimportant ones but also fundamental ones. Nevertheless they struggle
out of them again before the end of their life, for otherwise they would not
be the “elect” properly speaking, about whom we are speaking here
hypothe cally. Hence they do not persevere to the end in fundamental
errors, but they can be entangled in unimportant errors (which the apostle
calls “hay and stubble,” 1 Cor. 3:12) not only temporarily but even finally.
These errors in them, however, are consumed by the fire of cross and trial
so that they do not lose their salva on.
The catholic church of the called includes all the faithful or confessors of
all mes and places. If the ques on is about it, whether it can err, we
respond that it does not err as a whole, something we explain in respect to
both mes and places. Although mes of this kind can happen, and at
mes actually do happen, when corrup ons take hold of the public
exercise of religion, nevertheless the en re church catholic of all mes
does not err. This is because God again and again raises up prophets and
other faithful ministers to reprove those corrup ons of doctrine, to reform
divine worship, and to restore the church to its pris ne splendor. There
are, indeed, mes when corrup ons take over the en re visible church and
its public ministry in all the par cular churches of all places in such a way
that the ministry nowhere remains pure and uncorrupted. Yet the en re
church never errs in such a way that there are not any who follow the
simple leading of the Word and who are sanc fied by the direc on and
effectual opera on of the Holy Spirit in truth and faith such that they retain
the founda on of salva on, persevere free of fundamental errors, and are
preserved by the power of God through faith unto salva on. However,
some mes they are few, and when persecu ons and corrup ons rage
publicly, they hide in such a way that they are not no ced publicly in the
world.
Here we can men on that some people argue that they can see
especially four changes or condi ons of the visible church in the New
Testament. (1) It was beau fully decorated at the me of the apostles and
martyrs when it was in hiding because of persecu ons but truly was
gleaming as far as the purity of its faith was concerned. (2) It was
somewhat spo ed at the me of the here cs and fathers when it turned
away a bit from its former simplicity, and from me to me human
opinions and tradi ons were being mixed in. Consequently, Hegesippus
says in Eusebius, Histor. eccles., bk. 4, ch. 22: “A er the me of the
apostles, the church was called a virgin because it had not yet been
corrupted by the deceit of an adulterous word. It did not remain that for
long, however.” Jerome writes, Vita Malchi: “A er the church reached the
Chris an princes, it indeed became greater in power and wealth, but it also
became lesser in virtues.” Elsewhere, he calls the mes in which he lived
“the dregs of earlier mes.” Chrysostom, Homily 36 on 1 Corinthians,
compares the church of his me to “a woman who died a er the first
flowering of her virginity.” (3) It was totally disfigured at the me of its
domina on by the Roman pope, under whose tyranny the en re body of
heavenly doctrine was wretchedly torn apart and destroyed. (4) In these
last days it was finally reformed and restored to the pris ne splendor of the
apostolic faith.
Others bring out the same thing in this way. The first condi on of the
church was of a virgin, conspicuous at the me of the apostles, when a
whole faith, solid hope, and sincere love (in which things virginity of the
mind consists, as Augus ne teaches in his commentary on Psalm 17) were
providing the church with the most lovely charm, elegance, and beauty.
The second was the condi on of a degenera ng church, not unlike that of
a loose girl. You see, when it did not hold fast to the apostolic integrity, it
became more observant of tradi ons peddled under the name “apostolic”
and smeared with the dye of a good inten on. The third condi on of the
church was of a corpse, totally grey, and of a whore, under the An christ in
the papacy, when the moles and tumors changed into gangrene. Fourth
and last was the condi on of a matron, when the light rose toward evening
(Zech. 14[:7]), Luther and his fellow priests wiping away every stain with
the sponge of the divine Word and, a er removing the fire of pros tu on,
restoring chas ty to the church.
As for a par cular church, we declare that it can be ensnared not only in
insignificant errors but also fundamental ones. We make no excep on for
the Roman church. In fact, saying that it, more than all other par cular
churches, has received the privilege of not erring is much easier than
proving this from Holy Scripture.

The opinion of the Papists

 § 105. I think that our posi on is evident from what we have now
wri en. The Papists claim simply and absolutely and without any
dis nc on that the church cannot err, for Bellarmine writes as follows, De
eccles., bk. 3, ch. 14, § 4:
Our posi on is that the church absolutely cannot err, neither in ma ers that are absolutely
necessary nor in other ma ers that it tells us to believe and do, whether such things are
expressly contained in Scripture or not. When we say that the church cannot err, we take
this to mean all the faithful as well as all the bishops, in such a way that the meaning of the
proposi on is: The church cannot err; that is, that which all the faithful hold as being of the
faith is necessarily true and a ma er of faith; and, similarly, that which all the bishops teach
as pertaining to the faith is necessarily true and a ma er of faith.

Costerus, Enchir., ch. De eccles, privil.: “The church has the privilege of
alone having the true knowledge of God and understanding of divine
ma ers, mingled with no error, and standing so firm under the direc on of
the Spirit of Christ that no error in faith can have any place in it.”
** Rupert of Deutz, De offic., bk. 3, ch. 2: “The Roman church has
always been of such purity that its authority alone should be enough for
anyone who lacks a knowledge of the Scriptures and the ability of proving.”
Stapleton, Relect. prin. fid., controv. 4, q. 1, art. 1:
The church is bound closely to the Word of God. That is, one must listen to the church on no
other condi on than if it holds forth the Word of God, or unless it teaches in harmony with
Scripture. A condi on opposed to this is truly here cal. One must believe that the church is
placed in such authority, because the church declares this about itself. It is by all means
necessary that it be so. This we accept in simplicity of heart, not in fleshly wisdom.

Petrus a Soto, Confess. cathol., ch. De eccles.: “The” (Roman) “church

has the living and present magistracy over all those ma ers that pertain to
eternal salva on. Consequently, it is she who hands down to us Holy
Scripture and other dogmas of faith outside of Scripture and interprets
doub ul points about these. She has never erred; nor will she ever err.”
Regarding the express Word of God, Hosius argues: “Unless Holy
Scripture is explained according to the mind of the Roman church, it is not
the express Word of God but the express word of the devil.” **
All the rest make the same claim. Observe, however, that the Papists
understand the august expression “catholic church” to mean the Roman
church alone—in fact, if we were to con nue the analysis, the Roman
pon ff alone, whom they imagine to be the head and ruler of the church
catholic. Bellarmine writes as follows, De pon f. Roman., bk. 4, ch. 4: “The
par cular Roman church cannot err in the faith.” De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 10:
“The par cular Roman church cannot lack the true faith.”
Pistorius, Hodeg., ch. De eccles.: “The Roman church has never been
able to err, even in the least; otherwise the en re church had to err.” Yet
when they say the Roman church is alone the catholic church, there is a
contradic on in the predicate. A er all, the Roman church, no less than the
Greek, Asian, An ochene, etc., churches, is a par cular church, whether it
is understood as the church gathered in the city of Rome or that which
adheres to the Roman pon ff as its head. We shall discuss this elsewhere
in its own place [§§ 185–87]. When Frederick the Wise, elector of Saxony,
kept hearing his Papist fla erers always saying, “The Roman church does
not err,” he responded cleverly: “In the Apostolic Confession of Faith I do
not find any men on of the Roman church but only of the holy catholic
church.”
Furthermore, because the Roman church consists of hearers and
pastors, we also ask the Papists whether they want this idea of the Roman
church being incapable of error to apply to the en re mul tude of hearers
and pastors, or only to the pastors. Bellarmine declares here: “We must
take this to apply both to all the faithful and to all the bishops, namely, in
this sense: that what all the faithful hold as being of the faith is necessarily
true and a ma er of faith.” In the same way, Becanus says, De eccles., q. 1,
p. 18: “The ques on is whether the en re mul tude of Chris ans,
according as it consists of shepherds and sheep, can err in any point or
ar cle of faith.”
But if one were to declare absolutely and simply that the church, taken
in this sense, does not err, the consequence will be that all the faithful,
that is, all who confess the Chris an faith, are prophets and apostles since,
indeed, they all would have from the Holy Spirit immediate assistance so
that they could not err. Therefore this defini on must be taken (according
to the Papists’ hypothesis) with a condi on: to whatever extent the faithful
follow their pastors, to that extent they do not err nor can they err in their
faith. Bellarmine himself adds this condi on, De conciliis, bk. 2, ch. 2, §
Secunda classis, where he argues that “councils of bishops cannot err
because Scripture bears witness that the church cannot err.” He adds this
explana on of his logical connec on: “The en re authority of the church
exists formally only in its prelates, just as the whole body’s vision exists
formally only in the head. Therefore it is the same thing to say that the
church cannot err in defining ma ers of faith and that the bishops cannot
err.” These are Bellarmine’s words. They show clearly that the privilege of
not erring is given formally and primarily to prelates and consequently and
secondarily to the mul tude of believers, namely, to the extent that it
follows the judgment of the prelates.
We cannot yet dismiss Bellarmine, for there is another ques on: Do all
prelates or bishops, of whatever sort they are, have this privilege of not
erring, or is a special condi on required here? Bellarmine asserts here
absolutely and simply that this must be taken to mean “all the bishops,
namely, in this sense: that what all bishops teach as belonging to the faith
is necessarily true and a ma er of faith.” But elsewhere he adds a
condi on and limita on, for he writes as follows (De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 10,
Resp. ad secundum): “Bishops cannot deceive the church because the
church cannot err; yet the church is bound to follow those whom it has as
its true shepherds. This last point,” he says, “must be taken in a sound way,
namely, if all bishops of this kind agree in their teaching or” (Note!) “if they
are the supreme pon ffs; for there is no doubt that par cular bishops can
err if they disagree with the others.” In De cler., bk. 1, ch. 7, § 20, he writes:
“The people are obligated to discern a true teacher from a false prophet by
no other rule than by paying careful a en on as to whether he who
preaches is saying things contrary to what his predecessors said or contrary
to what the other ordinary pastors and especially the apostolic see and
principal” (Roman) “church are saying.” In the next paragraph he adds this
declara on: “When the ordinary pastor and someone else who preaches
without a call teach things contrary to each other, all the people should
follow their own pastor rather than that other fellow who is not their
pastor, even if their pastor happens to err.” De concil., bk. 2, ch. 2, § Alter
locus: “The Holy Spirit does not teach all truth to the bishops separately.
Therefore He does teach all truth to all the bishops assembled together.”
And later: “To say that the church cannot err in defining ma ers of faith
and that bishops cannot err is the same thing. Yet as we have said,
individuals can err separately. Therefore those who assemble together will
not be able to err.” These all are Bellarmine’s words. From them it is
obvious that what he declares about the bishops—that they cannot err—
must be understood, according to his hypothesis, with this condi on: if
they are assembled in a council and all define something together.
But we s ll cannot let Bellarmine go, for there is another ques on: Are
bishops gathered in a council (which is called “the representa ve church”
by Gabriel Biel, Can. miss., lect. 22; Bellarmine, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 2, § 11;
and others in many places) unable to err simply and absolutely speaking,
or is a certain condi on required here too? Here Bellarmine appears to
declare this absolutely and simply, but elsewhere he adds a condi on. He
writes, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 2, § 1: “All Catholics teach consistently that
general councils which the supreme pon ff has confirmed” (Note this
added condi on!) “cannot err either in explaining the faith or in handing
down precepts for behavior that are common to the whole church. On the
other hand, in regard to par cular councils there seems to be some
disagreement among Catholics. You see, because the authority of those
councils depends almost en rely on the firmness of the pope, those who
say that a pope can err should also say that councils of this sort can err.” He
sets the following tle in front of ch. 10: “Par cular councils that do not
have papal authority do not produce faith absolutely.” Chapter 11 has this
inscrip on: “General councils can err before they have the confirma on of
the supreme pon ff unless the fathers follow the instruc ons of the pope
in their defining.” That chapter has this declara on, § 4: “It is certain that
councils condemned by the pope have no authority.” In § 6: “The firmness
of a council comes from the agreement and connec on of the body with
its head” (namely, the Roman pon ff). “If anything is decided in a general
council by the agreement of all as well as that of the papal legates, that s ll
is not infallible if the legates did not have definite instruc ons and before
the head discloses his judgment. For even if the legates preside in the
name of the pope, yet they are not really popes, nor do they know what
the pope’s mind is, nor do they have that privilege of not erring which the
pope has.” (If the legates of the pope do not have this, all the less will the
rest of the bishops have it, according to Bellarmine’s hypothesis.) In § 10:
I say that such a council cannot err which is an absolutely general one and which perfectly
represents the universal church. A council does not become one of these before it has the
decision of the supreme pon ff. The other bishops do represent the body of the church, and
what they do the body of the church is considered to do. Papal legates, however, do not
represent the head of the church, that is, the pope, in such a way that what they do the
pope is absolutely believed to have done; otherwise no confirma on would be required.
 Instead, they represent the pope as his vicars and messengers, and they have to refer to him
when doub ul ma ers arise, and then they must await and follow his decision.

In § 11: “If anyone at all were to wish that such a council would represent
the whole church when finished [absolute], he will be able to answer that a
general council is not considered completely finished [absolutum] except
a er its confirma on by the pope. When it is said that a general council
cannot err and that its decrees produce certain faith, we must take that to
mean when it has become completely finished.” These all are Bellarmine’s
words. From them it becomes u erly clear that he claims that councils of
bishops, even general councils, do not err only if they have the authority,
instruc on, and confirma on of the Roman pon ff.
Furthermore, just as they subject the judgment of living bishops and of
people gathered in council to the authority of the pope alone and claim
that the privilege of not erring belongs to him alone and is distributed from
him to bishops and councils, so also they put the wri ngs of dead fathers
and bishops beneath the judgment of the Roman pope alone and
thoroughly. Bellarmine, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 12, next to last paragraph:
“The decrees of the popes are called ‘holy scriptures’ to dis nguish them
from secular wri ngs. They are called ‘canonical’ to dis nguish them from
the sacred wri ngs of the fathers that are not rules and do not have
binding authority.” De verb. Dei, bk. 3, ch. 10, resp. ad arg. 16: “Augus ne
and the other fathers performed the duty of teachers in their
commentaries; councils and popes, however, perform the duty of a judge
whom God has commissioned for Himself.” (If, then, the judgment of
councils is placed beneath the papal authority, how much more are the
commentaries of doctors!) De pon fice, bk. 2, ch. 27, last paragraph: “The
pope has no fathers in the church, but all are his sons. What is surprising,
then, if the father is not subject to his sons but the sons to their father?”
(Therefore the pope has the sort of fathers who speak a word that the
pope does not want to hear and learn from them, but that he wants to put
and pour into them according to his own good pleasure. Thus those fathers
are babies and children, but he is the father of babies and teaches them to
speak, as Paul says about the chief men of the Jews, that they made
themselves “teachers of children,” Rom. 2:20.) Duraeus, Conf. resp. Witak.,
rat. 5: “Fathers are not considered fathers when they write or teach
something of their own, which they have not received from the church.”
Pistorius, Hodeg., p. 51: “The interpreta ons of the fathers only then have
validity when the church” (that is, as the final analysis shows, the Roman
pon ff) “has approved them.” Stapleton (Princip. doctr., bk. 10, ch. 11) says
that the church must accept the interpreta on of bishops and doctors
under the following condi ons: “First, only if they have remained in the
catholic unity, that is, if they have submi ed quietly and calmly to the
authority of the pope. Second, if they are in agreement with their fellow
bishops,” etc.
But what circumlocu on do we really need? The Papists finally admit
with explicit words that infallibility or the privilege of not erring must be
sought in the pope alone. Bellarmine, De pon f., bk. 4, ch. 1, § 4: “In our
disputa on about the Word of God we have shown that the judge of
controversies is not Holy Scripture, is not secular princes, not private
ci zens, however righteous and learned they may be, but the prelates of
the church. In our disputa on about councils, however, we shall have to
prove that councils, general as well as par cular, do have judgment over
controversies of religion, but that judgment becomes firm and sure only
when it has the confirma on of the supreme pon ff; hence the ul mate
judgment belongs to” (Note!) “the supreme pon ff.” In ch. 2, second-last
paragraph, he does not disapprove of the opinion of those who claim: “The
actual infallibility lies not in an assembly of counselors nor in a council of
bishops but in the pope alone.” De clericis, bk. 1, ch. 1, resp. ad arg. 3: “The
church is the pillar of truth because it always listens to Peter, on behalf of
whom the Lord prayed that his faith would not fail.” (That is, because it
listens to the pope, Peter’s successor.) Stapleton, Relect. princ. fid. doct.,
controvers. 3, q. 6, p. 400:
In regard to the defini on of faith and the determina on of doub ul dogma, the authority
of the Roman pon ff has always been so great that the other bishops and fathers of a
council have always exactly followed the pope’s doctrine and determina on in regard to
whatever dogma the Roman pon ff may have condemned earlier, either in conference held
in Rome over that ma er or through his le ers sent to the council before the fathers
convened in council.

Gregorius de Valen a, Anal., de eccl., p. 207, commends an Italian

merchant who says at length: “I have come to this decision. I wish to
embrace the Catholic rather than the Lutheran religion especially because
in the former I can learn the truth by a shortcut, that is, if I say what the
pope says and deny what the pope denies. On the other hand, if he says
something, I nod too.” Costerus, Enchir. controv., in the locus De summ.
pon f., p. 149:
The Catholic church has within its power the judgment of the truth. Because it has spread
over all the earth, however, it cannot assemble together without the gravest
inconveniences, and yet difficult ques ons frequently arise according to circumstances, and
it became necessary to provide for the benefit of Chris ans and the integrity of faith by
means of a greater shortcut. In His great wisdom and love, Christ judged that one man in the
church should be appointed and named, to whom He would assign His presence and the
grace of the Holy Spirit in such a way that when deciding ques ons of faith and religion he
would never err and that he would preserve inviolate and whole the faith which the
apostles had planted. All would have recourse to him in doub ul ma ers; they would direct
their teaching toward his and follow the decision of him who they knew could not set forth
any error.

And later: “It would not be proper for this man to be anyone other than
that one to whom the care of the en re church was going to be entrusted:
the blessed apostle Peter and his successors” (the Roman pon ffs).
Baronius, Annal., anno Chris 373, no. 21: “The power to ra fy decrees of
faith and to change those that have been ra fied depends on the judgment
of the Roman pon ff.” Gregorius de Valen a, Commentar. in Thomam, vol.
3, p. 24, Venice edi on: “We take the word ‘church’ to mean its head, the
Roman pon ff.” Here we should also men on the asser on of some
Scholas cs: “The pope is the church virtually.”

Judgment on this opinion of the Papists

§ 106. In our examina on of this opinion we must devote a en on to:
(1) How decep ve it is to call the church “catholic” and take it to mean only
the Roman pon ff, because Bellarmine himself (De ecclesia, bk. 3, toward
the end of ch. 17) is correct when he writes: “One person cannot be called
‘the church.’ ”
(2) We should note how strange and incongruous it is to derive the
firmness of all dogmas from the authority and judgment of one man, the
Roman pon ff, and to direct Chris an faith to the heart of the pope as its
ul mate object, because histories and experience itself tes fy what sort of
people many of those Roman prelates are and how impure the shrines of
their hearts are.
 (3) We should note how slippery the base of our religion is if it is
established on papal infallibility. Let me not men on the fact that his
infallibility cannot be proved from any clear passage of Scripture, because
not even one can be offered that men ons the Roman pon ff clearly, every
single one of them being foreign and far removed from the ques on. In
addi on, let me pass by without men oning the crass errors of several
popes, which they try to cloak with laborious excuses. Certainly, I ask you
to note only this: that not even the Papists themselves agree among
themselves about that infallibility or privilege of not erring, divinely
granted to the pope.
Bellarmine, De pon fice, bk. 4, ch. 2, writes: “The second opinion is that
the pope as pope can be a here c and can teach heresy if he reaches a
decision without a general council, and that this has actually happened at
mes. This opinion is followed and defended by Nilus in his book Advers.
primat. papae. It is followed also by some at Paris, such as Gerson and
Almain in their books De potestate ecclesiae; and also by Alphonsus de
Castro, Contra haeres., bk. 1, ch. 2; and Pope Adrian VI” (Note!) “in his
Quest. de confirma one, all of whom establish infallibility of judgment
about ma ers of faith in the church or in a general council alone, not in the
pope.” About this second opinion, toward the end of the chapter
Bellarmine makes this declara on: “This is not properly here cal since
those who follow it are s ll tolerated by the church. The third opinion is in
another extreme, that a pope cannot in any way be a here c nor teach
heresy publicly, even if he alone defines something. This is what Albertus
Pighius writes in Hierarch. eccles., bk. 4, ch. 8.” At the end of the chapter,
Bellarmine writes about this opinion: “It is probable but not certain. The
fourth opinion is that the pope, whether or not he can be a here c, can by
no means define that something here cal must be believed by the en re
church.” He says that this opinion is “the most common among almost all
Catholics. It is also very certain and should be asserted.” Bellarmine is
correct in adding the adverb “almost,” for not even this opinion is accepted
by all. The gloss on [Ius canonicum,] c. A recta 24, q. 1: “It is certain that
the pope can err.” C. Si papa, dist. 40: “One must not censure the pope
unless the pope is found to have deviated from the faith.” Panormitanus,
Extra, c. Significas , de elect.: “A council can condemn a pope for heresy.”
Gerson, De potest. eccl.: “Both a pope and a bishop are capable of
devia ng from the faith.”
** A pope can err: (1) in regard to person; (2) by outward act because of
the fear of death; (3) as a private individual; (4) in deed; (5) as a par cular
teacher when explaining his own opinion in passing; (6) secretly, because
of a lust to rule; (7) in a case that the church has not yet defined; (8)
interpreta vely, in agreeing to a heresy. He can also unwi ngly give an
opportunity to err by example and, under compulsion, reach false
decisions. He can pretend to be a here c and condemn the Catholic faith
with an exterior confession. Bellarmine admits and concedes all of these,
De Rom. pon f., bk. 4, chs. 8–15. Unable to free Liberius from a charge of
heresy, he also makes this admission: “Unless we admit that Liberius at
some me fell away from his constancy in defending the faith, we are
forced to exclude Felix II from the number of popes, who had the papacy
while Liberius was s ll living, even though the Catholic church venerates
this same Felix as pope and martyr.” **
The fathers of the Council of Basel say in their third synodal le er that
“we have o en experienced and read that the pope erred.” Cusanus, De
concord. cathol., bk. 1, ch. 15: “A judgment of faith cannot always be
defined by the command of one pope, because he can be a here c.”
Alphonsus de Castro, Advers. haeres., bk. 1, ch. 2: “The pope can err in
faith, as those who think be er hold, even among those who strongly favor
the papacy. Among such is Innocent, the fourth pope of that name, in his
first chapter of his De summa Trinitate.” Arboreius, Theosoph., bk. 4, ch.
32: “The pope can err in faith, and those who think otherwise have gone
far off the path.” Elsewhere he calls them “fla erers who say that he is
immune to a lapse into heresy and schism.” Genebrardus, Chronol., bk. 4,
p. 807: “Many popes have been guilty of apostasy.” Ambrosius Catharinus,
on Galatians 2: “This should be the conclusion about any pope except
blessed Peter. There is nothing to keep the pope from erring, even in the
faith, and from falling away, even if some recent writers have dared to
defend the opposite view, contrary to the common mind of the doctors.”
Erasmus, Annotat. on 1 Corinthians 7, p. 327: “If what some have asserted
is true, that the Roman pon ff can never err with an error of judgment,
what need is there of general councils? Why was the opportunity for
appeal given—either to a council, or to the same council once it was more
correctly educated on the ma er, etc.? How does it happen that the
decrees of one pope conflict with those of another?”
How is it that Bellarmine himself argues “whether a here cal pope can
be deposed” (De pon f., bk. 2, ch. 30), where he lists five opinions of
Catholics, among which he embraces that one which claims that “an
obviously here cal pope thereby ceases to be pope and head”? Yet if a
pope can be an obvious here c, what happens to the privilege of
infallibility? If he cannot become an obvious here c, he is asking in vain
whether in such a case a pope can be deposed by the church. Bellarmine’s
“wise medicine,” that “if a pope becomes an obvious here c he thereby
ceases to be pope,” is totally foolish. By this logic I could declare that all
confessors of the true faith have the privilege of not erring. But if the
objec on were made to me that many confessors of the true faith do
become manifest here cs and are excommunicated from the church, I
could respond in the same way: that such people thereby cease being
confessors of the true faith and that the privilege of not erring loses
nothing on account of this. Everyone should consider maturely whether he
wishes to commit the firmness of his faith to the decision of one man
about whom not even those who want us to listen to him absolutely and
simply are certain about whether he has been equipped with the privilege
of not erring.
(4) Finally, we must also pay careful a en on to the fact that there is a
circular argument in these debates about the privilege of not erring
granted to the Roman church. When we ask why the church does not err,
Bellarmine responds: “Because the prelates and bishops of the church do
not err.” When we ask next why the bishops do not err, he responds: “The
Roman pon ff, the vicar of Christ and successor to Peter, does not err.” It
must finally come down to that, as our preceding analysis shows clearly.
But now, in De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 10, he proceeds in the contrary manner,
namely, that bishops do not err because the church does not err. He writes:
In the case of bishops there are two things we can consider: First, that they take the place of
Christ and that we consequently owe them our obedience. They cannot deceive us in those
ma ers that are essen al to our salva on. Second, they have the power of order and of
jurisdic on. If we consider them in the first way, we are sure with an infallible certainty that
those whom we see are our true bishops and pastors. For this, not faith nor character of
order nor lawful elec on is required, but only that the church considers them to be such
bishops and pastors. Because they are bishops for the sake of the church, not against it, God
 assists those who are considered as such so that they do not err in teaching the church.
Therefore those are true bishops and pastors not absolutely, but with respect to those three
things that we said. This is the same as if we were to say that they are not true bishops in
themselves, but as long as the church considers them as such we should obey them,
because even an erroneous conscience is binding. Likewise, it is the same as if we were to
say that they hold the place of Christ in fact but not by rights, because they actually rule the
people in the name of Christ. Finally, it is the same as saying that they cannot deceive the
church because the church cannot err.

These are Bellarmine’s words. Yet is this not an obvious circle? The church
cannot err because bishops cannot err; and bishops cannot err because the
church cannot err.

That the entire church catholic does not err

§ 107. We shall put aside the opinion of the Papists for a while and first
confirm our posi on in this ques on. Here we shall have to prove two
points. (I) The en re church catholic never errs in such a way that there do
not remain some who follow the simple leadership of the Word and by the
direc on of the Holy Spirit are sanc fied and preserved in the truth and
faith. Thus they retain the founda on of faith, and, by the power of God,
they are protected through faith unto salva on. At mes they may be few
and may hide during very disturbed mes for the church so that they are
not publicly recognized by the world. (II) The visible church and any
par cular church can err in the faith, and has some mes actually erred, if it
departs from the rule of the heavenly Word. From this danger of erring we
do not exempt the Roman church, from which church alone they try to
remove it with such great effort.
The first point does not demand extensive proof because our
adversaries admit it. (1) Christ’s promise, Matt. 16:18: “The gates of hell
shall not prevail against the church,” is one of eternal and immovable
truth. But now, if the en re church catholic were ensnared in errors
conflic ng with the founda on, the gates of hell would prevail against it.
(2) When Christ was foretelling in Matt. 24:24 the very tragic state of
the visible church, He shaped His words in this way: “False christs and false
prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders so as to lead astray, if
possible (εἰ δυνατὸν), even the elect.” With this added condi on He
signifies that in the most disturbed mes of the church, God always
preserves for Himself some elect who are not ensnared in errors that
overthrow the founda on of salva on, or who at least do not persist in
such errors un l the end, even though those errors might bury the ministry
of the visible church like a flood.
(3) Christ promises that He will be present with the church “un l the
end of the world” (Matt. 28:20), and the apostle commands us to
“proclaim the Lord’s death un l He comes for judgment” (1 Cor. 11:26).
But if at some me there had been no church of the elect surviving that
retained the founda on of salva on, this presence and efficacy of Christ in
the church would be interrupted. Similar promises belong here, which we
shall soon enumerate.
(4) Wherever Bap sm is administered and the other chief parts of
cateche cal doctrine con nue to stand, there a church is being gathered
for God. Bap sm, you see, is the sacrament of “regenera on and renewal”
(Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5), whose integrity and efficacy loses nothing because
of the heresy of the officiant, provided that the essen al parts are
observed, as we have shown in its own locus [On Holy Bap sm
(Commonplace XXIII), §§ 24–31]. The Word of God never returns empty
(Isa. 55:10–11). But now, the sacrament of Bap sm and the chief parts of
cateche cal doctrine have been divinely preserved in the most disturbed
state of the church.
(5) Just as God, at the me of Elijah, “preserved for Himself seven
thousand who did not bend the knee to the idol Baal” (1 Kings 19:18), so
also in great and almost universal seduc ons He has always saved for
Himself a holy seed and other remnants whom, under the direc on of the
Holy Spirit, He sanc fies in the truth and leads into an upright life.
(6) The ar cle of the Apostles’ Creed “I believe there is the catholic
church” remains forever. Therefore God always saves for Himself a church
that defends the catholic faith, for it is called the church “catholic” because
of its catholic faith, which rests solely upon the founda on of the prophets
and apostles.
More arguments can be developed easily. To this point belong also all
the statements of Scripture that speak about the eternal preserva on of
the church catholic and the perpetual presence of God in its midst.

That the visible church can err

 § 108. The second part, that the visible church can err, we can prove
with various arguments. In the first place we shall consider the arguments
that Bellarmine (De ecclesia, bk. 3, ch. 17) adduces in favor of our posi on
and that he tries to destroy.

First, at the time of Micah all the prophets were erring (1

Kings 22)
(I) At the me of Micah all the prophets, of whom there were four
hundred, were erring except for Micah (1 Kings 22). Therefore the
representa ve church can err. Bellarmine makes this excep on: “Those
four hundred prophets were false prophets; not even Ahab himself, who
consulted them, was ignorant of that. When King Jehoshaphat asked: ‘Is
there not a prophet of the Lord through whom we may ask the Lord?’
Ahab responded: ‘There is yet one, but I hate him because he prophesies
nothing for me except evil.’ ” He also adds: “In addi on to those four
hundred prophets in Samaria, there were in Judea many other prophets,
especially the priests in Jerusalem, whose office it was to respond to
inquiries about the Law of the Lord.”
We respond. (1) Those four hundred prophets certainly wanted to be
seen as prophets of the Lord. When Jehoshaphat said to the king of Israel:
“ ‘Please inquire first for the word of the Lord,’ then the king of Israel
gathered together” those four hundred prophets (vv. 5–6). Accordingly, in
v. 24 Zedekiah, one of those four hundred prophets, struck Micah, who
was opposing him, on the cheek and said, “When did the Spirit of the Lord
go from me to speak to you?”
(2) King Jehoshaphat is asking whether there is a prophet of the Lord
not as though he did not consider those four hundred to be true prophets
of the Lord, but rather in the contrary sense: whether in addi on to those
there s ll was another one. The Hebrew text reads as follows: “Is there not
a prophet of the Lord ‫עוֹד‬, more or beyond, here of whom we may
inquire?” [v. 7]. That is: “Is there not some other one beside these?” If
devout King Jehoshaphat had not considered those four hundred as true
prophets, he would never have followed their advice in going off to war
with the king of Israel and in rejec ng the advice of Micah.
 (3) From this account it appears quite clear that those who adver se
themselves as true prophets can err, and that we must not evaluate the
church on the basis of mul tude. Micah was only one man, but they were
many and appeared no less holy than Micah. Nevertheless those many
were wrong. Only Micah was foretelling the truth.
(4) If we proceed from Samaria into Judea and into its chief city,
Jerusalem, we shall see that corrup on and errors were being received into
that church too. “Jehoshaphat had not yet taken down the high places, and
the people were s ll offering sacrifices on them, contrary to God’s Law” (1
Kings 22:43). Jehoshaphat’s successor was Jehoram, about whom Elijah
complains that “he walked in the way of the kings of Israel and caused
Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to fornicate in imita on of the
unfaithfulness of the household of Ahab” (2 Chron. 21:13). Is this not to
err?
(5) It is very clear that the high priest and priests of Jerusalem in the
land of Judah were not exempt from error. This is clear from the fact that
“at the command of King Ahaz of Judah, Uriah the priest built an idolatrous
altar a er the example and likeness of the one the king had seen at
Damascus” (2 Kings 16:11); and that “King Ahaz closed the doors of the
temple of God and erected altars on all the corners in Jerusalem” (2 Chron.
28:24). “At the me of Josiah, the book of the Law was found in the house
of the Lord” (2 Kings 22:8). From this, the heedless negligence of the
priests is understood, that they allowed the book of the Law to become
concealed among the rubble and trash of the temple. But who can doubt
that if the book of the Law had been neglected and, to a certain extent,
lost, public errors had become common in the church of the kingdom of
Judah?
(6) At the me of Jeremiah, the priests of Jerusalem were declaring,
according to the same spirit as is with Bellarmine, that the privilege of not
erring had been given to them. Therefore they were resis ng Jeremiah
stubbornly. The people said: “Come, let us think thoughts against Jeremiah,
for the Law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor
the Word from the prophet. Come, let us smite him with the tongue, and
let us not heed any of his words” (Jer. 18:18). “Pashhur the priest, the son
of Immer, who had been appointed chief officer in the house of the Lord,
beat Jeremiah and threw him into prison” (Jer. 20:1–2). In 7:4 they appeal
to “the temple of the Lord,” that is, to the divinely ins tuted Levi cal
priesthood and to its succession in the seat of Aaron. Yet meanwhile, they
promoted serious errors while rejec ng the Word of the Lord that the
prophet had announced. In Jer. 26:7–8 a conciliar decree from the priests,
prophets, and all the people was made about killing Jeremiah, and they all
said, “You shall die!” Therefore at that me the visible church—that is, the
priests who were administering the ecclesias cal offices and the people—
erred.

Second, Isaiah 56:10: “His watchmen are all blind”

§ 109. (II) Isa. 56:10: “His watchmen are all blind; they are all ignorant.”
Therefore the representa ve church, which consists of the mul tude of
priests, can err. Bellarmine makes the excep on: “Those words of the
prophet are figura ve and are directed to all; yet we should not actually
take them to refer to all, but to many.”
We respond. (1) It is certainly true that God always preserves for
Himself some remnants of the saints in the most corrupt state of the
visible church. Isa. 1:9: “If the Lord of hosts had not le us a seed, we
would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.” Isa. 24:13: “For
thus it shall be in the midst of the earth and among the peoples, as when
someone shakes down the few olives that remained from an olive tree, or
makes a gleaning when the vintage is done.” Zeph. 3:12: “For Myself I shall
leave in the midst of you a people poor and feeble. They will hope in the
name of the Lord,” etc. Meanwhile, it remains that that mul tude of
priests, which assumed the name “church” for itself, erred shamefully.
(2) The same thing is proved clearly by the emphasis of the prophet’s
words. Isa. 56:10: “His watchmen are all blind; they are all ignorant.” Verse
11: “The shepherds themselves knew no understanding; they all have
turned aside to their own way,” etc.
(3) Similar complaints of the prophets should be referred to this. Jer.
2:8: “The priests did not say, ‘Where is the Lord?’ Those who handle the
Law did not know Me; the shepherds transgressed against Me; the
prophets prophesied by Baal,” etc. Jer. 5:31: “The prophets prophesied
falsehood, and the priests applauded them.” Jer. 6:13: “From prophet to
priest, everyone deals falsely.” Jer. 8:8–10: “How can you say, ‘We are wise
and the Law of the Lord is with us’? Truly, the false pen of the scribes has
made a lie. The wise men are confounded, for they have thrown away the
Word of the Lord, and no wisdom is in them. From prophet to priest,
everyone deals falsely.” Jer. 10:21: “The shepherds have acted foolishly
and have not sought the Lord; therefore they have not understood, and all
their flock is sca ered.” Jer. 50:6: “My people has become a lost flock;
their shepherds have led them astray and made them wander in the
mountains.” Ezek. 7:26: “The Law will perish from the priest and counsel
from the elders.” Ezek. 22:26: “The priests have oppressed the Law
violently and have defiled My sanctuaries.” Zeph. 3:4 repeats this. Mal.
2:7–8: “The lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should
seek the Law from his mouth, for he is the angel of the Lord of hosts.”
(That is, they should be such people by right; but what they actually were
he immediately adds.) “But you have turned aside from the way; you have
caused many to stumble in the Law; you have made void the covenant of
Levi.” (See more above, § 90.)

Third, in their council the chief priests condemned Christ

§ 110. (III) In the Lord’s Passion, the chief priest along with all the other
priests and the elders of the people condemned Christ and judged that He
was guilty of death (Mark 14). Also, all the people, misled by their priests,
cried out: “Crucify Him!” (Mark 15[:13–14]). At the same me, all the
apostles fell away (Matt. 26[:31]). Therefore the visible church at that me
was not free of error.
Bellarmine makes the excep on: (1) “First, the priests and high priests
did not have the privilege of not erring except un l the me of Christ; and
when Christ was teaching, their error did li le harm.”
We respond. We applaud Bellarmine for being convicted by the
splendor of truth and for conceding that those priests and chief priests
were no longer God’s church and did not have infallibility while Christ was
present and teaching. On this point he parts ways with Cardinal Hosius,
who declares, Contra proleg. Brent., bk. 2: “They were the church, and that
was a legi mate council at which the Holy Spirit was present and over
which He presided.” He also parts ways with Stapleton, who claims, De
princip. doctr., bk. 2, ch. 11: “Those few obscure people who believed in
Christ and followed Him were not the church; instead, it was the en re
mul tude of people who revered the synagogue and temple and who
obeyed the chief priests, scribes, and Pharisees in their teaching of faith
and behavior.” He also parts ways with Cano, Loci, bk. 5, last chapter,
respons. ad argum. 2; and with Harding, Resp. ad apolog. Anglic., ch. 6,
sect. 3, p. 6.
This, however, is not going to sa sfy our argument, for what shall we do
about the mes immediately preceding the coming of Christ? Did the
priests and chief priests have the privilege of not erring at that me? Yet
those errors that Christ rebuked in them did not begin to be born and
spread when Christ began to preach but had endured for a long me, and
consequently were adorned with the cloak of “an quity” (Matt. 5:21). The
sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes were not new when Christ
was teaching but had grown old. In addi on, the priests, scribes, and
Pharisees even then, a er the coming of Christ, “were si ng on the seat of
Moses” and in a certain respect had to be “listened to” (Matt. 23:2).
Therefore they had not yet lost the privilege of not erring at the me of
Christ, if they had ever had such a privilege. Lombard claims, Sent., bk. 3,
dist. 3: “Not un l Christ’s death were all the things of the Law finally
terminated.” But if all the things of the Law were in force un l the death of
Christ, then they retained their priesthood and whatever privileges they
had because of their priesthood un l the death of Christ. (In John 11:51
the Holy Spirit s ll calls Caiaphas “chief priest.”)
(2) With regard to the people, Bellarmine responds: “These were not all
Jews but only some, and perhaps the smaller part, because in that city
were Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, and many others who were
displeased. Also, outside the city throughout Judea there were some.
Furthermore, throughout the world very many Jews had been sca ered
who knew nothing about the death of Christ and thus remained in the true
faith and religion.”
We respond. This proves that, though public corrup ons spread, God
s ll preserves some elect people for Himself. Meanwhile, our argument
stands firm, that the public ministry of the visible church at that me was
corrupt and disfigured with very serious errors. There were few who
disapproved of the mob’s madness against Christ, and they were hidden.
They were not coming out in public to condemn the errors of that council,
nor did they have a dis nct, public exercise of divine worship, free of all
corrup ons. This is what we are saying when we declare that the en re
church catholic is not ensnared in errors that conflict with the founda on
but that the visible church, nevertheless, can err.
(3) With regard to the disciples, he responds: “It is not probable that
they lost faith, because we do not read that they were rebuked except
about faith in the resurrec on. But they could not have lost that, because
they never had it un l a er the Lord had risen.”
We respond. The Gospel account tes fies clearly that they followed the
common error about the earthly and worldly kingdom of Christ, and also
that Elijah the Tishbite would return in his own person before the coming
of the Messiah. That is why during the Passion of Christ they fell away from
their faith so gravely and shamefully deserted their Master. It is useless for
Bellarmine to say, “The apostles did not lose a faith in the resurrec on that
they had never received.” Yet they surely ought to have had that faith and
to have believed firmly in Christ’s resurrec on, which both the prophets
and Christ Himself had foretold so o en. If this ignorance on the part of
the apostles was not an error, why, I ask, did Christ rebuke them so
severely with this accusa on? When Bellarmine adds: “Peter kept faith in
his heart on that very night when he denied Christ”—and when he tries to
prove this with Christ’s words in Luke 22:32: “I have prayed for you that
your faith may not fail”—this cannot and should not earn our approval.
How can faith exist alongside a denial of Christ? Confessing Christ is a part
of faith; denying Him is a part of faithlessness. Christ says in Matt. 10:33:
“Whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father,
who is in heaven.” He says in Matt. 12:34: “Out of the abundance of the
heart the mouth speaks.” And what shall be said to this? Bellarmine
himself writes toward the end of his preceding ch. 13: “Those are neither
good nor saved who do not confess the faith but who keep it in their heart
while they outwardly confess faithlessness and idolatry; because the
apostle says, Rom. 10:10: ‘With the heart one believes unto righteousness,
and with the mouth confession is made unto salva on.’ ” If those who do
not outwardly confess the faith of Christ cannot be members of the church,
as Bellarmine argues in the same place, how much less can one say in
regard to those who deny the faith that they con nue to be members of
the church? The manner in which Christ prayed for Peter that his faith not
fail is explained clearly in the same verse (Luke 22:32): “When you have
converted again, strengthen your brothers.” (More is said on this subject in
the Harmonia evangelica.)
(4) Some edi ons add this excep on: “At that me the apostles were
not yet bishops but had only been designated as such. They were only
material parts of the church. Therefore they were able to err.”
We respond. Not only had the apostles been designated, they had
already been exercising their apostleship and ministry of teaching for a
long me. They had been sent to teach the Gospel and had been equipped
with the power to perform miracles. Furthermore, if priests at that me
erred and if the apostles erred, both of which Bellarmine concedes, then
certainly no ministry of the visible church was le that was free of errors
and corrup ons. That is enough to confirm our posi on.

Other arguments for our position

§ 111. Those are the arguments that Bellarmine brings forward for our
posi on. About them he says, “These are quite insignificant and can be
refuted without great difficulty,” as if there were no other, stronger
arguments than the one that he adds in the same place “about the one
candle kept burning at the night office during the three days before Easter.”
Therefore we bring forth the following arguments.

First, the Old Testament church erred quite often

(I) If the visible church in the Old Testament under the Law could err
and at mes did actually err horribly in ma ers of faith, it follows that the
same thing can happen to the New Testament church as well. The
reasoning for the consequence is as follows: The Old Testament church
received no less outstanding and magnificent promises about divine
presence, preserva on, and protec on than did the New Testament
church. Yet all those promises were condi onal, namely, if the people
would hear and obey the Word promulgated by God (Lev. 26:11; 2 Chron.
15:2; Ps. 132:13; Jer. 7:13; etc.). But now, the visible church of the Old
Testament under the Law could err and at mes did err horribly; the
historical digression we set forth earlier in § 94 confirms this. Therefore
this can also happen to the church of the New Testament.
 They usually answer: “There is a difference in the divine promises with
regard to the Israelite church of the Old Testament and to the Chris an
church of the New Testament” (Pistorius, Hodeg., p. 97). We respond. One
cannot prove with any statement of Scripture that some promises given to
the New Testament church are absolute. In fact, they are no less
condi onal than those that the Old Testament church received. John 8:31:
“If you con nue in My Word, then you will truly be My disciples.” John
15:14: “You are My friends if you do what I command you.” 1 Tim. 6:3–4:
“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of
Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is proud, knowing
nothing,” etc. Heb. 3:6: “We are God’s house if we hold firm our
confidence and glory of hope to the end.” Heb. 3:14: “We have become
partakers of Christ, if only we hold the beginning of His substance firm unto
the end.” John admonishes the church in which the anoin ng of the Spirit
reigned to “beware of those who would deceive them” (1 John 2:18). In v.
24 he explicitly adds the condi on: “If what you heard from the beginning
abides in you, then you, too, will abide in the Son and in the Father.” See
also the prac ce of this in the seven churches of Asia (Revelation 2–3).
The apostle Paul in his Epistle wri en to the church at Rome (which usurps
for itself alone the privilege of not erring) shows very clearly that the
promises given to the New Testament church were no less condi onal than
were the promises made to the Old Testament church. He writes in Rom.
11:19–22:
You will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be gra ed in.” That is true. They were
broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. Do not be high-
minded, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He also may not spare you.
See, then, the goodness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but goodness
toward you, if you con nue in goodness; otherwise you, too, will be cut off.

The apostle is arguing from the Jewish to the Chris an church not only as if
they were equals but also as from greater to less. You see, the richer the
grace of God in the New Testament is and the more beau ful the promises
given to the New Testament church are, the more savage punishments and
thicker darkness must await those who despise the Word. All this will
become clearer from what follows.

Second, there are divine prophecies about a great deception

 § 112. (II) If there are some divine prophecies about a great and almost
universal drawing away from the faith that will occur at the me of the
An christ, then one cannot say that the public ministry of the visible
church in the New Testament will always be pure. The reasoning for the
consequence is clear because these two—an almost universal apostasy and
an uncorrupted ministry of the visible church—are opposed to each other
as contradictory.
But such prophecies do exist. Matt. 24:24: “Many false christs and false
prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders so as to lead into
error, if possible, even the elect.” In his commentary [on Ma hew], Jerome
correctly points out that this passage should be understood about the me
of the An christ. Luke 18:8: “When the Son of Man comes, do you think
He will find faith on the earth?” Theophylactus, likewise, interprets this
passage as referring to the me of the An christ and says: “At that me the
faithful will be few. When Christ comes in the clouds He will not find faith
on earth except in a few people.” 2 Thess. 2:3–4: “The day of the Lord will
not come unless the defec on (ἡ ἀποστασία) comes first” (here the
apostle clearly is speaking about a great and almost universal apostasy, for
many par cular ones had occurred already) “and the man of lawlessness is
revealed, the son of perdi on, who is an adversary and exalts himself
above every so-called god and divinity so much that he sits in the temple
of God and displays himself to be God.” (This is a prophecy that in the very
temple of God, that is, in the church, the An christ would have dominion
and mislead many.) 2 Thess. 2:9: “Whose coming is by the ac vity of Satan
with all power and signs and lying wonders.” (Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk.
20, ch. 19, and Chrysostom, on 2 Thessalonians, homily 4, claim that
they are called “lying wonders” “either because they will be lying and
decei ul or because they will lead many into a lie.”) 2 Thess. 2:10–12:
“Because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. God will send upon them powerful errors (ἐνέργειαν τῆς πλάνης),
that they may believe a lie, that all may be judged who have not believed
the truth.” 1 Tim. 4:1–3: “The Spirit expressly says that in the last mes
some will fall away from the faith, giving heed to misleading spirits and
doctrines of demons who speak lies in hypocrisy and have seared
consciences, who forbid marriage and enjoin abs nence from foods that
God created,” etc. 2 Tim. 4:3–4: “For the me is coming when they will
not endure sound teaching but, having itching ears, they will accumulate
for themselves teachers according to their own desires and will turn away
from listening to the truth and will be turned toward fables.” 2 Pet. 2:1–2:
“There will be false teachers among you who will bring in sects of
destruc on, even denying the Lord who bought them, bringing upon
themselves swi destruc on. And many will follow their sensuality, and
through them the way of truth will be blasphemed.” Rev. 12:6: “The
woman” (a type of the church) “fled into the wilderness.” Rev. 13:8: “And
all who dwell on earth worshiped the beast” (a type of the An christ),
“everyone whose name has not been wri en in the book of life of the
Lamb.” Verse 16: “It will cause all, both small and great, both rich and poor,
both free and slave, to have a mark on the right hand or on the forehead.”
Rev. 17:[1–]2: “With that great harlot” (a figure of the An christ) “the
kings of the earth have commi ed fornica on, and with the wine of her
fornica on the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” Rev. 18:3: “For all
na ons have drunk the wine of her fornica on, and the kings of the earth
have commi ed fornica on with her, and the merchants of the earth have
grown rich by the power of her pleasures.”
These prophecies were published no less by the Holy Spirit, who is the
Spirit of truth, than were those great promises. They teach clearly that
there will come a me when the public ministry of the en re visible church
will be corrupt, namely, when public errors become common and spread
over all the earth. Therefore it would be preposterous for us to close our
eyes and ears and wish to pass over them and cry out only about the great
and glorious promises made to the church, just as the Jews formerly would
cry out: “The temple of the Lord! The temple of the Lord!” (Jer. 7:4).
Meanwhile, fearing the threat about the rejec on of the temple if they
con nued to be disobedient, they wrapped it in deep silence.

Third, particular churches are warned not to err and not to

listen to those who would mislead them
§ 113. (III) Those who are warned not to err, are commanded to beware
of false prophets—lest they be misled, and are rebuked because of errors
they have allowed—such are not exempt from the danger of erring. The
logic of the consequence is obvious because, if they had some absolute
privilege of not erring, such admoni ons would have been made in vain.
But now, par cular churches are warned not to err, are commanded to
beware of false prophets, and are rebuked because of errors they have
allowed.
Matt. 7:15: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s
clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” Matt. 24:23–25: “If someone
says to you: ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is!’ do not believe it. For
false christs and false prophets will arise. See, I have told you beforehand.”
Acts 20:28–31: “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock in which the
Holy Spirit has placed you as bishops, because a er my departure fierce
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among
your own selves will arise men who speak perverse things to draw away
the disciples a er them. Therefore be alert.” 2 Cor. 11:2–3: “I betrothed
you to one man, to present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I am afraid
that, as the serpent deceived Eve with his cunning, your minds may be
corrupted and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.” Gal. 3:1: “O foolish
Gala ans, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth?” 1 John 4:1:
“Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” Rev. 2:5: “Remember
from where you have fallen and repent.” Rev. 2:15–16: “You have some
who hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. In like manner, repent.”
If they wish to make the excep on that “such a concern of the apostle
Paul and the forewarnings apply to individual believers but not to en re
churches,” we set against them what he says clearly in 2 Cor. 11:28, that
“the care of all the churches rests upon me.” Furthermore, that which is
applicable to individual believers can also be a ributed to the en re
church, which is the assembly of believers.
If they wish to make the excep on that “the nature of the Roman
church is different than that of the other par cular churches,” then we ask
for definite tes monies of this difference and privilege. So far they have
not been able to give us any from Scripture. Surely the apostle is obligated
with the same care and concern in regard to the Roman church. Rom.
11:20–22: The Jews “were broken off because of their unbelief, but you
stand fast through faith. Do not become proud. For if God did not spare the
natural branches, watch out, lest it happen that He may also not spare you.
See, then, the goodness and severity of God: severity toward those who
have fallen, but goodness toward you, if you con nue in goodness;
otherwise you, too, will be cut off.” (Chrysostom makes the following
comment on this passage: “He teaches them to tremble, for your goodness
does not remain immovable if you are idle.” Chrysostom, therefore, was
unaware that the privilege of not erring had been given to the Roman
church.) In Rom. 16:17 Paul warns them to “take note of those who create
dissensions and causes of offense aside from the doctrine that you
learned, and turn away from them.” You can easily see that this concern
and forewarning of the apostle was neither vain nor useless if you compare
the state of the Roman church today with the state of the early church at
Rome, that is, as it is described in this apostolic le er.
If they make the excep on that “this privilege of not erring in the faith
belonged uniquely to the Roman church, because its ‘faith is declared
throughout the en re world’ (Rom. 1:8),” we respond that the apostle
a ributes the same declara on to the Thessalonian church, 1 Thess. 1:8:
“From you the Word of the Lord has sounded forth not only in Macedonia
and Achaia, but also your faith in God has gone forth everywhere.” The
apostle, nonetheless, writes to the Thessalonians out of pious concern. 1
Thess. 3:5: “I sent Timothy to you that he might know your faith, for fear
that somehow the tempter had tempted you and that our labor would
have been done in vain.”
If they make the excep on that “the Roman church cannot err because
the Roman pon ff, the vicar of Christ and successor to Peter, is in charge of
it,” we respond that many great errors of Roman popes can be listed. Lyra
writes correctly, on Matthew 16, that “many popes were found to have
fallen away from the faith.” Marcellinus sacrificed to idols, Liberius
subscribed to Arianism, Honorius became a Monothelite. We shall write
more about this whole ma er in its own place [§ 197]. If the Roman
church cannot err because of the pope who lives in Rome, then we would
have to give the same privilege to the church at Avignon in France when for
seventy years a pope lived at Avignon and presided over the church there.
Bellarmine admits, De pont. Rom., bk. 2, ch. 4: “It cannot be proved from
either Scripture or tradi on that the apostolic see is so fixed to Rome that
it cannot be taken away from there.” Therefore neither will that privilege of
not erring be certain.
Fourth, experience bears witness that the New Testament
church has erred
§ 114. (IV) It is pointless to argue about whether or not something can
happen if experience tells us that it has happened. But experience does tell
us that the visible church and par cular churches in the New Testament
have erred. Therefore it is pointless to argue about whether or not that can
happen.
The minor premise can be confirmed with various examples. (1) The
apostles erred when they followed the common error about the earthly
kingdom of the Messiah and about the return of Elijah the Tishbite. A er
Christ had risen from the dead, the two greatest apostles, Peter and John,
ran to the tomb and were surprised when they did not find Christ’s body
there, “for as yet they did not know the Scripture that He must rise from
the dead” (John 20:9). In Acts 1:6, on the basis of a widespread error, all
asked: “Lord, will You at this me restore the kingdom to Israel?” A er
Christ’s ascension and the gran ng of the Holy Spirit, almost the en re
visible church that the apostles had gathered erred in regard to the calling
of the Gen les. Consequently, Peter was told in a divine vision to go to the
Gen le Cornelius “doub ng nothing” (Acts 10:20), and later was
compelled to give an account of that deed of his to the en re church (Acts
11:2). In addi on, Peter, who they say was the head of the church, did not
understand the abroga on of the ceremonial law and thus claimed that
some foods were s ll unclean (Acts 10:14). Paul bears the clear witness
about him that “he was not walking with a straight foot, fi ng with the
truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:14).
(2) We can understand from Paul’s le ers to it that the church of the
Corinthians erred. There were divisions in it, for some people were saying,
“I belong to Paul,” but others, “I belong to Cephas,” and s ll others, “I
belong to Apollos” (1 Cor. 1:10 and 12). Their integrity no longer stood
firm in the doctrine of the resurrec on, of Chris an liberty, of the Holy
Supper, etc.
(3) The apostle a ributed to the Gala an church this commenda on:
that they had “received the Holy Spirit” (Gal. 3:2) and “were running well”
(Gal. 5:7). Yet he also says about them that “they were so quickly removed
from Christ, who had called them through grace, to a different gospel”
(Gal. 1:6), so that the apostle was afraid “that he had labored among them
in vain” (Gal. 4:11). If the church of the Gala ans, which had received the
Holy Spirit and which the apostle had planted in the Word of God, erred,
why could the same thing not happen to the other par cular churches too?
(4) In Rev. 2:15 we read that the church at Pergamum embraced the
teaching of the Nicolaitans. In v. 20 the church at Thya ra is men oned as
allowing “the woman Jezebel to teach and to mislead the servants of God,”
etc.
(5) The Roman church condemns the Eastern churches of today because
they do not accept the primacy of the pope, the celibacy of priests, the
mu la on of the Lord’s Supper, purgatory, etc. Therefore either the Eastern
churches are erring or the Roman church, which hurls the thunderbolt of
anathema at them because of this, is in error.

Fifth, the knowledge of those who make up the church is not

yet perfect
§ 115. (V) Those whose knowledge is not yet perfect can err. Yet the
knowledge of all the people who make up the church is imperfect. 1 Cor.
13:9: “We know in part, and we prophesy in part.” Therefore all who
cons tute the church can err. We must point out, however, that an
excep on must be made for the prophets and apostles, who had the
unique and extraordinary privilege of not erring because they “spoke” and
wrote “as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Such
immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit has not been given to their
successors in the ecclesias cal ministry. Instead, they, no less than the rest
of the believers, are bound to the Word of the prophets and apostles to
teach according to the norm thereof (Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 4:11; etc.). The
promise of the Holy Spirit has indeed been made to the faithful, but under
a certain condi on, namely, if they have been steadfast in clinging to the
Word, which is the vehicle and workshop of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, just
as the promise of the Holy Spirit does not keep the faithful from being able
to err if they depart from the path of the Word, so also the promise of the
Holy Spirit to the church does not keep it from being able to err if it
departs from the rule of the Word. We shall say more of this ma er later [§
118].
Sixth, the church can sin
(VI) The church can sin. Therefore it can also err. The consequence is
obvious because sin and error both flow from the same source: from the
corrup on of nature. Error is in the intellect; sin is in the will. Therefore if
the will has not yet been confirmed in goodness so as to be free from every
peril of sin, then certainly the intellect has also not yet been so fully
illumined by the divine light as to be free from every peril of erring. Sin
itself is a species of error because the will errs by selec ng something that
is seemingly [οἰομένως] good instead of something that is truly [ὄντως]
good.

Seventh, all pastors of the church can err

(VII) All pastors of the church can err. Therefore the en re visible church
can err. Our adversaries cannot deny the consequence because they claim
that “the church cannot err because it follows its pastors.” They respond to
the antecedent: “If individual bishops are separated, they can err; but not
if they are assembled in council and follow the decision of the Roman
pon ff.” And yet we can prove quite easily that both councils and popes
can err and actually have erred quite o en. Concerning this, more is said
elsewhere [§§ 123, 197].

Eighth, the statements of the ancients

(VIII) Here we should cite the statements of the ancients. Augus ne,
Contra Crescon., bk. 2, ch. 21: “Paul says that the church is subject to
Christ, and that the church therefore should not set itself ahead of Christ,
since He always judges in truth, but the judges of the church, being men,
frequently err.” Sermon 31 de temp.: “Be aware that we should ‘believe
there is the church’ [ecclesiam credere], not ‘believe in the church’ [in
ecclesiam credere], because the church is not God but the house of God.”
He repeats the same thing in Homily 3, ad Neoph.: “We do not believe in
the catholic church the way we believe in God. The church is holy and
catholic because it believes in God rightly.” This is quoted in Decret., part 3,
dist. 4, c. 73. (We must note this against the [Englishmen] of Rheims, who
go off to such absurdity that in their Annotat. on 1 Timothy 3, sect. 9, and
on Romans 10, sect. 41, they contend that one “must believe in the
church.”) Augus ne (De bapt. contra Donatist., bk. 4, ch. 3) appeals to the
Scriptures over the authority of bishops and councils:
Who could be unaware that the canonical Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is
contained within its own definite limits and is set so far ahead of all the later wri ngs of
bishops that no one can have any doubts about it nor debate at all about whether anything
wri en in it is true or correct? The wri ngs of bishops, which they have wri en or will write
a er the canon was established, may be censured through the wiser speech of anyone who
has greater experience in that ma er, or through the greater authority and wisdom of other
more learned bishops, and through councils, if anything is perhaps in them that has
deviated from the truth.

Later he adds:
Provincial councils can be corrected through plenary councils and earlier plenary councils
through later ones. Who could be unaware that those councils which meet in individual
regions or provinces yield, without any evasions, to the authority of plenary councils that
are made up from the en re Chris an world? And earlier plenary councils are o en
corrected by later ones, when by a knowledge of things what had been closed is opened and
what used to be hidden is now known. This happens without any swelling of sacrilegious
pride, without any neck inflated with arrogance, without any conten on of livid envy, but
with holy humility, with catholic peace, with Chris an charity.

Vincent of Lérins (Advers. haeres., ch. 4) writes that not only a small
por on of the church but even the en re church can be spo ed with a
novel contagion, that is, can be corrupted with error.
Fox (Martyr., p. 477) cites the statement of Gualterus Brutus, who lived
in England two hundred years earlier: “All the pastors and teachers of the
visible church can err. In fact, Peter did err, and for that reason Paul
rebuked him. The Scriptures alone have the privilege of not erring.”

Ninth, the assent of some Papists

(IX) Some of the Papists themselves, as Alexander of Hales (part 3, last
ques on, art. 2) and Joannes de Turrecremata (De eccles., bk. 1, ch. 30, and
bk. 3, ch. 61) claim: “The en re visible church erred at the me of the
Passion of Christ so that true faith remained in no human being except in
Mary alone.” Bellarmine disapproves of this, but Dominicus Bannes (In 2.2.
Thomae, q. 1, art. 10, p. 177) says that “many add their vote to this
opinion,” among whom are Marsilius (Sent., 2, q. 20, art. 3) and Costerus
himself (on the third mark of the church, p. 100). [Ius canonicum,] Decret.
Gregor., bk. 5, tle 39, c. 28: “The judgment of God always rests upon the
truth, which neither deceives nor is deceived. The judgment of the church,
on the other hand, some mes follows an opinion that o en happens to
deceive or be deceived. As a result, it some mes happens that he whom
God has bound, the church has loosed.” (If they make the excep on that
“the pope is speaking about church discipline and not about doctrine,” we
set against them that Bellarmine, when he was going to prove that the
church cannot err, cites the passage in Matt. 18[:17]: “Tell it to the
church.” This passage does speak about church discipline, as no one can
deny.)
The Papists argue: “There are many canonical books of the Old
Testament that were not in the canon of the Hebrews.” If this is true, it will
follow that the en re Israelite church, outside of which there was no other
visible church, erred most seriously by not having taken those books into
the canon. One of the Papists responds: “Those books were not rejected,
though the church did not accept them.” Yet if the Israelite church did not
accept those books, it thereby rejected them, for whatever book the
church does not receive into the canon is understood to be rejected by the
same, as is evident from Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 59, art. 4: “The spiritual
man judges all things, inasmuch as his mind clings to the Word of God.”
(Thus the spiritual man does not err to the extent that he stays with the
Word. We say the same thing about the church.) Canus, Loc. comm., bk. 4,
ch. 4: “The church can be deceived and err in some ma ers, namely, in
those that God has not revealed.” As we have seen earlier [§§ 105–6], they
are not yet agreed among themselves about the infallibility of the pope
(from which they derive the infallibility of the church).

The arguments by which Bellarmine tries to prove that the

church cannot err: 1 Timothy 3:15: “The church is the support
and pillar of the truth”
§ 116. Let us evaluate the arguments by which Bellarmine (De eccles.,
bk. 3, ch. 14) tries to prove that the church absolutely and simply cannot
err in any way. In the first place, he brings up the apostle’s statement in 1
Tim. 3:15, where the church is called “the support and pillar of the truth.”
He says: “Therefore the verity of faith with regard to us depends on the
authority of the church. Whatever the church approves is true, and
whatever it does not approve is false.”
We respond. Both subject and predicate must be carefully evaluated in
this statement of the apostle. The subject is “the church, the house of
God.” The predicate is “is the στῦλος and ἐδραίωμα of the truth.” The
apostle calls the church “the house” of God because God dwells in it by His
grace through the Word (John 14:23; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16), just as in
the Old Testament He used to dwell in the tabernacle and in the temple at
Jerusalem (Lev. 26:12; 1 Kings 8:11). He also calls it “the church of the
living God,” because God, the life of all the living, acquired it for Himself
with His own blood, gathers it from the human race, rules it with His Holy
Spirit, protects it by His power against the assault of its enemies, and in it is
known from the Word, is worshiped and celebrated, and one day He will
transfer it to Himself into heavenly life and glory. In reference to this house
of God or church the apostle declares that it is “the pillar and support of
the truth.”
Some people think that the words στῦλος and ἑδραίωμα are not used
here in an architectural sense as the “column, support, and prop” of a
house are generally used, even though the church is the actual house of
God. Rather, they think these words are being used in a forensic manner,
just as pillars stand in the courts and before the governors’ palaces. To
those pillars are a ached by public authority the laws and decrees of the
ruler. This func on of pillars is treated by Josephus (Antiq., bk. 1, ch. 4),
Pliny (Nat. histor., bk. 6, ch. 26), and Alexander of Alexandria (Gen. dier.,
bk. 3, ch. 7). The church, then, would be called “the pillar and support of
the truth” because it is the public guardian and witness of the truth.
** The church is called the στῦλος or pillar of the truth not in an architectural sense, as if it
served as founda on and support for the truth, such as a house rests upon columns. Rather,
it is called this in a poli cal sense, according as the tables of the holy Law and Gospel are
a ached to it as to a public column. The ἑδραίωμα is not a founda on or support first, but
properly denotes a seat, a throne, a storage chest. It comes from ἑδραίω, “I put; I cause to
sit.” From it we get ἔδρα, “chair,” and ἑδραῖος, “si ng.” Thus it denotes that the church is
like a holy chair or storage chest in which religious truth has been deposited. (Meisner,
Depuls. excub. cont. Reihing., p. 20.) **
 With respect to God it is called “the house of the living God.” With
respect to us, it is called “the support [firmamentum] and pillar,” that is,
the firmest pillar of truth, through the figure of hendiadys. This is why the
deposit of heavenly doctrine in Holy Scripture has been entrusted to it:
that it might bear public witness about it and protect it carefully.
** The church is called “the pillar and support of the truth”: (1) Because
insofar as it is Christ’s church it does not depart from the simple Word. (2)
Because it protects, preaches, and propagates the truth through its
ministry. You see, this office of administering doctrine, which God has given
into the possession of the church, is the one instrument for declaring and
retaining the truth, lest it perish from the memory of men. (3) Because
nowhere else but in the church is the truth of God found. Elsewhere
darkness, lies, errors, deceits, supers ons, the spirit of dizziness and
stupidity, and finally all corrup ons hold all things everywhere in their
possession. **
Just as we do not disapprove of this interpreta on, so also it meets with
no opposi on from us if the word “pillar” is taken in an architectural sense,
because of the added word ἑδραίωμα [“support”]. Therefore the church is
called “the support and pillar of the truth” because, having been built upon
the founda on of the prophets and apostles, Christ being the chief
cornerstone, with its ministry it supports, like a column, the divine truth
comprehended in the prophe c and apostolic Scriptures. It upholds that
truth among men, interprets it, protects it, defends it from destruc on,
faithfully transmits it to posterity, and commends it to all people, that they
may learn from it and nowhere else the way to a ain salva on.
** This way of speaking is taken from the temple (for it was called “the
house of God”) that was once at Jerusalem. It was not only decorated with
peristyles but also was supported with columns and pillars, which kept the
upper story safe from spli ng and collapsing so that the priests could
perform their du es, carry out the sacred rites, and thus the heavenly
truth and divine worship could be propagated and preserved. The church,
which is the house of God, upholds the same du es with regard to the
teaching of the divine truth revealed by Christ and to its confession,
proclama on, and publica on, so that the faithful may stand as firm as
pillars, built upon the one rock and founda on, which is Christ. Just as the
columns did not support the founda on of the temple, so also the church
does not support the founda on of heavenly truth. **
Therefore the church is a pillar instrumentally by means of its
confession, protec on, profession, and witness of the heavenly doctrine
that has been entrusted to it like a magnificent deposit.
Against this interpreta on Bellarmine sets forth five points: (1) “If the
church were called ‘the pillar and support of the truth’ because it
preserves, like the most faithful custodian, the preaching of the wri en
Word of God, then in the same way booksellers’ shops would be pillars of
truth because they guard all wri ngs very carefully.” We respond. The
church is called “the pillar of truth” not only with regard to its
custodianship but also with regard to its preaching, professing, and public
witnessing, because God uses its work and ministry in preserving and
propaga ng the heavenly teaching. Therefore when the church is called
the custodian of the truth, that means a living custodian, not a mute one.
For this reason it is also called a witness of the truth. This, too, does not
mean a private witness but a public witness for fied with solemn
authority.
(2) “The apostle does not men on the Scriptures but says simply: ‘The
church is the pillar and support of the truth.’ ”
We respond. On the contrary, Paul expressly prefaces this by saying, “I
am wri ng these things to you so that you may know how one ought to
behave in the household of God” [1 Tim. 3:14–15]. He therefore is not
referring Timothy back to the church as if the truth depended on it alone.
Instead, he is referring him to the Word of God, which is the only rule of
truth. Next, even if explicit men on of the Word of God did not occur here,
yet it is evident that it is men oned clearly in other passages of Scripture.
Isa. 8:20: “To the Law and to the tes mony! If they do not speak according
to this Word, they will have no morning light.” John 5:39: “You search the
Scriptures; it is they that bear witness of Me.” John 17:17: “Preserve them
in the truth; Your Word is truth.” Eph. 2:20: “You are built upon the
founda on of the prophets and apostles, Christ Jesus Himself being the
chief cornerstone.” 2 Pet. 1:19: “We have a firmer prophe c word. You will
do well to pay a en on to this as to a lamp,” etc. These and similar
statements show clearly that Scripture is the norm and rule of heavenly
truth, which the church, like a pillar, preserves with its ministry.
 (3) “It is much more to be a pillar than a simple custodian, for a house
rests upon a column and falls if it is removed. Therefore when the apostle
calls the church ‘the pillar of truth,’ he intends to signify that the truth of
faith with regard to us depends on the authority of the church; whatever
the church approves is true, and whatever it disapproves is false.” What
Costerus writes (Enchir., ch. De priv. eccles.) agrees with this: “The church
gives authority to the truth.”
We respond. Some columns of a house are erected to be decora ve.
Therefore Bellarmine’s declara on that “a house rests upon a column and
falls if it is removed” is not universally true. We grant, however, that the
apostle is speaking here about a suppor ng pillar, not about one erected
simply to be decora ve, for he adds the word ἑδραίωμα [“support”]. Now,
Bellarmine will tell us again that a founda on is one thing but a pillar that
rests upon a founda on is something else. But the church is not called a
“founda on” but a “pillar and support” (not θεμέλιον, but στῦλος καὶ
ἑδραίωμα), because the church does not, in the primary sense, uphold
that spiritual building but is itself also supported on the founda on. “For
no other founda on can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). This is the very firm “rock upon which the church is
built” (Matt. 16:18), this is the cornerstone or founda on stone upon
which the ci zens of the church, like living stones, are built (Ps. 118:22;
Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; Rom. 9:33; 1 Pet. 2:7). Moreover, because the
doctrine concerning Christ is set before us in the prophe c and apostolic
Scriptures, the prophets and apostles themselves are called the ministerial
founda on of the church, not with regard to their person but with regard
to their teaching and tes mony of Christ. Eph. 2:20–22: “You are built
upon the founda on of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself
being the chief cornerstone, in whom the whole structure grows into a
holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built into a dwelling
place of God in the Holy Spirit.” Rev. 21:14: “The wall of the city has twelve
founda ons, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb.”
Consequently, Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 1) calls the wri ngs of the apostles
“the founda on and pillar of faith.” He says: “We have learned the plan of
our salva on through no others than through those through whom the
Gospel has come to us. They did preach this at that me, but they later, by
the will of God, handed it to us in the Scriptures—the founda on and pillar
of our faith.” Chapter 11 of the same book: “The pillar and support of the
church are the Gospel and the Spirit of life.” Tertullian (De praescript.) says:
“The inheritance of the Scriptures has been commi ed to the church.”
Chrysostom, Homily 10 on this passage: “The truth is the pillar and
support of the church.” Bede, on John 12, bk. 1: “The founda on of the
church is in the solidity of the faith of the apostles and prophets.”
What remains, therefore, is that the church is not the founda on of the
truth but its pillar and support, and that it is not the support of the truth
absolutely and primarily but in a certain respect and with a limita on,
namely, insofar as it rests solely upon the heavenly truth comprehended in
the prophe c and apostolic Scriptures as its founda on and base. You see,
a pillar does not support and hold up a founda on but only rests upon a
founda on and receives all its solidity from it. Consequently, the truth and
firmness of the Chris an faith does not rely either uniquely or primarily on
the authority of the church, but rather upon the truth and immobility of
the heavenly doctrine comprehended in the prophe c and apostolic
Scriptures. All dogmas that are proposed in the church must be examined
according to this norm, and whatever differs from it is to be neither
received nor accepted. The church is the pillar and support of the truth not
primarily, not simply and absolutely, but secondarily, in a certain manner,
and rela vely, namely, “in rela on to us,” as Thomas Aquinas has observed
on this passage. Just like a very strong and beau ful pillar, it stands upon
the founda on, Jesus Christ, which is shown to us in the wri ngs of the
prophets and apostles. It shows us that teaching about Christ and explains
it, protects it from destruc on, separates it from lies and errors, passes it
on to posterity, and thus supports, upholds, and preserves it by its ministry.
But it cannot be inferred from this that, simply and absolutely speaking,
the verity of faith depends upon the authority of the church and that
whatever the church approves is true and whatever it disapproves is false.
You see, as a pillar rests upon a founda on, so the founda on of the
church is Christ or, what is the same, the doctrine concerning Christ
comprehended in the prophe c and apostolic wri ngs. Whatever conflicts
with this norm must be rejected as being contrary to the founda on.
Briefly, the church stabilizes and supports the truth, not because it
produces the truth and grants it all authority but because it bears witness
about it and confesses it publicly, because it declares and commends it,
just as Jerome comments on this passage: “in which alone” (the church)
“the truth stands.” Therefore when the church is called “the stay and
support of the truth,” this must be understood in this sense: that the truth
stands in the church and that the church bears witness about the truth,
just as bearing witness about holiness is called “sanc fying” in the
Scriptures.
(4) “The church was a pillar when there were no Scriptures. From this it
follows that it is not called a pillar because it is the custodian of the
Scriptures.”
We respond. We understand the tle “Scriptures” to mean the Word of
God put into wri ng. This is the same thing as the preached Word of God
before it was wri en. Being wri en and being preached are external
accidents that do not change the essence itself. That is, they do not
introduce some sort of real and essen al difference between the preached
and wri en Word of God. “What the apostles preached, they later put that
very thing” (and nothing else) “into the Scriptures,” says Irenaeus, on the
passage just cited. 1 John 1:3: “That which we have seen and heard we
proclaim also to you, and we are wri ng these things to you.” Accordingly,
prophe c teaching is commonly quoted with these formulas: “It is said”
(Matt. 1:22; 2:15; 4:14; etc.); “It is wri en” (Matt. 4:4); “The Scripture
says” (John 7:38; Rom. 10:11; etc.). More is said about this subject
elsewhere. [See On Holy Scripture (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace I), §§ 7,
42, 394–413.]
Here we should men on the dis nc on between material and form. We
do not take the word “Scriptures” to mean so much the form (that is, the
work of wri ng and of marking the le ers) as the material itself (that is,
what is being wri en, the divinely inspired Word of God).
(5) “If it is about custodianship, Paul would have done be er to have
compared the church to a box than to a pillar because boxes, not pillars,
protect books.”
We respond. Let those things be repeated that we have been saying up
to this point, especially in response to the first objec on regarding
booksellers’ shops.
§ 117. From those points it becomes quite clear that the Papists can find
absolutely no defense in this passage of the apostle. Yet they repeatedly
and perpetually set it forth against us and place all their hope of victory in
it. In the first place, they a ribute the magnificent praise, that the church is
“the pillar and support of the truth,” to the en re visible church, yet this
belongs primarily, especially, and properly to “the church that was
predes ned and chosen before the founda on of the world,” as Augus ne
says (De civ. Dei, bk. 20, at the beginning of ch. 8). That is, it applies to the
gathering of the saints and elect in the visible church, “for o en through
the figure of understanding” (synecdoche) “Scripture a ributes something
to the whole that fits only a part thereof.” Bellarmine himself (De eccles.,
bk. 3, ch. 7, § 10) proposes that this rule must especially be observed in the
doctrine of the church, for the apostle is speaking about that church
“which is the house of God,” which is nothing other than “living stones
built upon Christ, a spiritual house” (1 Pet. 2:5). About those stones Paul
says in 2 Tim. 2:19: “God’s firm founda on stands, bearing this seal: ‘The
Lord knows those who are His.’ ” This catholic church of the saints or
“assembly of the elect children of God,” as Thomas writes on this passage,
is “the pillar and support of the truth” with regard to duty because, like a
pillar, it rests firmly upon heavenly truth, it does not allow itself to be
pulled away from that by en cements but publishes the truth to others by
both the ministry and its example.
Second, if this apostolic commenda on is referred to a par cular visible
church (which does not oppose us, because Paul is wri ng this to Timothy
about the par cular visible church in which he dwelt and of which he had
been appointed bishop, and is instruc ng Timothy how he should conduct
himself in it), then the subject of the proposi on must necessarily be
limited, and some respect to the founda on—that is, to the prophe c and
apostolic doctrine—must be added, in this sense: “The church is the
support and pillar of the truth” insofar as it preserves and guards the truth
of heavenly doctrine comprehended in the prophe c and apostolic
Scriptures, and adheres to and rests on it as its only founda on.
We demonstrate that this limita on and respect must necessarily be
added: (a) From other passages of Scripture: Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; Eph.
2:20; etc. Thus when the apostle discusses the church of the Israelites, he
affirms that to them “were entrusted the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2) in
order to show that the church is called “the support and pillar of the truth”
from the oracles of God that have been entrusted to it, that is, because it
guards the oracles of God that have been commi ed to wri ng, interprets
them, passes them on to posterity, etc.
(b) From the words of the apostle. He says: “I am wri ng these
instruc ons to you so that you may know how to conduct yourself in the
house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support
of the truth.” The sense of the apostle’s axiom is composite. Consequently,
it must not be taken as divided. That is, the apostle himself limits and
circumscribes the subject with a certain regard; consequently, we should
not omit this limita on and circumscrip on. The church that is the
household of God, that church, I say, is the pillar and support of the truth.
Therefore the apostle is limi ng the subject. He is not speaking about just
any church or congrega on; he is not speaking about a church that is
Chris an in any way you please. Rather, he is speaking about a church that
is “the house of God,” that is, insofar as it is God’s house, insofar as God
dwells in it by His grace through the Word, insofar as He governs it with the
scepter of His kingdom, with the Gospel, and instructs it in the Word
through His Holy Spirit. That is, he is speaking about a church that is the
assembly of the people who embrace only the Word of God and who
depart from it not even a finger’s breadth. John 14:23: “If anyone loves
Me, he will keep My Word, and My Father will love him, and We will come
to him and make Our dwelling with him.” Heb. 3:6: “We are God’s house if
we hold firm our confidence and glory of hope unto the end.”
(c) We demonstrate that the subject of the proposi on must be taken
with this limita on and respect with the example of Peter, who also is
called a “pillar” (Gal. 2:9). Nevertheless he was not absolutely and simply
free of every error without excep on.
(d) From the actual situa on. The apostle is speaking by name of the
Ephesian church, over which Timothy was presiding at that me. Yet one
cannot and could not say about it that, simply and absolutely speaking, it
was the “pillar and support of the truth.” In fact, in Acts 20:29[–30] the
apostle with very serious language warns the elders of that church about
the false teachers who were going to be in it. He says: “I know that a er
my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
and from among your own selves will arise men speaking perverse things,
to draw away the disciples a er them.” The prophecy was proved true by
its fulfillment, for we read in Rev. 2:4–5 about the bishop of the church at
Ephesus: “I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you
had at first. Remember, then, from what you have fallen, and repent and
do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your
lampstand from its place unless you repent.” Also, church history bears
witness that in the Ephesian church, in a public council, the orthodox
doctrine about the two natures in Christ was condemned and the heresy of
Eutyches was approved in AD 449 (Evagrius, Hist., bk. 1, ch. 10;
Nicephorus, bk. 14, ch. 47).
Third, the argument of our adversaries drawn from this passage
concludes more than the premises allow. The apostle calls the church “the
support and pillar of the truth” because by its ministry it upholds,
propagates, commends, protects, etc., among people the truth of heavenly
doctrine, divinely revealed and set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Nowhere
else except in the church is the truth of heavenly doctrine found and
preserved; nowhere else does it have its place. From this, however, one
cannot infer that whatever is therefore proposed in the church is truth. In
the field of the Lord we find tares, too, along with the grain. At mes the
purity of doctrine is mixed with the leaven of human tradi ons and
Pharisaic corrup ons.
Fourth, the apostle is speaking about that church which is the gathering
of the faithful. This is clear from the context, for he writes to Timothy “how
one ought to conduct himself in the church,” that is, in the assembly of
pastors and hearers over whom Timothy presided as bishop. Therefore we
cannot conclude from this passage that “the verity of faith depends upon
the authority of the church, and that whatever the church approves is
true,” as Bellarmine says. The reason is that the Papists do not assign the
authority of determining and decreeing to the gathering of the faithful, but
to the prelates and bishops—in fact, as our previous analysis showed [§
105], to the Roman pon ff alone. Therefore because the en re church is
called “the support and pillar of the truth,” they should no longer foist
upon us one pope at Rome as the infallible and sole support of the truth.
Fi h and finally, on the basis of this passage we argue in this way
against the Papists. The true church of God is “the pillar and support of the
truth.” The Roman church today is not the pillar and support of the truth
but “the mother of heresies and a school of errors,” as Petrarch calls it
(Le er 20). This is understood very clearly from a comparison of the
dogmas that are set forth and defended in the Roman church with the Holy
Scriptures. Therefore the Roman church today is not the true church of
God. Indeed, it s ll has the sacred books and some sound and uncorrupted
ar cles of doctrine, it s ll keeps holy Bap sm, etc. Thus within the bosom
of the Roman church God does preserve for Himself His elect; yet the
public ministry of that church has become horribly corrupt. In many points
it sets forth falsehood instead of truth, the leaven of the An christ instead
of the teaching of Christ, idolatry instead of the true worship of God; and it
fights for these things with great cruelty.

Second, [that] Christ is the Head and Bridegroom of the

church and does not allow it to err
§ 118. Bellarmine’s second argument is as follows:
The church is governed by Christ as by its Bridegroom and Head and by the Holy Spirit as by
its soul. Eph. 1:22[–23]: “He has made Him the Head over all the church, which is His Body.”
Eph. 4:4: “One Body and one Spirit.” Eph. 5:23: “The man is the head of the woman, as
Christ is the Head of the church.” Therefore if the church were to err in dogmas of faith or
behavior, the error would be a ributed to Christ and to the Holy Spirit, for which reason
Christ says in John 16:13: “The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth.”

We respond. (1) The church has the Spirit as its director to the extent
that, and as long as, it keeps, hears, and preserves the Word of God. This is
because the Holy Spirit, conjoined with the Word by an indivisible
connec on and by means of it, leads and directs the church. Therefore to
the extent that the church follows the Word, to that extent the Holy Spirit
directs it, and to that extent it does not err.
Isa. 59:21: “This is My covenant with them, says the Lord: My Spirit that
is in you, and My words that I have put into your mouth, shall not depart
out of your mouth and the mouth of your seed.” In 2 Cor. 3:8 the preaching
of the Word is called “the ministry of the Spirit.” John 8:31–32: “If you
con nue in My Word, you are truly My disciples, and you will know the
truth and the truth will make you free.” John 14:26: “The Counselor, the
Holy Spirit, will bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” John
16:13–14: “The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth; for He will not speak
from Himself, but whatever He hears He will speak. He will glorify Me, for
He will take what is Mine and declare it to you.” John 17:17: “Sanc fy them
in the truth. Your Word is truth.”
 Chrysostom’s statement in his Sermon de adorando Spiritu is related to
this.
Many boast of the Spirit of Christ; but because they speak their own things, they claim Him
falsely. Just as Christ was bearing witness that He was speaking not from Himself, because
He was speaking from the Law and the prophets, so also if anything beyond the Gospel is
offered under the pretense of the Spirit, we should not believe it. Just as Christ is the
fulfillment of the Law and the prophets, so also the Spirit is the fulfillment of the Gospel.

(2) The Holy Spirit is ever-present with His grace in the church and rules
it. But from this it cannot be inferred that those who usurp the tle of
“church” for themselves and boast of the perpetual assistance of the Spirit
cannot err. The Holy Spirit is not bound to the succession of bishops or to
the see of the Roman pon ff in such a way as to render the former when
they are assembled in councils and the la er on his papal throne exempt
from errors, even if they depart from the Word of God revealed in the
Scriptures. Nonetheless the presence and assistance of the Holy Spirit are
preserved forever in the church, even if the Roman pon ff and bishops err.
This is because the promise of that perpetual presence of the Holy Spirit in
the church is fulfilled in this way: the Holy Spirit sanc fies some people in
truth and faith who have retained the founda on of faith and who are
protected through faith unto salva on, even though the ministry of the
visible church is corrupt. This can be proved clearly from the state of the
church such as it was at me of Elijah and of Christ.
(3) Because we receive only the firs ruits of the Holy Spirit in this life
and because our intellect is not so fully and perfectly illumined by the light
of the Holy Spirit that all oldness of the flesh is removed, therefore the rule
and illumina on of the Holy Spirit do not make the church exempt from
the danger of erring. Rather, the church must follow the leadership and
what might be called the Spirit’s “leading by the hand” by paying a en on
to the light of the heavenly Word. Even if the church departs from it in the
niest part, it falls into darkness.
(4) Christ is the Bridegroom and Head of the church insofar as the
church, like a faithful bride, hears the voice of her Bridegroom and
complies with it. Accordingly, the apostle says in Eph. 5:24: “The church is
subject to Christ as a wife is to her husband.”
** (1) The church, which is properly called the Bride of Christ, consists of those who cling
constantly to Christ by true faith. Because of those people who also are mixed together in
 the external assembly, the visible church is also called by synecdoche “the holy Bride of
Christ,” namely, because this is the end of the divine calling, that we might be sanc fied. (2)
The presence, governing, and establishing of the church are related either to the
preserva on of the external state of the church—about which we say: “God never promised
that He would preserve the church of the New Testament as flourishing forever with regard
to its external state; in fact, He foretold the contrary, that under the apostasy of the
An christ it would suffer the most wretched slavery”—or they are related to the internal
establishing and governing of believers. Thus it is very true that “Christ and the Holy Spirit
were always with the devout and elect under the reign of the An christ as their Leaders and
Teachers, lest they be misled into errors or, having been misled, persevere and perish in
those errors.” (3) The Holy Spirit was present in the church, however corrupt the external
ministry of bishops and presbyters may have been. Through the instruments God had
established, like Bap sm and the Word of God, He regenerated, sanc fied, and preserved
true believers to eternal life. (Rungius, on Exodus 33) **

On the other hand, as a woman who breaks her faithfulness to her

husband and commits adultery is divorced by her husband, so also God
gives a decree of divorce to the adulterous church, that is, to the church
that pursues idolatry. Isa. 1:21: “How has the faithful city become a
whore?” Jer. 3:8: “Treacherous Judah” (the church in the kingdom of
Judah) “saw that when her sister Israel” (the church in the kingdom of
Israel) “commi ed adultery, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce;
and she did not fear, but she, too, went and played the whore,” etc.
(5) If one could infer that, since Christ is the Bridegroom of the church,
the church has free and absolute power to decide whatever it wishes and
also has the privilege of not erring, then the consequence would be that
the apostle in Ephesians 5 made a poor applica on of this analogy of
earthly and heavenly marriage. The consequence is absurd. Therefore the
antecedent is absurd too. The logical connec on is proved, because the
apostle says, “As the church is subject to Christ, so also wives are subject to
their husbands.”
Imagine if the church had the free and absolute power to decide
whatever it wishes as well as an absolute privilege of not erring. It will
follow that such power and privilege will also belong to wives in household
ma ers. Thus they will have free rein beyond the will of their husbands to
decide anything at all in their household according to their own will, to
annul the commands of their husbands, and even to do everything
according to their own pleasure. Surpassing obedience, however, is what
the apostle commanded for wives!
 (6) If one could infer that, since Christ is the Bridegroom of the church
and since the Holy Spirit rules the church, the church absolutely and simply
could not err, then the consequence would be that individual believers are
exempt from the danger of erring. The logic of the connec on is that Christ
is the Bridegroom of every faithful soul and that the Holy Spirit rules every
true believer. Our adversaries, however, deny the consequence. Therefore
they do not embrace the antecedent.
(7) If one could infer that, since Christ is the Bridegroom of the church
and since the Holy Spirit rules the church, the church, absolutely speaking,
cannot err, then the consequence would be that the church also cannot
sin. The logic of the connec on is that the danger of sinning against Christ
and the Holy Spirit seems to be excessively present no less than the danger
of erring. Just as Bellarmine concludes: “If the church erred in dogmas of
faith or behavior, error would be a ributed to Christ and the Holy Spirit,”
so with equal logic we can draw this conclusion: “If the church sinned, sin
would be a ributed to Christ and the Holy Spirit.”
(8) If one could rightly conclude that, since Christ is the Bridegroom of
the church and the Holy Spirit is its ruler, error cannot be a ributed to the
church, then it will follow that we cannot a ribute ignorance to the church
either. The logic of the connec on is obvious. You see, if, according to the
hypothesis of Bellarmine’s inference, error would be a ributed to Christ
Himself and to the Holy Spirit when the church is said to err, so also
ignorance would be a ributed to Christ Himself and to the Holy Spirit
when the church is said to be ignorant of anything. Yet our adversaries
concede that the church can sin and be ignorant of things, and this without
insult to Christ and the Holy Spirit. Therefore let them also admit that the
church can err, especially in those ma ers that are not simply necessary for
salva on.
(9) But Bellarmine objects: “Just as a man who is the head of a woman is
not obligated to remove all ignorance from his wife, yet is bound to
remove every error from which a great evil may arise, so also Christ is
bound to remove from the church every error from which great evil arises;
and such is every error about faith.”
We respond. Just as the church does not cease being the Bride of Christ
though it suffers with some blemishes of sins, so also it does not cease
being the church though it becomes ensnared in some errors. But if it
embraces errors that oppose the founda on, then it ceases being the
church. In this case, Christ is not bound to remove every error from the
church, just as a husband is not bound to remove from a rebellious and
stubborn wife an error from which some great evil may arise. 2 Thess.
2:11: “Because they did not accept the love of the truth, God will send
them the working of error.”
(10) Christ’s promise in John 16:13, “The Spirit of truth will lead you into
all truth,” belongs properly and principally to the apostles, who could not
err in the teaching of faith because they had the immediate assistance of
the Holy Spirit. This promise pertains to the rest of the faithful to the
extent that they adhere to and persist in the doctrine of the apostles alone,
set forth in Holy Scripture.
(11) Finally, is Christ the Head and Bridegroom only of the Roman
church? Does “being one Body, one Spirit” fit only the Roman church?
Absolutely not, but in a certain regard that fits all par cular churches. But
now, our adversaries admit that all par cular churches with the excep on
of the Roman church can err. Therefore from these statements they are
unable to elicit a special privilege of not erring; otherwise that would be
common to all par cular churches.

Third, [that] we are obligated to believe the church

§ 119. Let us produce Bellarmine’s third argument: “We are obligated
under the penalty of anathema to believe the church [credere ecclesiae] in
all things, as we see in Ma . 18[:17]: ‘If he refuses to listen to the church,
let him be to you as a Gen le and a publican.’ All the councils pronounce
an anathema against those who do not assent to the decrees of the
church. But it would be unjust to obligate anyone under so serious a
punishment to assent to ma ers that are uncertain and some mes false.”
We respond. (1) Christ’s statement in Ma . 18:17 speaks properly about
ecclesias cal censures and about the correc on of sins, not about the
teaching of faith. The context shows this. Christ says [Ma . 18:15–17]:
If your brother sins against you, go and reproach him between you and him alone. If he
listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others
along with you, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. But if he
does not listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he does not listen to the church, let him
be to you as a Gen le and a publican.
That is, such a stubborn person should be excommunicated from the
church, for He immediately adds: “Whatever you bind on earth will also be
bound in heaven.”
(2) We conclude from this further that Christ’s statement must be
understood to refer to any par cular church and, in fact, to the bishops
and leaders of any par cular church. Every par cular church and, in fact,
any leaders of a par cular church should be heard in their censures of
behavior. But now, it cannot be denied that par cular churches and the
leaders of a par cular church can err. Therefore in this respect, too, Christ’s
statement is unrelated to the proposed ques on.
Bellarmine, De verbo Dei, bk. 3, ch. 5, § 2: “The Lord is speaking about
the injus ces that one person suffers from another.” And later: “It is
impossible for those who sin to be brought to the gathering of all the
faithful. Therefore the word ‘church’ should be understood as a prelate, as
Chrysostom explains, or, as others prefer, a gathering of prelates.” In De
pon f. Rom., bk. 1, ch. 6, § 17, he disapproves of the opinion of those who
want to conclude from this statement that “the greatest tribunal of the
church has been established in the hands of all the faithful,” and he says,
“The word ‘church’ must be understood as a prelate.”
(3) Bellarmine will not dare deny that bishops can err in ecclesias cal
censures. Yet if, from this statement of Christ, one could deduce a privilege
of not erring, the consequence would be that bishops cannot err in those
censures.
Jerome, on Ma hew 16: “Bishops and presbyters who do not
understand that passage take some of the pride of the Pharisees, either
condemning the innocent or releasing those whom they think are guilty,
though, as far as God is concerned, it is not the sentence of priests but the
life of the guilty that is to be sought.” Lombard, Sent., 4, dist. 18, le er F:
“Here we see clearly that God does not always follow the judgment of the
church, which some mes passes judgment through ignorance and
deliberate misrepresenta on. God always judges according to truth.” Le er
H: “The sentence of the church harms those whom it strikes down
according to their merits. They are outside according to God’s sight.
However, he who has not deserved it is not harmed by the sentence of the
church, unless he holds it in contempt.” Origen, on Levi cus, homily 14:
 Has someone gone away from the truth, from faith, from love? By doing so, he has le the
camp of the church, even if the word of the bishop does not expel him. Likewise, it is also
true that one is put out of the gates by an incorrect judgment, but if he did not act in such a
way as to deserve expulsion, he is not harmed. For the one who is sent out is inside and the
one who is outside seems to be kept within.

(4) We willingly grant that one must listen to the church not only in
ecclesias cal censures but also in the teaching of faith, but we must add
that the church should listen to the voice of Christ, her Bridegroom. We are
bound to listen to the church insofar as the church listens to Christ. But if
she does not listen, we must prefer the voice of our heavenly Father to
those who usurp the name “church” for themselves but who depart from
the Word of the heavenly Father. Children are not obligated to follow the
command of their mother if that is contrary to the will of their father.
“The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; keep and do whatever
they tell you to keep,” says Christ in Ma . 23:2[–3]. He commands them to
listen to the scribes and Pharisees not absolutely in all things but insofar as
they sit in Moses’ seat, that is, insofar as they propose things that are in
harmony with Moses’ teaching. Elsewhere He commands them to beware
of their “leaven,” that is, of their false teaching (Ma . 16:11–12). So, too,
we should listen to the church, namely, in those ma ers that are devout
and holy and in harmony with the commandments of our heavenly Father.
If the church brings forth anything different from the teaching of Christ, to
this extent and in this respect we should not listen to her. Ma . 23:8: “You
are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for there is one teacher,” namely Christ. With
these words Christ explicitly forbids anyone from arroga ng to himself the
authority of wan ng people to have faith in him absolutely and simply in
spiritual ma ers and in the faith. The true church does not lord it over faith
(2 Cor. 1:24) but hears the voice of Christ and does not follow anyone else
(John 10:27). She sits at the feet of the master Christ alone and listens
reverently to His Word and complies with it obediently (Luke 10:39). In
fact, she is “built upon the founda on of the prophets and apostles” (Eph.
2:20). She always sets before herself the command of Christ in Ma . 28:
[20]: “Teach them to observe all that I have commanded you,” and the
apostle’s words in Gal. 1:8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven would
preach to you a gospel beyond what we preached to you, let him be
accursed.” A very beau ful type of this is set before us in Mary, who told
the servants at the wedding at Cana: “Do whatever He” (Christ) “tells you”
(John 2:5). That is the constant voice of the true church.
(5) Here belong the statements of the ancients by which they teach that
the church is bound to Holy Scripture. These statements will be listed
below [§ 138]. Augus ne, Epist. Joh., tractate 3: “Be aware that we ought
to believe there is the church [ecclesiam credere] but not believe in the
church [in ecclesiam credere]. The church is our mother, and her breasts
are the two Testaments of the Holy Scriptures. From them we suck the milk
of all the sacraments produced temporally for our salva on.” Rufinus,
Expos. symb.: “We do not say that we should ‘believe in the holy catholic
church’ [in sanctam ecclesiam catholicam] but that we should ‘believe
there is the holy church’ [sanctam ecclesiam credendum esse]. With this
preposi on [“in”] the Creator is dis nguished from creatures and divine
ma ers from human ones.”
(6) If councils propose decrees in conformity with Scripture, then when
they declare their anathemas they are not a ribu ng an absolute privilege
of not erring to themselves but to the Holy Scriptures, on whose authority
they depend. It is just as Bellarmine writes about the Council of Nicaea, De
concil., bk. 2, ch. 12, § 4: “When it defined Christ as being consubstan al
with the Father, it drew its conclusion from the Scriptures.” But if the
decrees of councils are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, or if councils
wanted to establish a new ar cle of faith beyond those that Scripture
contains, then those anathemas do not bind the children of the church. In
such a case what Tertullian says is applicable, Apologet., toward the end:
“We are grateful for your decisions, when there is a rivalry between a
divine and human ma er. While you condemn us, God is absolving us.”
Athanasius, De syn. Arim. et Seleuc., p. 673: “Holy Scripture is more
powerful than all councils.” Jerome, commentary on Gala ans 1: “It is the
Holy Spirit’s teaching that is published in the canonical wri ngs. If councils
decide anything against this, I consider them wicked.” Emperor Constan ne
told the fathers gathered at the Council of Nicaea: “We have the Gospels
and the apostolic books as well as the oracles of the ancient prophets.
They teach us with clarity what we must decide about anything spiritual.
Therefore being free of discord, which produces nothing but contempt, let
us take the solu on for our ques ons from the divinely inspired
statements.” See also Gelasius of Cyzicus, Act. conc. Nic., c. 5; and Hist.
tripart., bk. 2, ch. 5; etc.

Fourth, [that] the holiness of the church requires that

only what is holy be taught therein
§ 120. Let Bellarmine’s fourth argument follow here: “The Apostles’
Creed teaches that the church is holy. That holiness consists properly in the
confession of doctrines. Therefore the Chris an confession contains
nothing except what is holy, that is, as regards the teaching of faith, and
nothing except what is just as regards the precepts for behavior. In this it
really surpasses all the confessions of the heathen philosophers, of the
Jews, of here cs, for they all have some false doctrines mixed in with the
true.”
We respond. (1) The holiness of the church catholic contains far more
than the confession of doctrines. The church is called “holy”: (a) From its
principal efficient cause, because God sanc fies it through the Holy Spirit in
His Son, Christ (2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 5:26). (b) From its instrumental cause,
namely, the Word and Sacraments, for it is “called with a holy calling” (2
Tim. 1:9), “sanc fied in the truth of the Word” (John 17:17), “cleansed by
the washing of water in the Word” (Eph. 5:26). (c) From its formal cause,
namely, the holiness of Christ imputed through faith (Acts 15:9; 1 Cor.
1:30). (d) From its end, because it aims for and aspires to perfect holiness
(2 Cor. 7:1). (e) From its effects, namely, from holy works in this life (Luke
1:75). (f) From its objects, for it is occupied with holy ma ers. (g) From its
opposites, because it is dis nguished from secular and wicked assemblies,
etc.
(2) The Apostles’ Creed speaks properly about the invisible church
catholic, as the very sound of the words shows. This ques on, however,
involves a par cular visible church.
(3) This holiness of the church catholic is not removed even if the
ministry of the visible church is not pure and uncorrupted in every part.
This is because either the elect are not ensnared in those errors; or they
struggle out of them before they die; or, if some less serious errors cling to
them, those errors are destroyed in them by the fire of the cross and of
tempta ons.
 (4) Hence just as ci zens of the church are and are called holy even if
they are guilty of the sins of weakness and at mes are even “overtaken in
a fault” (Gal. 6:1), so also the church is and is called holy even if it
some mes errs and acts thoughtlessly, for example, in some less serious
ma ers. If the holiness of the church does not keep it from being able to
sin, much less will it keep it from being able to err. A er all, for holiness
more integrity of behavior is required than truthfulness of teaching. Many
people teach and confess sound things; yet because they are wicked
people, they cannot and should not be called saints.
(5) The Chris an confession contains nothing but the truth, namely,
insofar as it is such a confession and insofar as it conforms to its norm and
rule in all things, insofar as it follows its Author and canon (Deut. 4:2; Isa.
8:20; John 17:17; etc.). Meanwhile, just as a spring draws something from
the ground past which it flows, so also those who confess faith in the
Chris an church generally a ract something from the errors and
corrup ons of their mes.

Fifth, [that] if the church could err, dogmas of faith

would be called into doubt
§ 121. Bellarmine’s fi h argument goes as follows:
If the church could err in those things that are not necessary for salva on, then a very great
part of the dogmas of faith could be called into doubt. There are many [dogmas] of faith
that are not absolutely necessary for salva on. Indeed, to believe that the accounts of the
Old Testament or that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are canonical wri ngs—in fact, to
believe that there are any divine Scriptures—is not absolutely essen al for salva on, for
many have been saved without this faith before Scripture was wri en; and a erward, in the
me of the New Testament, many barbarian na ons were saved without it. About them, see
Irenaeus, bks. 3 and 4. Yet this is very absurd. We ought by no means admit that one can
have doubts about the Scriptures.

We respond. (1) This is a refuta on of the consequence. You see, this

does not follow: “The en re church does not err universally in ma ers
necessary for salva on; therefore it does not err in all the rest.”
(2) Before the Scriptures were published, it was not necessary for
salva on to believe that there were some divine Scriptures. On the other
hand, a er they were published, we must make a dis nc on between
simple ignorance and stubborn denial. To believe that there are some
divine Scriptures is not simply and absolutely necessary for salva on,
especially if that proceeds from honest ignorance, because many have
been saved who embraced the essen al parts or fundamentals of the
Chris an faith though they were ignorant that there were some divine
Scriptures. But if anyone, a er the publishing of Holy Scripture, wants to
deny stubbornly that there are any divine Scriptures, he becomes a here c
and is excluded from the possession of salva on.
(3) When the church bears witness that there are some Holy Scriptures
and that the Gospels of Mark and Luke are canonical wri ngs, in this it
neither errs nor can err, because it is following the canon of truth and is
paying a en on to the internal criteria, which tes fy to the divine and
canonical authority of those books, to which the tes mony of the Holy
Spirit is added. He “tes fies that the Spirit” (that is, the oracles published
by the Holy Spirit and the books wri en by the inspira on of the Holy
Spirit) “is the truth” (1 John 5:6). Therefore when we believe that these
Scriptures are divine and canonical, we are not following only the authority
and tes mony of the church. Instead, we add the internal criteria, and we
perceive in our heart the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Sixth, [that] the fathers appeal to the church

§ 122. Bellarmine looks for his sixth and final argument “from the
tes monies of the fathers who appeal to the church in ques ons of faith.”
He cites Tertullian, De praescript.; Augus ne, Contra Crescon., bk. 1, ch. 33,
and Le er 118.
We respond. (1) Those par cular churches to which the fathers
appealed at that me s ll held to the integrity of faith. Today, however,
some of these have totally fallen away. They s ll survive, but they have
gone very far away from their original integrity and from the catholic and
apostolic faith.
(2) Not all the fathers appeal to the church, nor in all ques ons, nor
when arguing against all adversaries. Far more fathers, including those
whose tes monies we cite, appeal more frequently to Scripture, as will be
apparent from their statements in the ques on of the marks of the church
[§ 138]. When they argue against those who denied or corrupted the
canon of Scripture, then they appeal to the churches in which the
Scriptures have been preserved through succession from the apostles. But
when they argue against those who neither remove nor corrupt the canon
of Scripture, they appeal to the Scriptures primarily, and they add the
tes mony of the church secondarily and less principally.
Augus ne, Cont. Maxim. Arian., bk. 3, ch. 14:
I should not hold forth the Council of Nicaea nor should you hold forth the Council of
Ariminum as if either of us would judge beforehand. I am not bound by the authority of the
la er, nor are you bound by that of the former. Let ma er dispute with ma er, case with
case, reason with reason on the basis of the authori es of the Scriptures—not on the basis
of the private authority of one side but with witnesses common to both.

Cont. duas epist. Pelag., bk. 4, ch. 8:

Because the church of Christ, both Western and Eastern, has shuddered at the profane,
novel words of the Pelagians, I believe that it is a ma er of our concern not only to apply the
sacred canonical Scriptures as witnesses against them, which we have already done
sufficiently, but also to set forth examples from the wri ngs of the saints who handled
Scripture earlier with very widespread fame and great glory. Not that I would put the
authority of any controversialist on a level with the canonical books—as if there were
nothing that is be er or more truly thought by one catholic than by another who likewise is
a catholic—but that those may be admonished who think that these men say anything as it
used to be said by catholic bishops following the divine oracles before their new, empty talk
on these subjects, and that they may know that the true and anciently established catholic
faith is defended by us against the recent presump on and destruc on of the Pelagian
here cs.

Contra Dona stas, bk. 2, ch. 3:

Who could be unaware that the canonical Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments is
contained within its own definite limits and is set so far ahead of all the later wri ngs of
bishops that no one can have any doubts about it nor debate at all about whether anything
wri en in it is true or correct? The wri ngs of bishops, which they have wri en or will write
a er the canon was established, may be censured through the wiser speech of anyone who
has greater experience in that ma er, or through the greater authority and wisdom of other
more learned bishops, and through councils, if anything is perhaps in them that has
deviated from the truth, etc.

(3) Tertullian (De praescript.) says: “Look! All the churches have erred!”
He is speaking about the churches that the apostles had founded and that
were s ll preserving the integrity of apostolic teaching, as is clear from the
en re context.
When Augus ne writes in Cont. Cresc., bk. 1, ch. 33: “The church must
be consulted, whom the Scriptures’ authority commends,” he is speaking
about the ques on he was handling at that me, namely, about not
rebap zing those whom here cs had bap zed. He appeals to the church
neither primarily nor principally but only a er he had shown the church’s
judgment from the Scriptures. He says: “Although an example of this
situa on is not provided from the canonical Scriptures, yet we hold to the
truth of these same Scriptures even in this ma er.” In Le er 118 he speaks
of adiaphora. In such ma ers we do not disagree that one must follow the
common custom of the church.

Whether the representative church can err

§ 123. Toward the end of the chapter Bellarmine intends to prove that
“the representa ve church” cannot err.
If all the bishops erred, the en re church would err because the people are bound to follow
their pastors, since the Lord says in Luke 10[:16]: “The one who hears you hears Me,” and
Ma . 23[:3]: “Do whatever they say.” In the le er of the Council of Ephesus to Nestorius,
Nestorius is compelled to confirm by an oath, if he wishes to sa sfy the church, that he
thinks the same way as do the bishops of the East and West. Augus ne (De bapt., bk. 1, ch.
18) calls a decree of a general council “the consensus of the en re church,” and deservedly.
The church neither teaches nor decrees anything except through its pastors, just as any
body does through its head. Thus in 1 Kings 8[:14] the gathering of priests and elders is
called “all the church of Israel.”

We respond. (1) The Papists take “representa ve church” to mean

bishops gathered in councils. The ques on, then, pertains properly to the
controversy concerning councils.
(2) Not even Bellarmine himself denies that bishops assembled in
councils, that is, the representa ve church, can err, for he says: “Only then
do councils not err: if the instruc on, confirma on, and authority of the
Roman pon ff is added.” Therefore Bellarmine would do be er and would
follow a much shorter road if he would get rid of those circumlocu ons
and refer us back to the shrine of the pope’s heart.
(3) It is false to say that “the en re church errs if the bishops in councils
err,” because the gathering of the faithful belongs to the church, too, and
God can save for Himself a holy seed and some elect even when the public
corrup ons spread in the ministry of the visible church. “Some mes the
ears of the hearers are purer than the lips of the teachers.”
(4) The people are obligated to follow their pastors not absolutely and
simply in all things but to the extent that the pastors follow the voice of
Christ, the chief shepherd. Christ’s sheep “hear His voice and follow Him”
(John 10:27). They do not listen to a stranger.
(5) This limita on is proved very obviously from Ma . 23:2[–3]. The
scribes and Pharisees to whom Christ orders us to listen were mixing the
“leaven of errors” and corrup ons with the pure teaching of Moses and
the prophets. Christ commands us to “beware” of that in Ma . 16:11. He
therefore is commanding us to listen to them insofar as they sit on the seat
of Moses, that is, insofar as they teach in conformity with the teaching of
Moses. Biel, Sent., 4, dist. 1, q. 4, art. 3: “We must not despise the advice
of prelates that is true unless they have spoken against God’s Law. When
they give such a command, they are not si ng on the seat of Moses, for
those things do not proceed from the seat of Moses, that is, from his
teaching, but from the seat of pes lence [Ps. 1:1].”
(6) The fathers of the Council of Ephesus compelled Nestorius to swear
that he did not think differently than the bishops of the East and West. But
from this it by no means follows that they simply cannot err, but instead
that in this ma er they did not err. Augus ne (De bapt., bk. 1, ch. 18)
correctly calls a decree of a general council “the consensus of the universal
church,” namely, if all the churches that are in all the world sent some
people to that council. However, one cannot infer from this that the
representa ve church or councils cannot err, because not even Bellarmine
himself frees general councils from the danger of erring. He says, De pont.
Rom., bk. 4, ch. 3, § Contra: “It is evident that general councils have o en
erred when they did not have the approval of the supreme pon ff, as we
see from the Second Council of Ephesus, the Council of Ariminum, and
others.”
(7) In 1 Kings 8, not only the priests and elders but also the leaders and
very many of the people had gathered about Solomon, as is clear from v. 5:
“King Solomon and all the mul tude of Israel, who had come to him, went
with him before the ark.” Verses 65–66: “So Solomon held the feast at that
me, and all Israel with him, a great mul tude, from the entrance of
Hamath to the Brook of Egypt; and on the eighth day he sent the people
away.”

We show that the Roman church can err

 § 124. These things have been said in regard to the ques on of whether
the church can err. Now, all the things that Bellarmine here argues have to
do finally with the no on that the Roman church cannot err. They call it
alone “catholic.” They a ribute the privilege of not erring solely to it alone
because the Roman pon ff, the vicar of Christ and successor of Peter,
presides over it. Therefore we must demonstrate specifically that the
Roman church can err. We proceed in this way:

First, because it is a particular church

(I) No par cular church is exempt from the danger of erring. The Roman
church is a par cular church. Whether you take the name “Roman church”
to mean the church that is gathered in the city of Rome or the one that is
a ached to the Roman pon ff, you cannot deny that the Roman church is a
par cular church. You see, one cannot demonstrate that all churches of the
en re world were ever a ached to the Roman pon ff at one me.
Therefore the Roman church is not exempt from the danger of erring.
Bellarmine makes the excep on, De Rom. pon f., bk. 4, ch. 3: “The
nature of the Roman church is different from that of the other par cular
churches because Christ prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail (Luke
22:32).” He explains this as follows: “Christ prayed for the Roman see,
because He prayed for Peter and for the successors of those whose throne
was going to be established at Rome.”
We respond. (1) Bellarmine himself admits in the next chapter, ch. 4: “It
is not taken from either Scripture or tradi on that the apostolic see is so
a ached to Rome that it could not be transferred away from there.”
Therefore even if it were granted that Christ prayed for Peter’s see in this
way, that his successors could not err in the faith, it would s ll not yet be
proved that the Roman church cannot err. Here are Bellarmine’s words:
One must observe that “The Roman church cannot err” can be taken in two ways: in one
way, that it cannot err so long as the apostolic see remains at Rome, but it could, if the see
were removed from there; in the other way, that it simply cannot err nor fall away because
the apostolic see can never be transferred from Rome to somewhere else. Surely, according
to the first opinion our proposi on is u erly true. Popes and martyrs Lucius and Felix, popes
and confessors Agatho and Nicholas, as well as Cyril and Rufinus, declared that not only the
pope but also the Roman church could not err. According to the second opinion, however,
that the Roman church cannot fall away, that is certainly a pious and very probable opinion.
Yet it is not so certain that the contrary could be called here cal or manifestly erroneous. It
 is clear that the ques on of whether the apostolic see can be separated from the Roman
church is not absolutely a ma er of faith, because neither Scripture nor tradi on holds that
the apostolic see is so a ached to Rome that it cannot be removed from there.

Those are Bellarmine’s words. Yet if “The see of Peter is so fixed to Rome
that it cannot be moved to somewhere else” is not a ma er of faith, then
surely “The Roman church cannot err” also will not be a ma er of faith, for
the privilege of not erring depends solely on that see.
(2) In the same place, Bellarmine explains “The Roman church cannot
err” in such a way that it could be a ributed to any par cular church. He
says:
We must note that the firmness of the Roman church in a ma er of faith should be taken in
one sense and the firmness of the pope in another. The pope cannot err with a judicial error,
that is, while he is judging and defining a ques on of faith. But the Roman church, that is,
the people and clergy of Rome, cannot err with a personal error in such a way that all of
them would err and there would remain in the Roman church no faithful people, no people
connected to the pope.

Yet no church ever errs in such a way that no faithful people remain in it,
for otherwise it would fall away completely and no longer be church. No
here cal bishop was able to infect everyone in the church entrusted to him
with his heresy in such a way that no one among the people remained
faithful. As long as the sacrament of Bap sm and some chief parts of faith
are retained, a church is being gathered to God even in the midst of the
assembly of a here cal synagogue.
(3) I hear Christ praying for Peter. I do not hear Him praying here
specifically for the Roman pon ffs nor for the Roman church. “The Lord
told Peter alone: ‘I have prayed for thee.’ He did not say this to Peter and a
council,” says Bellarmine, De pon fice, bk. 4, ch. 3, § Respondent. Again:
“The Lord designated only one person when He said twice: ‘Simon, Simon,’
and when He also added the pronoun of the second person [singular] so
many mes: ‘for thee,’ ‘thy faith,’ ‘thou,’ ‘thy brothers.’ Why would He do
this except to make us understand that Christ gained something special for
Peter?” Bellarmine writes this in the same book and chapter, § Quae
exposi o. But if Christ’s prayer concerned Peter alone, what can the Roman
pon ff or the Roman church claim of that for themselves?
(4) The asser on that Christ prayed for Peter in such a way that he as
pon ff could never teach anything against the faith and that no one would
ever be found on his papal throne teaching contrary to the faith is without
any proof. Christ nowhere established Peter as a pon ff or monarch of the
church. Peter did not erect a papal see at Rome, nor did he preside over it.
The Roman popes are not the genuine successors of Peter because their
teaching and behavior are totally different than Peter’s teaching and
behavior. Instead, this is what Christ obtained for Peter with His prayer:
that his faith would not fail at the end but that he would be converted,
li ed up again from the serious fall of his denial, and would be able to
strengthen others.
(5) Bellarmine is a marvelous master who knows how to elicit from this
statement of Christ such diverse privileges for his pope and for the Roman
church. “Christ prayed for Peter that his faith would not fail,” that is, in the
first place, that Peter would err neither judicially nor personally. Then,
Christ prayed that his successors on the papal see, namely, the popes,
would not err judicially but they could err personally. Finally, He prayed
that the Roman church would not err personally, or by personal error. But
who could extract this sense from Christ’s words even with a hundred
dis lleries? These are nothing but word tricks—interpre ng one and the
same passage now about Peter, now about the pope, now about the
Roman church, and in fact interpre ng the same passage in one way about
Peter, in another way about the pope, and in s ll another way about the
Roman church.
(6) Let us grant that Christ prayed for Peter and his successors, the
Roman popes. What does this have to do with the Roman church?
According to Bellarmine’s hypothesis, it is not the Roman church but the
bishop of Rome who is Peter’s successor. Therefore even if this prayer of
Christ had gained some absolute infallibility for the Roman pon ff, that
infallibility would not extend to the Roman church. Just as any par cular
church could depart from its bishop, so the Roman church could depart
from its pope. In this way, according to Bellarmine’s hypothesis, it certainly
would err, because “infallibility exists in the pope alone.”

Second, the church is warned to provide no opportunity

for errors
 § 125. So, then, we go on to argue: (II) Whatever church the apostle
warns gravely not to provide opportunity for errors is not immune to the
peril of erring. Such admoni ons would be repeated in vain if some
absolute promise had been given to it. Yet the apostle gravely warns the
Roman church not to provide an opportunity for errors or for seducers
(Rom. 11:20ff.; 16:17). Therefore the Roman church is not immune to the
peril of erring.

Third, it actually does err

(III) Whatever church departs from the purity of the apostolic faith and
its own original integrity, that church not only can err but also does err
gravely. The Roman church today has departed from the purity of the
apostolic faith and its own original integrity. Therefore it not only can err
but also does err gravely. The minor premise is very clear from a
comparison of the dogmas of the Roman faith today with the wri ngs of
the apostles. Here we shall compare some of those dogmas with Paul’s
le er that he wrote to the original Roman church.
In the ar cle on Scripture
(1) Concerning the Gospel that the apostle preached and later put into
wri ng he says, Rom. 1:16: “It is the power [of God] for salva on to
everyone who believes”; and in Rom. 15:4 he expressly declares:
“Whatever was wri en was wri en for our instruc on, that by the
encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.” Yet the Roman
church today calls Scripture “a dead le er, a Lesbic rule, which cannot tell
what its meaning is and which is imperfect and obscure unless tradi ons
are added to it.” The apostle addressed his le er “to all in Rome, beloved
by God and called saints,” that is, not only to the pastors but also to the
hearers (Rom. 1:7). The Roman church today, however, bans the laity from
reading Scripture. The apostle makes the Word, first preached orally by the
apostles and later reduced to Scripture by the will of God, the standard for
the last judgment: “God will judge the secrets of men according to my
Gospel through Christ Jesus” (Rom. 2:16). But if on that stern Day of
Judgment Holy Scripture will be able to be the norm and standard, what
sort of duty could it perform also in this life? The Roman church today,
however, denies that prophe c and apostolic Scripture is the total rule of
faith. Throughout that en re Epistle the apostle appeals constantly to the
prophe c Scripture of the Old Testament and succeeds in proving very
clearly that his doctrine “has the witness of the Law and the prophets.” In
Acts 28:23 he persuades the Chris ans living in Rome about Jesus from the
“Law of Moses and from the prophets.” The Roman church today, however,
cannot demonstrate that consensus of its teaching with the prophe c and
apostolic wri ngs. In fact, it explicitly admits that it believes many things
that are outside that canon. Also, it calls others who follow the Holy
Scriptures “inkpot theologians.”
Original sin
(2) In regard to original sin Paul teaches in the Epistle to the Romans
that it is a terrible corrup on of all human powers propagated from Adam
to all his descendants, that it is not only the loss of a good but also a
posi ve evil clinging most closely in [human] nature, that it has rooted
itself so deeply in human nature that it cannot be completely uprooted
even in the reborn so long as they are s ll living in this world. Rom. 5:12:
“Through one man sin came into this world.” Verse [19]: “Through the
disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” Rom. 7:14: “I am
carnal, sold under sin.” Verse 18: “I know that good does not dwell within
me, that is, in my flesh.” Verses 22–24: “I delight in the Law of God
according to the inward man, but I see in my members another law at war
with the law of my mind and making me cap ve to the law of sin.
Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this
death?” But the Roman church today believes and speaks quite coldly
about original sin, namely, that it is not sin “except inappropriately and
analogically speaking”; that it is “less than the smallest venial sin”; that it is
“only the loss of a supernatural gi , for the natural gi s have remained in
man completely”; that “through Bap sm everything is taken away in the
reborn that has the true and proper nature of sin.” The apostle not just
once but several mes clearly calls corrupt concupiscence “sin.” He
circumscribes it in such a way that it can only mean sin in the true and
proper sense. Rom. 7:7–8: “If it had not been for the Law, I would not have
known sin. I would not have known what concupiscence is if the Law had
not said, ‘You shall not covet [non concupisces].’ But sin, finding
opportunity in the commandment, worked in me all concupiscence,” etc.
But the Roman church of today decrees in the Council of Trent that
concupiscence is called “sin” by the apostle “not because it is truly and
properly sin in the reborn but because it comes from sin and leads toward
sin.”
Free choice
(3) Regarding free choice the apostle instructs the Roman church of his
me as follows. Rom. 8:7: “The fleshly mind [φρόνημα σαρκὸς] is enmity
against God,” and indeed cannot be subject to the Law of God. He also
shows by his own example that not even the reborn can accomplish
anything good from their own natural strength. He says, “Willing is present
with me, but I do not find the accomplishing” [Rom. 7:18]. In v. [23] he
complains that he is being made a prisoner under the law of sin. The
Roman church today, however, teaches that “some powers remain in man
with which he may dispose himself for future conversion and by which he
may assent to and cooperate with God in that work of conversion.”

The divine Law

(4) As regards the divine Law, the apostle teaches the ancient Roman
church that it is so weakened by the flesh that in the weakness of this life
we cannot fulfill it perfectly (Rom. 8:3), and he makes this clear with his
own example, Rom. 7:14: “We know that the Law is spiritual; but I am
carnal, sold under sin.” Verses 18–20: “Willing is present with me, but I do
not find the accomplishing; for I do not do the good I want, but the evil
that I do not want, that I do. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I
that do it but sin that dwells within me.” Verse 25: “With my mind I serve
the Law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” The Roman
church today, however, “says that he is accursed who teaches that it is
impossible for a jus fied man established under grace to observe the
commandments of God.” In fact, in today’s Roman church it is certain that
“we can do more than the divine Law requires of us.” This is why there are
debates about evangelical councils, works of supereroga on, the state of
perfec on, etc.

The Gospel
 (5) As regards the Gospel, the apostle teaches in Rom. 3:21–22 that “the
righteousness of God is manifested in it without the Law through faith, that
is, of Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe.” From this we conclude
unshakably that, properly and precisely speaking, the Gospel is the
teaching of faith that teaches that in Christ alone we are jus fied before
God without the Law and without the works of the Law, through faith. The
Roman church today, however, teaches that “the Gospel is not only the
teaching of faith but is also the teaching of works.”

Jus fica on
(6) Regarding jus fica on, it was the confession of the early Roman
church that “all are sinners and lack the glory of God, but are jus fied by
His grace freely through the redemp on that is in Christ Jesus, whom God
set forth as a propi a on through faith in His blood, to show righteousness
through the remission of former sins” (Rom. 3:23–25); and briefly, that
“man is jus fied through faith without the works of the Law” (v. 28). But
the Roman church of today condemns this doctrine of jus fica on through
faith alone in Christ without works of the Law, and rages wildly with fire
and sword against its confessors. The apostle explains that the word
“jus fy” is a judicial and forensic word, for he places it in opposi on to
“condemna on” (Rom. 5:18). Today’s Roman church, however, follows a
gramma cal composi on and explains “jus fying” as “making just by
infusing the habit of jus ce [or righteousness].” The apostle establishes
jus fica on in the remission of sins. Rom. 4:7–8: “Blessed are those whose
iniqui es are forgiven and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man
against whom the Lord does not impute his sin.” The Roman church today,
however, places jus fica on not only in the remission of sins (which it
explains as the total aboli on of sin, not, with the apostolic expression, of
nonimputa on), but also in the infusion of habitual righteousness. The
apostle teaches in Rom. 4:5 that righteousness is imputed to us “by faith
without works”; but Bellarmine, a cardinal in today’s Roman church, laughs
at this imputa on of righteousness. The apostle excludes from the act of
jus fica on all works, even of the regenerate. Rom. 4:2–5: “If Abraham
was jus fied by works, he has something to boast about, but not before
God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was
reckoned to him as righteousness.’ Now to one who works, his wages are
not imputed according to grace but according to obliga on. But to one
who does not work but trusts Him who jus fies the ungodly, his faith is
reckoned as righteousness.” The Roman church today, however,
anathema zes anyone who wants to exclude the works of the reborn from
the act of jus fica on. In the act of jus fica on the apostle opposes grace
and works to each other in Rom. 11:6, but the theologians of the Roman
church consider them as subordinates.

Faith
(7) Regarding faith, the apostle teaches that it is the “full assurance”
[πληροφορία, Heb. 10:22] and certain confidence of the heart, for he
commands us to “follow the footsteps of the faith that was in Abraham”
(Rom. 4:12). Later he describes this as follows: “In hope he believed against
hope; he did not weaken in faith when he considered his own dead body;
he did not waver in unbelief concerning the promise of God, but,
strengthened by faith, he gave glory to God, knowing fully that He who had
promised was powerful to do it too” (Rom. 4:18–21). In regard to this faith
he teaches that its fruit is peace and joy of conscience. Rom. 5:1: “Having
been jus fied by faith, we have peace toward God through our Lord Jesus.”
The Roman church today, however, fights for perpetual doubt about the
grace of God and the forgiveness of sins and completely rejects this “full
assurance” of faith. The apostle teaches in Rom. 8:16–17: “The Spirit
Himself bears tes mony to our spirit that we are the children of God, and if
children, then heirs.” The Roman church today, however, speaks directly
against this internal tes mony of the Holy Spirit when it decrees in the
Council of Trent: “If anyone says that a man is absolved of his sins and is
jus fied by believing with certainty that he is absolved and jus fied; or if
anyone says that no one is jus fied unless he believes that he is jus fied,
and that by this faith alone absolu on and jus fica on are accomplished,
let him be accursed.” The apostle writes explicitly in Rom. 14:23:
“Whatever is not of faith is sin”; and he also says in Rom. 10:[17]: “Faith
comes from hearing, and hearing [comes] through the Word of God.” He
therefore disapproves of all worship that is established outside the Word
from a good inten on. The Roman church today, however, approves of
such worship and self-chosen services [ἐθελοθρησκείαι] and, in fact, even
ascribes the merit of the forgiveness of sins to them.

Good works
(8) Regarding good works, the apostle teaches that they were previously
owed to God. “We are debtors not to the flesh, to live according to the
flesh” (Rom. 8:12:). “Owe no one anything, except to love one another”
(Rom. 13:8). He also teaches that good works are imperfect and
contaminated with the stain of sin that clings to them. Rom. 7:14: “The
Law is spiritual, but I am carnal.” Verse 21: “Evil clings to me, the one who
wants to do good.” Verse 25: “With my mind I serve the Law of God, but
with my flesh I serve the law of sin.” From this we draw the unshakable
conclusion that no merit in the proper sense can be ascribed to the good
works of the reborn. The Roman church today, however, contends for the
merits of works and fights fiercely not so much for altars as for hearths.
The apostle says: “The wages of sin” (or of evil works) “is death, but the
free gi (χάρισμα) of God is eternal life through and because of Christ”
(Rom. 6:23). With this clear contrast the apostle is teaching that eternal life
is not a wage owed to good works, as damna on is the due wage of sins or
evil works. Rather, eternal life is the free gi of God given to us in Christ
and because of Him. The Roman church today, however, con nually
declares the following: “Evil works condemn meritoriously; therefore good
works also save meritoriously.” As the norm of good works the apostle
established the Law of God. When he was going to encourage the reborn
to pursue good works, he sends them to the Law (Rom. 13:8ff.). A er he
had said that he “desired to do good according to the inward man,” he
added that he “delights in the Law of God” (Rom. 7:22). But the Roman
church today a ributes the praise of goodness even to those works that
are done out of a good intent, even if they are not prescribed in the Law.
The apostle denies clearly that through the doctrine of free jus fica on
through faith in Christ without the works of the Law the reins are loosened
for a dissolute life and that the pursuit of good works is dulled, wri ng:
“What shall we say then? Are we to con nue in sin that grace may
abound? By no means. How can we who died to sin s ll live in it?” (Rom.
6:1–2). The Roman church today, however, is mo vated by an absurd fear
that the pursuit of good works will weaken if it teaches that such works
have been excluded from the act of jus fica on.

The Sacraments
(9) In regard to the Sacraments the apostle teaches that they are “seals”
of grace that have been added to the Gospel promises to strengthen our
faith. He thus calls circumcision “the seal of the righteousness of faith”
(Rom. 4:11). The Roman church today, however, denies this purpose of the
Sacraments that consists of the sealing of promises and the strengthening
of faith.

The church
(10) The apostle defines the holy church of Christ on earth as the
assembly of those whom God has “predes ned, called, jus fied, and
glorified” (Rom. 8:30). The Romanists, however, condemned and burned
John Huss at the Council of Constance because he defined the church as
“the assembly of the predes ned.” The apostle teaches in Rom. 11:1ff. that
God preserves for Himself an invisible church of the elect, even if the
public ministry of the visible church is corrupted. But the present-day
Romanists completely reject this doctrine. Because papal errors in earlier
centuries inundated the church like a flood, they want to conclude that the
consequence of this would be that the church of God would surely have
perished if the dignity and praises of the true church were not given to the
Roman church. The apostle establishes Christ alone as the Head and
Bridegroom of the church. Rom. 12:5: “So we, though many, are one Body
in Christ and individually members one of another.” Rom. 7:2: “Thus a
woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives; but if her
husband dies, she is freed from the law of her husband.” Verse 4: “So also
you have died to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you may
belong to another, to Him who has risen from the dead.” The Roman
church today, however, acknowledges the Roman pon ff as its head and
bridegroom. The Romanists teach that Peter sat on the papal throne at
Rome for twenty-five years, and on him they lay the founda on for the
papal succession. But when, in the list of the saints whom the apostle bids
them to greet (Rom. 16:3ff.), he states the names of the brethren of lower
condi on, who would believe that he would have omi ed Peter from that
list if he had been at Rome or had been presiding on the papal throne at
that me?

Poli cal magistracy

(11) The apostle wanted everyone without excep on, regardless of his
condi on or estate, to be subject to the civil magistracy. Rom. 13:1: “Let
every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but from
God.” Chrysostom comments on this passage as follows: “He shows that he
is giving these commands to all people, including priests and monks, not
only to the laity. He makes this clear from the very beginning when he says,
‘Let every soul be subject to the higher powers,’ even if you are an apostle
or evangelist or prophet, or whoever you may be, for that subjec on does
not subvert godliness.” But the head and monarch of the present-day
Roman church, the Roman pon ff, holds himself above all kings and
emperors. In fact, he has even dared to emancipate the en re mob of his
clergy from the power of the civil magistracy.

The invoca on of the saints

(12) With a brief but powerful aphorism the apostle overthrows the
invoca on of the saints when he writes in Rom. 10:14: “How shall they call
upon Him in whom they have not believed?” Here he joins invoca on and
the trust of the heart by an unbreakable connec on. But now, the trust of
the heart must be placed in no one except God alone. Jer. 17:5: “Cursed is
he who trusts in man.” Hence the honor of invoca on is owed to God
alone. The Roman church today, however, fights bi erly for the invoca on
of the saints.
This comparison between the apostolic dogmas set forth to the ancient
Roman church and the errors of the Roman church of today could be
established in other ar cles as well. Yet from those that have been given so
far, I think it is very clear that the Roman church of today has gone quite far
away from its original integrity and from the purity of the apostolic faith
(so that one may exclaim correctly with the poet: “In the midst of Rome is
found nothing of Rome”). Hence people declare with great audacity and
rashness that the Roman church cannot err, because it is obvious that it
has actually erred many mes.
Accordingly, Pierre d’Ailly, cardinal of Cambrai, publicly confessed in the
Council of Constance: “For a long me now the Roman church has been
deformed in many ways. It has needed and especially now needs to be
reformed in faith and behavior.” Nicolaus de Clemangis wrote a book De
corrupto ecclesiae Romanae statu [“On the Corrupt State of the Roman
Church”]. In the Diet of Nuremberg, Adrian VI through his legates
confessed this very same thing, as we shall show later in greater detail [§§
167, 262]. But why are we bringing up more recent authors? Several
centuries ago Jerome a acked the Roman priests in his commentary on
Jeremiah 2 and in Le er 85 ad Evagrium: “But you ask: ‘How is a presbyter
ordained at Rome at the tes mony of a deacon? Why do you offer me the
custom of a single city? Why do you claim a lack, about which pride has
developed, against the laws of the church?’ ” Eusebius, Eccles. hist., bk. 5,
ch. 20: “During the same me, in the city of Rome, several people were
upse ng the rule of the ecclesias cal tradi on through various novel es.”
But who in the world would believe that those corrup ons have not
increased over the course of so many centuries?
Chapter X: On the Marks of the Church in
General
§ 126. Now that we have spoken about the efficient and material causes
of the church, it remains for us to go on to the formal cause, which consists
of the marks and iden fiers of the church.
** The Pho nian Andr. Radeccius writes in his notes on the book of
Smiglecius that he calls Refuta o dissolu onis nodi sui Gordii, p. 57:
“Nowhere does Christ command us to know the signs of the church.” And
later: “Today, arguments about the church are nearly infinite. Those that
the Papists have s rred up are completely me-was ng and useless, unless
someone by chance says they are useful for this purpose: that one may
learn what things are useless,” etc. “Our people have already
demonstrated elsewhere that there can be no signs of the church.”
Pisecius, Resp. ad 10. rat. Camp., p. 109: “Do you ask for the marks of the
church? I will give you one from Bellarmine: the holiness of its teaching.
That is, it contains nothing false as regards faithfulness of doctrine, and
nothing unjust as regards faithfulness of behavior. We acknowledge this
one true form of the church, from which the true church of Christ is
proved.” Page 110:
If there is any proof by which to show the verity of the church, it must be drawn from the
true, proper, and necessary causes and signs that always accompany the church. What will
you conclude from common, con ngent marks, which are temporary? Once the material of
the church, that is, the people, has been granted, there is nothing in the church more
proper, necessary, and perpetual besides the essen al cause, which is the holiness of its
teaching.

Of the Arminians, Episcopius writes, Disp. priv. de no s eccles., ch. 2:

Because every mark should always be be er known than the ma er itself whose mark it is
and for which, as some obscure and unknown thing, it is used to mark, that person who
rightly understands what salutary doctrine is lacks absolutely nothing for being able to
recognize the church. What is le , then, is that no marks can be provided, or there is no
need for any to be provided, by which one may recognize the church.

Thesis 5: “We claim that it is impossible for those to be the circumstances

through which, as through marks, one reaches a definite and infallible
recogni on of the true church.” Thesis 6: “In fact, what is more, we believe
that this ques on of assigning definite infallible marks beyond the
profession of salutary doctrine was the chief step through which the solid
knowledge of the true church or of a salutary doctrine was cast down and
the throne of the An christ was set up and exalted. In fact, we do not
hesitate to declare that a complete ignorance of the truth was introduced.”
**
Surely, the ques on about the marks of the church is worthy of careful
treatment because the hinge of salva on turns on it, so that we may
recognize the true church, join ourselves to it once we have recognized it,
and persevere in it a er we have joined it. First, we will set forth the
explana on and founda ons of our posi on, and later we shall see about
the posi on and founda ons of our adversaries.
Our posi on is that the pure preaching of the Word and legi mate
administra on of the Sacraments are the marks of the true church. In
order that this posi on of ours may be more clear, one should observe the
following parts.
(I) Some marks are proper and essen al, and some are common and
accidental. The former are principles and proximate and adequate causes
of the thing that cons tute the thing. Thus they are perpetual, proper,
essen al, and infallible marks. Wherever we discover them, we can declare
with certainty that we recognize the thing they mark. You see, to know a
thing is to recognize it through its causes, as the Philosopher teaches
(Posterior., bk. 2, ch. 11, text 11). The la er, on the other hand, are external
signs and accidents that stand around [circumstant] the thing externally
and happen [accidunt] to it commonly. Hence these marks are common
and accidental and, because of this, also decep ve. The former provide
dis nct and certain knowledge; the la er, confused and uncertain
knowledge. Dis nct knowledge arises from principles that are be er
known by nature, while a confused knowledge arises from commonly
happening things [acciden bus] that are be er known with regard to us.
Now, in this place we are looking for the proper and essen al marks of the
church, which we say are the pure preaching of the Word and the
legi mate administra on of the Sacraments. The marks that the Papists
assign—the name “catholic,” mul tude, succession, temporal felicity, etc.
—are not proper and essen al marks but common and accidental ones,
and thus also decep ve. Our adversaries cannot deny this completely, for
Bellarmine writes (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 3, § 1): “The marks that we will
bring forward indeed do not make it clearly true that the” (Roman) “church
is the true church of God. Yet they do make it clearly credible. To be clearly
true and clearly credible are not the same. Something is called clearly true
if it is seen in itself or in its principles. Something is called clearly credible if
it is seen neither in itself nor in its principles, yet it has so many and such
weighty tes monies that any wise man ought rightly to believe it.”
** Yet if Bellarmine’s marks provide the clearness not of truth but of
credibility, we are right to be suspicious of them. A er all, many things are
credible that nonetheless are not true. In this way it is credible that a man
who decides to run away has commi ed murder; however, this is not
always true. Gregorius de Valen a, Anal. de ecclesia, p. 172:
It neither hinders nor removes the defini on of a mark if some of such accidents of the
church did not fit with it since its beginning. It is sufficient if, according to the most certain
Scriptures, they agree with it in the state that it now has and that it was going to have a er
the Gospel was spread throughout all the world through the preaching of the apostles. You
see, we are looking for the church now, a er apostolic mes, at that point in its life, as it
were, which it now has and which it was going to have a er those mes, but not in that
state which it had when it was born nor in its first growth temporarily, as in its infancy.

(This, however, is as if the church at the me of the apostles was s ll an

infant and of a worse condi on than under the yoke of the an -Chris an
tyrant.) **
Here we should also men on Stapleton’s discourse in Relect. princ. fid.,
controv. 1, q. 4, art. 5, p. 113:
Li le children dis nguish a human being from an animal by the external features of the
body and the shape of a human being because their judgment does not surpass their
powers of percep on. Adults, on the other hand, have the use of their reason, even though
crude and untaught. They dis nguish on the basis of their opera ons of life and func ons
that are properly human, such as speaking as humans do, walking, and the like.
Furthermore, wise and prudent people whose judgment penetrates more deeply make their
judgment on the basis of prudence of the mind and other talents that are even more
excellently man’s own. So also, those who are wise and spiritual, such as the teachers and
pastors of the church, recognize Christ’s church through its sound doctrine and correct use
of the Sacraments. But the faithful who are not knowledgeable and are infants in the faith—
who are unable to pass judgment about the very doctrine as considered in its causes,
principles, and means—along with infidels who know li le or nothing about the church,
recognize the church through its outward appearance and the mul tude of believing people
and of pastors.
In accord with Stapleton’s comparison of these two, we embrace what he
admits, that wise and spiritual people recognize Christ’s church through
sound doctrine and the correct use of the Sacraments. From this it
immediately follows that our marks are proper, genuine, and appropriate
to spiritual people, but that their marks are dubious, uncertain, and fi ng
for children in the faith. We freely concede to them that the outward
appearance of the church is outlined by some bare, outward features, but
they should leave to us the soul and inward form of the church. Because no
mark of a thing is more certain than its form, the consequence must be
that these marks of ours, in which the form of the church consists, are
genuine, proper, certain, and infallible. Those marks that the Papists assign
—namely, the name “catholic,” an quity, dura on, large size, succession of
bishops, temporal felicity, etc.—are common to the church and to
assemblies of here cs. They are of no weight and certainty except when
they coincide exactly with our marks. In assigning those marks, therefore,
the Papists are imita ng counterfeiters who demand that the false coins
which they mint not be evaluated on the basis of pure gold or assayed
according to a touchstone but that they be put on a scale and be examined
on the basis of their color and external shape, which can be counterfeited.
(II) From this founda on it becomes clear what answer we must give
Bellarmine as he accuses us of inconsistency and divisions of opinion in this
ques on, for he writes as follows, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2, § Lutherus:
In the last part of his book De conciliis et ecclesia, Luther proposes these seven marks: first,
the true and uncorrupted preaching of the Gospel; second, the legi mate administra on of
Bap sm; third, the legi mate use of the Eucharist; fourth, the legi mate use of the Keys;
fi h, the legi mate elec on of ministers to teach and give out the Sacraments; sixth, public
prayer, psalmody, and catechiza on, but in a language that all understand; seventh, the
mystery of the cross, that is, tribula ons within and without. But others usually propose
only two, which include the first five marks of Luther, that is, the pure preaching of the Word
of God and the pure use of the Sacraments. The Augsburg Confession and its Apology, as
well as Brenz, teach the same thing, etc. To these two marks the Centuriators add two
others that can be reduced to Luther’s fi h and seventh, that is, constancy or perseverance
in the confession of faith and obedience to ministers of the Word insofar as they declare the
Word.

We respond. In the same place Luther himself confesses explicitly that

those marks are not all of the same category nor are they all necessary in
the same way. He admits that only the first is absolutely necessary and that
all the rest, except for the first, can be missing. He writes as follows: “If one
could see no other mark but this one” (he means the first), “that s ll would
be enough to convince minds that the church catholic is there.”
Furthermore, those marks that Luther divides are listed together by others.
We refer the legi mate use of Bap sm and the Eucharist to a single mark,
namely, the legi mate administra on of the Sacraments. The preaching of
the Gospel, catechism, the elec on of ministers, and invoca on likewise
belong to one mark: the pure preaching of the Word. Obedience due to
the ministry, which Philipp Melanchthon (Exam.), Cassander (Consult.), and
others add on the basis of Cyprian (De cultu virginum) and Augus ne (De
fide et symb.), is included in those two marks. It is par cularly evident in
the hearing of the Word and use of the Sacraments, from which it is
produced like fruit from a tree. The cross is an accident and condi on of
the church but is not a proper and essen al mark. Yet it is numbered with
the other marks because it is the nearly constant companion of the true
church. If we are talking about the proper and essen al marks, we all say
with one mouth that there are two such marks of the church: the pure
preaching of the Word and the legi mate administra on of the
Sacraments.
(III) We should note here that the preaching of the Gospel and the
administra on of the Sacraments according to different manners of
considera on (κατʼ ἄλλον καὶ ἄλλον ὑπολήψεως τρόπον) are the formal
cause of the church and are the effect or func on of the church. It is the
formal cause of the church, that is, of establishing and preserving the
church, when it learns from the Word and is gathered to God through the
Word and Sacraments. It is the func on and effect of the church, that is, of
the already-established church, when it teaches and instructs others.
Consequently, these marks of ours—the pure preaching of the Word and
the legi mate administra on of the Sacraments—mark and show the
church both a priori and a posteriori: a priori, because they establish and
preserve the church; a posteriori, because the church, established by the
Word of God and use of the Sacraments, is now preaching that Word,
commending it to others, interpre ng it, administering the Sacraments,
and defending, declaring, and propaga ng its doctrine.
(IV) The pure preaching of the Word includes the legi mate use of the
Sacraments (because a sacrament is a sort of visible Word), and there is
not the same necessity for salva on connected with the Sacraments as
there is connected with the Word and faith (because the church of Israel
omi ed circumcision for the forty years in the wilderness). Therefore, if we
wanted to speak strictly, we could establish only one proper and essen al
mark of the church, namely, the pure preaching of the Word, whose
supplement is the legi mate use of the Sacraments.
(V) We should also point out that we are speaking here about such
marks as are properly and immediately considered by those who are in the
Chris an church and are in doubt about which assembly of Chris ans is the
true, pure, and uncorrupted church, that is, those who accept the
Scriptures. As for the heathen, who do not accept the authority of Holy
Scripture, we must first demonstrate to them the authority on the basis of
the church’s tes mony and the internal criteria of Holy Scripture. Then
they will be able to judge about the pure and uncorrupted church on the
basis of its teaching, that is, on the basis of the agreement of its teaching
with the Holy Scriptures. Hence Augus ne (De unit. ecclesiae, ch. 3) argues
against the Dona st Pe lian: “The church is to be sought and
demonstrated in the canonical authori es of the sacred books.” Then he
adds these clear words: “They are the Lord’s books, to whose authority we
both consent, we both give credence, we both give service. There let us
seek the church; there let us examine our case.” We shall speak in greater
detail about this ma er later when we inves gate the arguments of
Bellarmine against our marks [§§ 140–42].
(VI) People do not depart from our posi on regarding the marks of the
church when they say, “We must learn of the church from Scripture,” or,
what is the same, “The revealed and communicated Word of God is the
mark by which we can arrive at the recogni on of the true church.” This is
because one must pass judgment about the pure preaching of the Word on
the basis of Scripture or, what is the same, on the basis of the revealed
Word of God set forth in the Scriptures. Whether and to what extent the
preaching of the Word is pure cannot be recognized otherwise than from
the Scriptures. Therefore whenever someone claims that the pure
preaching of the Word is a mark of the church, he is saying thereby that
judgment about the truth and purity of the church must be made on the
basis of Scripture. Just as the star was poin ng out to the Magi the house
in which Christ and His mother were (Ma . 2:9), so also the light of the
heavenly Word shows us Christ and the house in which Christ is, that is, the
church. 2 Pet. 1:19: “We have the more firm prophe c word. You will do
well to pay a en on to it as to a lamp,” etc. Christ was acknowledged as
the Head of the church when He lived on earth not on the basis of some
external pomp but only on the basis of the Word, that is, on the basis of
the prophets’ prophecies. In the same way the church, which is His
mys cal Body, is recognized only on the basis of the Word. (This was
Bradford’s comparison according to Fox, Martyr., p. 1613.)
** The true church is opposed to the false either contradictorily, that is,
to the non-church that overturns the essence of Bap sm and of all religion,
or priva vely, that is, to the nonorthodox church. According to the la er
meaning, a church that is guilty of a par al apostasy is not the true church,
because of its corrup on of religion, but is a false church, that is, tainted
and impure. According to the first [kind of] opposi on, we admit that such
a church is true. This is clear: (1) from the verity of the ini a ng Sacrament
that it retains, whence “those whom the Arians bap zed were not
rebap zed by the ancients” (Augus ne, Le er 203). (2) From its
communica on of the Word made through the public readings of the
biblical texts, which is also a kind of preaching (Acts 15:21). **
(VII) Nevertheless we must note that there are certain levels of that
purity, because at mes the Word of God is preached in the church more
purely and at other mes less purely. However, it does not immediately
cease to be the church, even if the Word is not taught purely in some of
the chief parts of religion. Therefore the more purely and sincerely the
Word of God is preached in the church, and the more closely the preaching
and teaching approach the norm of Holy Scripture, the more pure will be
the church. On the other hand, the farther it departs from the rule of the
Word, the more impure and corrupt will be the state of the church. Yet it
does not cease to be the church because of any and every corrup on,
because we have shown earlier [§ 107] that God begets and preserves for
Himself a holy seed and spiritual children even when the public ministry of
the visible church has become corrupt. Consequently, the visible church in
regard to its external form—or, what is the same, in regard to its public
ministry—is considered either in a pure and uncorrupted state or in an
impure and partly corrupted state. When we say that the marks of the
church are the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate
administra on of the Sacraments, then we are considering the church in
the prior state and in a comparison made not only with secular assemblies
but also with a corrupt and impure church. It is correct to do this, as
appears from the fact that “defini ons, rules, and canons should be
granted from the idea” and that corrupt churches must be reformed,
restored, and recleansed according to the norm and form of sounder and
purer doctrine.
(VIII) We must finally note that one must not evaluate whole churches
on the basis of their pastors alone nor on the basis of a few people.
Consequently, one must not immediately condemn whole churches if
either their pastors or a few people depart from the integrity and purity of
doctrine, because “the ears of hearers are o en more pure than the lips of
teachers.” In a corrupt state of the church there are many people who
retain the fundamental parts of doctrine and who do not agree with the
errors that the false teachers sow in it, or do not adhere to them with any
stubbornness, or struggle out of those errors again before they die.

Our posi on is proved, that the pure preaching of the Word and
the legi mate administra on of the Sacraments are the marks of
the church. First, John 10:27: “My sheep hear My voice”
§ 127. Now that we have said these things in advance, we shall confirm
our posi on. Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2) adduces a few statements
of Scripture and of the fathers in favor of our posi on like sand without
lime to give the reader an opportunity to suspect that in this ques on we
lack firmer founda ons and more of them. Let us see how he tries to
sa sfy those before we make our arguments known.
(I) John 10:27: “My sheep hear My voice.” Therefore wherever one
hears the Word of God, there is the church. Bellarmine makes the
excep on: “This passage does not teach where the church is, but who the
elect are, namely, those who with their heart persist in hearing the Word
and keeping it. But because one cannot know who they are that listen with
their heart, this cannot be a mark of the visible church.”
We respond. (1) Indeed, we cannot know conclusively who they are that
listen to Christ with the heart and yield to Him and thus are the elect. Yet
this we can know: wherever the voice of Christ sounds, in that place there
are some who listen to it with the heart and yield to it, because the voice
of Christ has the working of the Holy Spirit joined to it and thus does not
sound without fruit. But now, wherever there are some who listen to the
voice of Christ, there the elect are. Where the elect are, there the church
is, because the elect must not be sought outside the assembly of the
called.
(2) Although one cannot know who they are that persist in hearing the
voice of Christ with their heart, nevertheless we can hear Christ’s voice
sounding publicly in the assembly of the church. We can also inves gate
whether the preaching of the Word that we hear in the public assembly
agrees with the voice of Christ set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures.
Therefore from this mark we can also learn who are the true sheep of
Christ and the true members of the church.
(3) The aim of that discourse proves this very thing. Christ wants to
prove that the Jews are not members of the true church. As proof, He takes
up the hearing of the Word as a certain and infallible mark of the church.
John 8:47: “He who is of God hears God’s words. The reason you do not
hear them is that you are not of God.” John 10:26–27: “You are not of My
sheep, just as I said to you,” for “My sheep hear My voice.” Therefore He is
showing them that they are not of His sheepfold, that is, that they do not
belong to the true church, because they do not listen to the voice of the
Shepherd.
(4) For the sake of teaching, we can dis nguish between Christ’s sheep.
There are some who are His sheep inwardly, namely, the truly devout who
hear and follow the voice of Christ by the inner assent and trust of the
heart through the effectual working of the Holy Spirit. Others, on the other
hand, behave as His sheep only outwardly, namely, those who confess the
teaching of Christ outwardly without inward regenera on of the heart. Just
as those who are Christ’s sheep inwardly are dis nguished from hypocrites
mingled with the external assembly of the church by their inward hearing
of Christ’s voice, so also those who are Christ’s sheep outwardly are
dis nguished from other secular and here cal assemblies by their outward
hearing and confession of Christ’s voice. Hence those who hear Christ’s
words belong to the church. Those who listen only outwardly belong to the
external and visible church; those who listen simultaneously with external
ears and internal faith belong to the external and the internal, the visible
and invisible church. Therefore it follows that God’s Word is the true mark
by which Christ’s sheepfold is dis nguished from those assemblies that are
not Christ’s flocks. Chrysostom, on John, homily 60: “Those who follow
Christ are of His sheepfold.”
(5) We add the statement of John the Bap st in John 3:29: “He who has
the bride is the bridegroom. The friend of the bridegroom, who stands and
hears him, rejoices greatly at the bridegroom’s voice.” Just as Christ is
understood to be the Bridegroom because He alone has the Bride, so also
the Bride, or the church, is understood to be the Bride because the
Bridegroom has her, that is, He keeps, loves, leads, and rules her as His
own. She depends upon the voice and command of that one person and
does not pros tute herself to another through idolatrous doctrines. People
are understood to be friends of the Bridegroom because when they hear
the voice of the Bridegroom, they rejoice; that is, they delight in the voice
of Christ, listen to it alone, and do not follow anyone else. Therefore the
voice of Christ sounding in the Scriptures is the only norm and rule for
recognizing the Bride of Christ and the friends of the Bridegroom.

Second, Ephesians 5:25: “Christ loved the church and

gave Himself up for her”
§ 128. (II) Eph. 5:25–26: “Christ loved the church and gave Himself up
for her that He might sanc fy her, cleansing her by the washing of water in
the Word.” The church is cleansed by the Word. Therefore wherever the
cleansing Word is present, there the church is. Bellarmine makes this
excep on: “This cleansing is invisible. Paul is not teaching here what the
church is or where it is, but what good thing God has bestowed upon the
church.”
We respond. (1) This is neither the only passage nor the chief one that
we cite in favor of our posi on. We have more and clearer ones to use.
(2) Bap sm is a proper good of the church. Therefore wherever a true
and complete Bap sm is administered, there a church is being gathered to
God. Bap sm is the sacrament of ini a on by which the entrance to the
church is opened. Therefore wherever li le children are bap zed, the
doors of the church and the gate of the kingdom of heaven are open.
Wherever a true and complete Bap sm is administered, there “the
washing of regenera on and renewal” is present, because that is how the
apostle defines Bap sm in Titus 3:5. There, also, salva on is offered to the
bap zed, because God is said to save us through Bap sm (1 Pet. 3:21). But
now, outside the church there is no regenera on; outside the church there
is no salva on. Therefore wherever Bap sm is administered, there a
church of Christ is present.
(3) Therefore one can conclude firmly from this apostolic passage that
Bap sm is a mark of the church because the apostle binds the church to
Bap sm, and he also confirms that Bap sm is not administered except
within the church when he says explicitly that “Christ sanc fied the church
by the washing of water in the Word.”
(4) If you counter, saying, “Bap sm is administered even in assemblies
of the here cs,” we respond: The Word and Sacraments, simply speaking,
are the marks of the church, for wherever the Word sounds and the
Sacraments are administered, there a church is present. But because there
are not the same levels of purity and soundness in the churches, we say
that the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate administra on of
the Sacraments are the marks of the church by which a pure and sound
church is dis nguished from a corrupt and impure one. Next, in assemblies
of here cs what is precious must be dis nguished carefully from what is
worthless, that is, what is proper to the church from what is invented by
human reason. Bap sm administered in its wholeness in assemblies of the
here cs and some chief parts of doctrine s ll preserved pure and
uncorrupted in them are goods that belong properly to the church.
Mingled corrup ons and errors, on the other hand, are an alien leaven.
Consequently, even if Bap sm is administered in the assemblies of the
here cs, yet it does not cease being a good that belongs properly to the
church. Thus it is also an infallible mark of the church.

Third, Matthew 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered,”

etc.
§ 129. (III) Ma . 18:20: “Where two or three are gathered in My name,
there am I in the midst of them.” That assembly is the true church because
it is gathered in Christ’s name. But now, those are gathered in Christ’s
name who are gathered according to His Word. Bellarmine makes the
following excep on: “This passage does not prove where the church is, but
where Christ is.” Then he adds: “To be gathered in the name of Christ is to
be gathered by those who act by Christ’s authority, such as by bishops who
are legi mately ordained and are successors of others, going back to the
apostles whom Christ first le in His place.”
We respond. (1) Christ’s gracious presence takes place only in the true
church. Therefore if this passage shows where Christ is graciously present,
then it surely also shows where the true church is, that is, where people
are gathered in Christ’s name. But now, only those are gathered in Christ’s
name who hear Christ’s voice, who acknowledge Christ as their only
Teacher and Savior, who draw the true knowledge and worship of God
from the Word.
(2) Christ is the Head of the church; the church is the mys cal Body of
Christ. Therefore if this passage shows where the Head of the church is,
then it surely also shows the church itself. There can be no clearer, brighter
mark of the church than the gracious presence and indwelling of Christ.
But now, Christ is present with that assembly in which the Word of God
sounds forth. John 14:23: “If anyone keeps My Word, My Father will love
him, and We will come to him and make Our dwelling with him.”
(3) Not so much as a word in this passage men ons the ordinary
succession of bishops, which Bellarmine dreams is required for a gathering
to occur in the name of Christ. The priests at Jerusalem, the scribes, and
the Pharisees at that me were in the ordinary succession of Aaron, yet
they were not gathered in the name of Christ; rather, they were gathered
against Christ, as the Gospel account shows. The examples of a few
councils teach that even those bishops who were in the ordinary
succession were gathered against Christ and the truth. Those who are not
of Christ cannot be gathered in the name of Christ. But now, those who do
not listen to the voice of Christ are not of Christ (John 10:27). Therefore
those who do not listen to the voice of Christ cannot be gathered in the
name of Christ.
(4) It ma ers li le who gathers the people about whom this passage
speaks, as long as they are gathered in the name of Christ. By whomever
devout people, either few or many, are gathered, whether they be
gathered by bishops or by a poli cal magistrate, whether secretly or
openly, as long as they are gathered in Christ’s name—which happens if
they hear and follow His Word—there Christ is in the midst of them, and
there the church is also. On the other hand, those who are not gathered in
Christ’s name, who reject His Word—even if bishops gather them—Christ is
not graciously present in the midst of them.
Cyprian, De simpl. praelatorum, tractat. 3:
Let them not deceive themselves by an empty interpreta on, that the Lord said, “Where
two or three are gathered in My name, I am with them.” Corrupters of the Gospel and false
interpreters consider the last words but pass over the first, remembering part and
corrup ng part by deceit. How can two or three be gathered in Christ’s name who, as is
evident, are separated from Christ and from His Gospel? Because of these people Isaiah
cries out: “Woe to you, rebellious children! You had a counsel, and not through Me. You
made an assembly, and not through My Spirit” [Isa. 30:1].

Chrysostom, on Ma hew, homily 61: “The Lord seems to be deno ng

people similar to the apostles. He says, ‘Of you who are strong in virtue; of
you who embrace the teaching of the Gospel by living correctly.’ ” Nicolaus
de Clemangis, De corr. ecclesiae statu: “Not all who are gathered in
councils are gathered in the name of Christ. We should not think that those
people are gathered in the name of Christ who are carnal children of the
church, who seek temporal things, who do not care about spiritual things,
who s r up councils for the purpose of living in leisure.” He also adds: “The
church at my me is full of such people. We find hardly anyone except such
people.”

Fourth, John 10:35, “Scripture called those ‘gods’ to

whom the Word of God came.”

Fifth, John 15:3: “You are clean because of My Word.”

Sixth, Romans 1:16: “The Gospel is the power of God for

salvation”

§ 130. (IV) John 10:35: “Scripture called those ‘gods’ to whom the Word
of God came.” Therefore where God’s Word is preached, there the people
or church of God is present. (V) John 15:3: “You are clean because of My
Word that I have spoken to you.” Therefore the Word of Christ, which is the
Gospel, points out where the church is present that is clean in God’s sight.
(VI) Rom. 1:16: “The Gospel is the power of God for salva on to everyone
who believes.” Therefore wherever the Gospel that is acknowledged by
faith is present, there God has His church in which He is effectual for
eternal salva on. (See Brenz, Conf. Wirtemb., ch. De ecclesia.)
Bellarmine makes the excep on: (1) “The passage from John 10 proves
nothing because only the princes to whom God has entrusted something
are called ‘gods’ and because the Word of God does not make people gods
if it is only preached; instead, it must also be received and believed. Yet
this is invisible.” We respond. The proper mark of the people of God is that
the Word of God has come to them and that they have received that Word.
Receiving it happens in two ways: either externally only, namely, if the
Word of God sounds forth publicly and if they receive it with their ears; or
at the same me also inwardly, namely, if they receive it with both their
ears and inward faith. Those who receive God’s Word only outwardly are
joined only to the outward fellowship of the church. But those who receive
God’s Word by means of bodily ears and by faith at the same me belong
not only to the outward fellowship of the church but to the inward one as
well and are joined to Christ by inward communion. Although that inward
recep on of the divine Word through faith is invisible, the outward
recep on, consis ng in the public preaching and profession, engages the
senses. Therefore it can be a mark of the visible church. It also happens
that this inner recep on reveals itself through the fruit of faith, namely,
good works of every kind.
(2) To the passage from John 15 Bellarmine makes an excep on in this
way: “That cleansing is invisible and renders the church pure and manifest
before God, but not before men.” We respond. Although the inward
cleansing of the heart through the Word of Christ received by faith is
invisible, yet the Word of Christ that effects that cleansing, though received
by faith, sounds forth in the public ministry and engages the senses.
Consequently, it can be a mark of the visible church.
(3) He repeats the same excep on to the passage from Romans 1, that
“the fruit of the Gospel is invisible.” We respond. A dis nc on must be
made between the outward preaching of the Gospel and its inward fruit-
bearing in human hearts. The la er certainly is invisible; the former,
however, engages the senses. Moreover, the inward fruit-bearing itself
reveals itself through external works in the reborn and clearly shows that a
church is being gathered to God in this assembly. For wherever the Word of
God sounds forth and is preached, it produces some fruit and does not
return to God empty. Therefore wherever the Word sounds forth and is
preached, there a church is present.
Bellarmine declares: “This explana on proves only that wherever the
Word is preached, there some good people exist, but we do not know
them.” We respond. Although we cannot know individually who the truly
reborn and elect are, yet we can know this: Wherever the Word sounds
forth and Bap sm is administered, there some truly devout and elect
people are present, and there a church is present and being gathered to
God, because the elect must not be sought outside of the assembly of the
called.
Therefore Bellarmine looks for another way out and openly denies that
“the Word of God is effectual wherever it is preached. The Word of God
only begins to bear fruit,” he says, “when it is preached legi mately, that is,
by preachers sent by the ordinary power. It does not bear fruit among
here cs except weeds.” We respond. Bellarmine takes “ordinary power” to
mean the Roman pon ff and his bishops. But his asser on, that their
authority is simply and absolutely required for the sending of ministers of
the church and for the fruit-bearing of the Word, is free and has no
scriptural basis. Neither Christ nor John had been sent by the ordinary
power, that is, by the scribes and Pharisees si ng on the throne of Moses.
Thus they, too, are compelled to hear [the ques on,] in what power they
were performing the func ons of their office (Ma . 21:23; Mark 11:27[–
28]; Luke 20:1[–2]). As for the assemblies of here cs, if a legi mate and
complete Bap sm is administered and some chief parts of doctrine are
preserved uncorrupted in them, no one can deny that a church is being
gathered to God among them. Otherwise it would follow that Bap sm is
not a washing of regenera on and renewal unless it is administered by a
catholic minister. By this logic a quality of the minister would be required
for Bap sm, and that was the error of the Dona sts. Therefore, as we
pointed out earlier, a dis nc on must be made between the precious and
the worthless, between that which is of God and that which is of men. A
Bap sm that is administered in its integrity in assemblies of here cs and
the chief parts of doctrine that s ll sound forth without corrup on in
assemblies of here cs, these, I say, are of God. Consequently, through
these means spiritual sons and daughters are born to God. But the errors
and corrup ons that become mixed in are of man. Through them only
weeds are produced.

Other foundations for our position omitted by

Bellarmine: First, these marks fit the church alone and
distinguish it from other assemblies
§ 131. Now we come to the founda ons for our posi on that Bellarmine
omi ed. (I) Whatever reveals something that is to be marked with
certainty, whatever always fits it and it alone, whatever dis nguishes it
from all other things and exactly corresponds to it and thus cannot be
separated from it, that is the true, certain, proper, infallible, and perpetual
mark of that thing. But the pure preaching of the Gospel and the legi mate
use of the Sacraments reveal the true church with certainty, and always fit
it and it alone, and dis nguish it from all other assemblies, and
consequently cannot be separated from it. Therefore the pure preaching of
the Gospel and the legi mate use of the Sacraments are the true, certain,
proper, infallible, and perpetual marks of the church.
** These marks dis nguish the church: (1) from pagans, (2) from the
Jews, (3) from here cs. **
The proposi on shines with its own light. The minor premise is also
clear because the proper func on of the church is teaching the Gospel and
administering the Sacraments (Ma . 28:19; Mark 16:15). When it actually
performs this func on, the func on is called an “effect.” Hence we make
the following inference. Every proper effect reveals its own cause, or every
proper func on reveals its own subject with certainty. But preaching the
Gospel and administering the Sacraments is the proper effect or proper
func on of the church. Therefore the preaching of the Gospel and the
administra on of the Sacraments reveal the true church with certainty.
** In a proof there are three things: (1) the subject, (2) the principles,
(3) the a ributes or proper es that are stated about the subject and that
designate the nature of the subject. In the same way, here there is a
subject, the church, and marks or a ributes, which are demonstrated
through principles taken from Scripture. Marks should be immediate,
proper (that is, always inherent in the subject and in it alone), inseparable
from the subject, and should dis nguish the subject from all others. Not
even Bellarmine himself denies this. And there are no other such marks
than the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate use of the
Sacraments. **
Furthermore, it is evident that the preaching of the Gospel and the
administra on of the Sacraments always befit the church and it alone. This
is evident because they are proper goods of the church and are found
nowhere outside the church, as can be firmly and immovably concluded on
account of this. Wherever the Word is preached and the Sacraments are
administered, there a church is being gathered to God from humankind.
The same marks dis nguish the church from other assemblies, correspond
exactly to the church, and cannot be separated from it, as can be firmly
and immovably concluded on account of this. Wherever the preaching of
the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments are, there the church
is; and, on the other hand, wherever the church is, there the preaching of
the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments are, just as a proper
effect proves its own cause a posteriori, and a cause proves its proper
effect a priori. Nevertheless we must here repeat from what we said earlier
[§ 126], that in purity of the Word, the church has its levels. On one
occasion it is more sound and pure; on another occasion it is less. Thus as
the preaching of the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments are,
simply and absolutely speaking, the marks of the church, so the pure
preaching of the Word and legi mate administra on of the Sacraments are
the marks of the pure and uncorrupted church. As the preaching of the
Word and the administra on of the Sacraments dis nguish the church
from secular assemblies that are outside the church, so also the pure
preaching of the Word and legi mate administra on of the Sacraments
dis nguish the church from here cal assemblies that are within the
church.

Second, by the Word of God and the use of the

Sacraments, the church is established, gathered,
nourished, and preserved
§ 132. (II) By whichever things the church is established, gathered,
nourished, and preserved, those things are the proper, genuine, and
infallible marks of the church. But the church is established, gathered,
nourished, and preserved by the Word of God and use of the Sacraments.
Therefore the Word of God and use of the Sacraments are the proper,
genuine, and infallible marks of the church; and, consequently, wherever
they are pure, there the church is pure. The proposi on is obvious because
there is no more certain mark of a thing than its proper and, indeed,
formal cause. But now, that by which anything is established, gathered,
nourished, and preserved is its proper and adequate cause. Common
accidents produce nothing except an uncertain and doub ul opinion. On
the other hand, internal and essen al causes and essen al proper es
produce certain and immovable knowledge.
The minor premise is clear from many tes monies of Scripture. The
following people affirm that the church is born from the Word as from an
incorrup ble seed: Paul, in 1 Cor. 4:15: “I begot you in Christ Jesus through
the Gospel.” Peter, in 1 Pet. 1:23: “You have been born again, not of mortal
seed but of immortal, through the Word of God who lives and abides
forever.” And James, in 1:18: “He has bego en us by the word of truth that
we should be a kind of firs ruits of His creatures.” Tertullian, De
praescript.: “When the apostles had gone out into the world, they taught
the same teaching of the same faith to the na ons, and, likewise, they
established churches in every city. Other churches then borrowed and s ll
borrow daily the gra ing of faith and seeds of that teaching in order that
they, too, may become churches.”
The following passages make clear that God gathers the church to
Himself through the use of the Sacraments: John 3:5: “Unless one is born
again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Eph.
5:26[–27]: “Christ cleansed the church by the washing of water in the
Word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church.” Titus 3:5:
“He saved us through the washing of regenera on and of renewal of the
Holy Spirit.” 1 Cor. 10:17: “We who are many are one bread, one Body, for
we all partake of the one bread.” Therefore, when Christ sent the apostles
out as His ambassadors into all the earth to gather a church from
humankind, He provided them with this command: “Teach all na ons,
bap zing them and teaching them to keep whatever things I have
commanded you” (Ma . 28:19–20). Paul calls himself “a minister
[λειτουργός] of Christ Jesus to the Gen les, sacrificing the Gospel of God,
so that the offering of the Gen les may be acceptable, sanc fied through
the Holy Spirit” (Rom. 15:16). In Isa. 2:2 there is the prophecy that there
would be a very great coming together of the people to the church in the
New Testament. The cause is added in v. 3: “Out of Zion shall go forth the
Law, and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Therefore people are
gathered to the church through the Word. But if through the Word there
begins to be a church where there was no church before, then the Word is
surely a mark of the church.

Third, through the Word and Sacraments God’s people

are distinguished from other assemblies
§ 133. (III) Through whatever thing God’s people are dis nguished from
other assemblies, that is the proper mark of the church. Through the Word
and Sacraments God’s people are dis nguished from other assemblies.
Therefore the Word and Sacraments are the proper marks of the church;
and, consequently, wherever these are pure, there also is a pure church.
The proposi on is confirmed because in the Holy Scriptures “the church”
and “the people of God” are equivalent in meaning. This is evident; it
needs no proof.
The minor premise can be confirmed from many passages of Scripture.
The following statements, especially, teach that God’s people are
dis nguished from other assemblies through the Word. Deut. 4:6: “Keep
and do all the statutes of Jehovah, for this is your wisdom and your
prudence in the eyes of the peoples, who, when they hear all these
statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great na on is a wise and prudent people.’ ”
Here the statutes of Jehovah, that is, the divine Law, are called the
dis nc ve honor and glory of the people of Israel, with regard to which it is
wiser than all other peoples or by which it becomes so commendable as to
be recognized by the na ons as God’s people. Ps. 147:19–20: “God
declares His Word to Jacob and His statutes to Israel. He has not dealt thus
with any na on, and He has not revealed to them His judgments.”
Whatever God confers uniquely upon His people, through that they are
dis nguished from other assemblies and from unholy na ons. However,
God confers uniquely upon His people this benefit: that He reveals His
Word to them. Therefore through it they are dis nguished from all other
assemblies; and, consequently, that is a proper mark of God’s people or of
the church.
That the Sacraments dis nguish God’s people from other assemblies is
clear from the ins tu on of circumcision and of the Passover lamb in the
Old Testament and of Bap sm and the Lord’s Supper in the New. These
sacraments were ins tuted, among other reasons, for this purpose too:
that they might dis nguish the church from all other assemblies. Augus ne
(Contra Parmen., bk. 2, ch. 13) calls the Sacraments “the signs
[characteres] of the church.” Contra Faustum, bk. 29, ch. 11: “People can
be gathered into no repute of religion, either true or false, unless they are
bound together by some fellowship of visible signs or of sacraments.” Basil,
Homily 13 ad popul. de variis:
Commanders give a password to those who soldier under them so that friends may
recognize and encourage one another more easily and so that, if they become mixed in with
enemies, they can be dis nguished and separated from them the more easily. If by chance
you do become separated from your fellow soldiers, no one knows to whose side you
belong, to ours or to the adversary’s, unless you show friendship by means of the secret
signs. Unless the light of the Lord’s countenance is sealed upon you and unless the angel
recognizes the mark upon you, in what way will he fight for you? How will you say, “I belong
to God,” without giving the password? etc.

Fourth, the Word and Sacraments are goods that belong

only to the church
§ 134. (IV) Whatever things are goods that are proper to the church,
those are the proper marks of the church. The Word and Sacraments are
goods that are proper to the church. Therefore they are the proper marks
of the church.
We prove the minor premise. Isa. 59:21: “My Spirit, which is in you, and
My words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your
mouth nor out of the mouth of your children, says Jehovah, from this me
forth and forevermore.” Here the church is promised the perpetual
preserva on of the Word as its proper good. In Ma . 13:24 the kingdom of
heaven is likened “to a man sowing good seed in his field.” The good seed
means the Word of God and the field means the church. Therefore where
the good seed of God is sown, where the Word is preached purely, there
God’s field is present; there the church is present. Acts 2:42: “They” (the
disciples of the early apostolic church) “persisted in the apostles’ teaching
and in the communica on, and in the breaking of bread, and in the
prayers.” Here are set forth the signs and marks that dis nguished the
apostolic church from other assemblies. Important among those marks
were the apostles’ teaching and the breaking of bread, or the use of the
Lord’s Supper, for the communica on of beneficial acts [officiorum] and
the prayers are the fruit of the apostles’ teaching. In Rom. 3:2 the people
of Israel were “entrusted with the oracles of God.” Here the “oracles of
God” [τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ] mean the words of the Law wri en on stone
tablets by the finger of God Himself, as well as all the other divine
discourses revealed through the patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets. They
are said to be like a magnificent treasure entrusted to the people of Israel
and are like a good that is proper to the church. In connec on with this,
the wise king says in Prov. 29:18: “When there is no prophecy, the people
cast off restraint.” Here, prophecy, that is, sound doctrine, is called a
restraint for the church by which the church is ed together not in an
external polity—for that can be preserved even if prophecy or sound
doctrine should cease to exist—but in the holy fellowship of the church,
which cannot exist without prophecy. Consequently, prophecy is a good
that is proper to the church and a proper mark of it. Now, whatever is
proper to the church in such a way that the church begins with it and also
ceases to exist without it, that surely is a mark of the church.

Fifth, the church is bound to the Word of God as to the

norm of faith and behavior
§ 135. (V) To whatever the church is uniquely bound as to the norm of
faith and behavior, that is a mark of the church, because what is normed
and ruled is evaluated and acknowledged from its agreement with its norm
and rule. But now, the church is bound uniquely to the Word of God as to
the norm and rule of faith and behavior. Josh. 23:6: “Be very strong to keep
and do all that is wri en in the Book of the Law of Moses, turning aside
from it neither to the right hand nor to the le .” Isa. 8:20: “To the Law and
to the tes mony! If they do not speak according to this Word, they will
have no morning light.” John 8:47: “He who is of God hears the words of
God.” Gal. 1:8: “Even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a
gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
Here the apostle is teaching that in the church one should hear no other
gospel, no other teaching, than what the apostles preached. In Eph. 2:20
the church is said to be “built upon the founda on of the prophets and
apostles,” that is, upon the teaching of the prophets and apostles. Thus
one must recognize the church on the basis of the teaching of the prophets
and apostles.
Here we should men on that the corrupted and depraved churches can
and should be reformed, recleansed, and brought back to wholeness from
no other source than from the Word of God. Certainly, therefore, those
churches that come most closely to the norm of the Word are true
churches. Consequently, one should pass judgment on a church on the
basis of the rule of the Word. The antecedent is confirmed by the examples
of the devout kings in the Old Testament who considered only the norm of
the Law in reforming the church and for this reason are praised by the Holy
Spirit (2 Kings 23; Nehemiah 8; etc.).

Sixth, the pure preaching of the Word distinguishes a

true church from a false one
§ 136. (VI) That which dis nguishes a sound teacher of the church from
a false prophet also dis nguishes a true church from a false one. The logic
is: whatever sort of teaching it is that sounds forth in the public ministry of
a church, of that sort the church is judged to be. If catholic teaching sounds
forth in it, it is judged and said to be catholic. If here cal teaching sounds
forth in it, it is judged and said to be here cal. But now, it is sound and
uncorrupted teaching that dis nguishes a sound teacher of the church
from a false prophet. Therefore sound and uncorrupted teaching
dis nguishes a true church from a false one.
The minor premise is proved from Ma . 7:16. A er Christ had said that
they should beware of false prophets, He adds: “By their fruits you will
know them.” Here “fruits” means not behavior but the doctrines
themselves. In Luke 6:45 it is explained in this way: “The good man out of
the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his
evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of his heart his mouth
speaks.” Here we are commanded to pass judgment on a false prophet on
the basis of his words or on the basis of the teaching that he sets forth.
This is how most of the fathers explain this, according to Stapleton, De
princ. fid. doctrin., bk. 10, ch. 1.
** Bellarmine, De grat. et lib. arbitr., bk. 5, ch. 10: “I say that in
Ma hew 7 the good and bad trees mean true and false teachings, or the
people themselves, insofar as they teach sound doctrine or corrupt and
pernicious doctrine. With this passage the Lord wants to teach us to
beware of false prophets. He teaches that we can determine on the basis
of their fruits whether they are wolves or shepherds, that is, here cal
ministers or catholic bishops.” A li le later: “Therefore in Ma hew 7 the
Lord wants us to pass judgment on a teaching itself or on teachers on the
basis of the fruits of their teaching.” Stapleton, Relect., contr. 2, q. 4, art. 1,
concl. 1: “No one can be a legi mate minister of the church without sound
faith. This is proved from the greater, because without it he also cannot be
a member of the church.” Concl. 2: “Whoever forsakes the unity of the
faith ceases to be a pastor.” Yet Gregorius de Valen a (Anal., bk. 6, ch. 6,
prob. 2 and 3) seems to think differently, where he says that “soundness of
doctrine is not a sign of the church because it is hidden to the church.”
Barradius, Conc. evang., vol. 2, bk. 7, ch. 30, p. 500: “In Ma . 7:16 the
Savior is showing that the bad fruits by which we should recognize false
prophets are not so much corrupt behavior—that, in fact, can befall even
true teachers—as false teaching and corrupt consequences that flow from
their dogmas and hinder the worship of God and true piety.” **
In Acts 17:11 the Bereans “examine the Scriptures to see if these things
were so” that Paul and Barnabas were preaching. It was doub ul whether
Paul and Barnabas on the one hand, or the priests of the Jews on the other
hand, who were in the ordinary succession, were false teachers because
their teachings were not in agreement with each other. Here the Bereans
pass judgment on the basis of the Scriptures and teach by their example
that sound teachers must be dis nguished from false prophets on the basis
of the harmony of what they teach with the rule set forth in the Scriptures.
1 John 4:1: “Test the spirits to see whether they are of God.” But what is
the norm for that tes ng? [2 John] 9–10: “Anyone who goes back and does
not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the
doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does
not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house,” etc.
Seventh, a love and eagerness for the Word is the mark
of a Christian
§ 137. (VII) That which is the mark of each and every Chris an must also
be a mark of the en re church, because the church is nothing else but the
bringing together and gathering of Chris ans (1 Cor. 1:2). Augus ne, De civ.
Dei, bk. 1, ch. 15: “A mul tude consists of individuals. The blessed city
comes from no other source than a blessed man comes from, because a
city is nothing else but a harmonious mul tude of people.” In the same
way, we, too, can say: The church consists of individual Chris ans, and the
church and the Chris an are not recognized from different sources, since
the church is nothing else than a harmonious mul tude of Chris ans. But
now, a Chris an is recognized from his listening to Christ’s voice, from his
embracing the teaching comprehended in the books of the prophets and
apostles. Therefore the church is recognized on that basis too. Whoever
listens to Christ’s voice is Christ’s sheep, that is, a Chris an. John 8:31: “If
you con nue in My Word, you will truly be My disciples.” Therefore Christ’s
Word is a mark of Christ’s disciples.
We could provide more support for this posi on, but we shall be
content with what we have quoted from the Scriptures thus far.

The statements of the fathers

§ 138. The same thing can be proved from various tes monies of the
fathers. Irenaeus, Advers. haeres., bk. 3, at the very beginning of ch. 1:
“The Gospel that the apostles first preached they later, by the will of God,
handed down to us in the Scriptures to be the founda on and pillar of our
faith.” (If the Gospel has been handed down to us in Scripture as the
support and pillar of our faith, surely it will also be a mark of the church,
because the church is the household of faith). Chapter 4: “The preaching of
the church, which is constant and con nues in the same way, has its
tes mony from the prophets and apostles.” Chapter 11, p. 186: “Because
the church has spread over all the earth, the pillar and support of the
church is the Gospel and the Spirit of life. The consequence is that the
church has four pillars that breathe incorrup bility from all sides and give
life to men.”
 ** Igna us, Le er ad Hieronem 10: “Everyone who teaches beyond
those things that have been commanded should be considered as a wolf,
even though he may fast, perform signs, or prophesy.” **
Clement of Alexandria, Stromat., bk. 7: “We say that the ancient,
catholic church is in the unity of one faith that is from its own Testaments
or, rather, from the Testament, which is one but in different mes.”
Tertullian, De praescript. advers. haeres., ch. 21: “Those are true
churches that hold on to what they have received from the apostles, which
the apostles received from Christ, which Christ received from God. Other
churches that the apostles did not establish, if they agree together in the
same faith, must be considered no less apostolic by reason of the kinship
of doctrine.” In the same book, ch. 32: “Let the here cs invent something,
for what else do they have a er their unlawful blasphemy? If they invent
something, however, they will accomplish nothing. Their teaching, when
compared with apostolic teaching, will declare, because of its difference
from and opposi on to it, that it is neither of any apostolic author nor is it
apostolic.” In the same book, ch. 3, he introduces the church, which is
speaking as follows: “I am the heir of the apostle. Just as they s pulated in
their testament, just as they entrusted it to faith, so I hold.” (Therefore the
teaching of the apostles is the mark of the true church.)
Cyprian, bk. 2, Le er 3: “Whatever is separated from the Gospel is not
joined to the church.”
The same Cyprian or, rather, Rufinus (Expos. symb.) says: “That is the
holy church in which there is one faith and one Bap sm, in which people
believe in one God, the Father, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, His Son, and in
one Holy Spirit.” He later adds: “The church is that which preserves the
faith in Christ in its integrity.”
** Athanasius, Orat. de incarn. Domini: “If you are disciples of the
Gospels, walk according to the Scriptures, for the Lord says, ‘If you
con nue in My Word, you will truly be My disciples.’ ” Contra Arian., orat.
2: “Behold, we are speaking about Scripture, as we place a candle on the
candles ck.” Basil, on Psalm 80: “One must not cause a schism from that
church which worships God in Spirit and in truth.” **
Lactan us, Div. ins t., bk. 4, toward the end of ch. 30: “The catholic
church is the only one that keeps the true worship. It is the fount of truth;
it is the household of faith; it is the temple of God. If anyone does not
enter it or if anyone leaves it, he becomes a stranger to the hope of life and
salva on.” (If the true worship of God flourishes only in the church and is a
good that is proper to it, it will surely also be a mark of it.)
Epiphanius (Adv. haeres., bk. 2, vol. 1, heresy 48, against the
Marcionites, near the middle), a er arguing against Marcion on the basis
of Scripture, adds: “Likewise, we find that he is in complete disagreement
with the divine Scriptures, as is obvious to everyone who reads carefully.
Therefore if he is in disagreement, he is foreign to the holy catholic
church.”
Hilary, on Psalm 51: “The church is the house of God and includes all
who follow the evangelical faith.” (Therefore those who follow the
evangelical faith are the church.)
Chrysostom, Opus imperf. in Ma h., homily 49, Froben. edi on of 1530,
p. 722: “When you see a wicked heresy, which is the army of the An christ,
standing in the holy places of the church, then let those who are in Judea
go to the mountains. That is, those who are within Christendom should go
to the Scriptures. The true Judea is Christendom; the mountains are the
Scriptures of the prophets and apostles. Why does” (the Lord) “command
all Chris ans at this me to go to the Scriptures? Because in this me from
which heresy has taken possession of the churches, there can be no proof
of the true Christendom, there can be no other refuge for Chris ans who
want to learn the firmness of faith.” In the same place he adds: “Earlier one
was able to show in many ways what Christ’s church is and what paganism
is. But now, a er heresies have prevailed in the church, there is no way for
those who want to learn what Christ’s true church is except only through
the Scriptures.” He also adds the reason: “Because heresies have in schism
all the things that are proper to Christ in truth. They have churches, they
have the divine Scriptures themselves, they have bishops and the other
orders of the clergy, they have Bap sm, they have the Eucharist, they have
everything else.” Later he proves: “One cannot find which is the true
church either from miracles, which have been removed, or from the
behavior of Chris ans, which has deteriorated.” From this he concludes:
Whoever wants to learn which is the true church of Christ, from what source shall he learn it
except only through the Scriptures? Because the Lord knew what great confusion would
occur in the last days, He commands that Chris ans, those who are in Christendom, who
want to have the firmness of true faith flee to nothing other than to the Scriptures.
 Otherwise, if they look anywhere else, they will be caused to stumble and will perish, never
understanding which one is the true church. Because of this, they will fall into the
abomina on of desola on that stands in the holy places.

(This is an excellent passage that shows that the external marks which the
Papists bring forth are uncertain and deceiving since they are common to
here cs. Consequently, the true church is dis nguished from a false one
only through the Scriptures, that is, on the basis of the agreement of its
teaching with the Scriptures. Bellarmine makes the excep on: “This book
was corrupted by some Arian.” We have responded earlier to this trivial
objec on [§ 93]. Certainly the author of this book is by no means
“Arianizing” here but is wri ng in a true and orthodox manner. One must
respond to the arguments of that author, not merely disparage his
authority.) However, in order that Bellarmine may not go on to disparage
the authority of this book, we shall supply a passage from an undoubted
work of Chrysostom (from homily 33 on Acts, p. 680 of the Commel.
edi on). Not far from the end he writes this:
What shall we respond to the heathen? A heathen comes and says: “I want to become a
Chris an, but I do not know to what fac on I should belong. Among you there are many
ba les, sedi ons, uproars. I do not know which doctrine to choose, which to prefer. Every
one says, ‘I speak the truth.’ I do not know whom I should believe because I am ignorant of
Scripture, and each side puts forward the same thing as their pretext.” Of course, this is a
worthy ques on for us to answer. If we indeed said that we believe reason, you would
rightly be upset. But because we accept the Scriptures, and because they are simple and
true, it will be easy for you to pass judgment: If anyone agrees with them, he is a Chris an. If
anyone fights against them, he is far away from the standard [canon]. What, then, if
someone should come and say: “Scripture has this, but you say something else, namely, by
interpre ng Scripture differently and drawing out its mind in favor of your own posi on.”
Tell me, then: Do you have the mind and judgment? “How could I,” he says, “because I do
not know how to judge your ideas? I would want to be a disciple, but you are making me a
teacher. If he says this, what should I respond?” he asks. “How must I persuade him?” We
shall ask whether this is some caviling of his. We shall also ask if he condemns the heathen.
Surely he will say something, for he does not turn to us if he has not condemned his own
people. We shall ask why he condemns his own, for he should not be rash in condemning. Is
not what he says obvious, that they are created things, and not the uncreated God? etc.

What he says a er this should also be seen. Chrysostom again, on

Ma hew, homily 6: “Where faith is, there the church is. Where faith is not,
there the church is not.” On Psalm 96: “There are many churches of the
orthodox, but those that lack the correct faith are churches of the
here cs.” In homily 58 on John, he says that the door to the sheepfold (of
the church) means the Scriptures, “because they lead us to God and open
the knowledge of Him to us. They make the sheep and protect them.”
Jerome, on Micah, bk. 1, ch. 1: “The church of Christ, which dwells well
and which possesses churches throughout the world, is joined together by
the unity of the Spirit. It has the ci es of the Law, of the prophets, of the
Gospel, and of the apostles. It has not gone beyond its borders, that is, the
Holy Scriptures, but it keeps its original possession.” (If the Scriptures
establish the borders and limits of the church, then they define and reveal
it.) On Psalm 133: “The church does not consist of walls but of the truth of
its doctrines. The church is there, where true faith is.” On Psalm 5: “ ‘Direct
your path in My sight.’ What is that path? The reading of the Scriptures.
That is, let me not stumble in Your Scriptures, through which I desire to
enter the church. Everyone who has a bad understanding of the Scriptures
is stumbling on the path of the Lord.” On Jeremiah 7: “That is the temple of
the Lord, in which dwell true faith, holy conversion, and the chorus of all
virtues.” In the introduc on to his commentary on the Lamenta ons of
Jeremiah, not far from the beginning: “The teaching of the church, which is
the house of God, is found in the fullness of the divine books. What else
can life be without a knowledge of the Scriptures, through which Christ
Himself is recognized, who is the life of believers?” (If from Scripture we
recognize Christ, who is the Head of the church, then surely we also
recognize the church from Scripture.)
Ambrose, De Jacob et vita beata, bk. 2, ch. 7: “There the church of God
is, in which God appears and speaks with His servants. There the images of
the heathen are torn out and hidden away. You see, the faith of the church
has abolished all observance of heathendom.” (Therefore where God
appears and speaks with His servants, that is, where the heavenly doctrine
and the true worship of God are retained, there the church is.) Book 6 on
Luke 9: “We are especially commanded to seek the faith of the church. If
Christ dwells in it, we must undoubtedly pick that. But if a faithless people
or here cal instructor corrupt the dwelling, we are ordered to flee that
synagogue. If there is a church that rejects the faith and does not possess
the founda ons of the apostolic preaching, we must abandon it, lest it be
able to spread some stain of faithlessness.” ** “Christ is your rock; faith,
the founda on of the church. If you will be on the Rock, you will be in the
church.” ** (If holding false doctrine is the mark of an apostate church,
then holding true doctrine is the mark of a true church.) De poenit., bk. 1,
ch. 6: “Those who do not have Peter’s faith do not have Peter’s
inheritance.”
We can cite many fine passages from Augus ne. De unitate ecclesiae,
ch. 2: “Between us and the Dona sts the ques on is: Where is the church?
What, then, shall we do? Shall we seek her in the words of Donatus or in
the words of her Head, our Lord Jesus Christ? I think we should seek her in
the words of Him who is the truth and who knows His Body best, for He
knows those who are His.” (If we must seek the church in the words of
Christ, that is, in the Holy Scriptures, then Scripture designates the church
and is its proper mark.) Chapter 3: “Let us not hear: ‘I say this; you say
that.’ Let us rather hear: ‘Thus says the Lord.’ Surely there are books of the
Lord on whose authority we are both agreed, whose authority we both
believe and both serve. Let us look for the church there; let us examine our
case there.” (Unless one could learn from Scripture which one is the true
church, it would be pointless to seek the church in the Scriptures.) Later in
the same chapter:
I do not wish to demonstrate the church with human tes monies but with the oracles of
God, etc. Who could enumerate each heresy, so to speak, of all the na ons? But if the holy
and most certain tes monies of the canonical Scriptures designate Christ’s church among all
the na ons, it would not ma er what those bring, or from what source they bring it, who
say: “Behold, here is Christ! Behold, there is Christ.” Rather, let us hear, if we are His sheep,
the voice of our Shepherd, saying, “Do not believe them.” Each of them among the many
na ons are not found where she is. On the other hand, she, who is everywhere, is also
found where they are. Therefore we must look for her in the holy, canonical Scriptures.

Chapter 4:
The very Head, concerning whom we agree, shows us His Body, about which we disagree, in
order that through His words we may cease our disagreeing. He is the only-bego en Son
and the Word of God. Therefore the holy prophets could not have spoken the truth unless
the very Truth, who is the Word of God, revealed to them what they should say and
commanded them to say it. Likewise, in earlier mes the Word of God sounded forth
through the prophets, then through Himself, when the Word became flesh and dwelt among
us, and later through the apostles whom He sent to preach Himself, that there might be
salva on to the ends of the earth. Therefore in all these we must look for the church.

(As Head of the church, Christ can best show His own Body. But now, Christ
has spoken to us through the prophets and apostles. Therefore we should
look for the church in their wri ngs. But because some words of the
prophets and apostles are clear and proper while others are obscure and
figura ve, Augus ne goes on to teach in what words we should look for
the church.) Chapter 5:
But because many things, wri en figura vely and obscurely through the imagery of enigma
or the double sense of ambiguity, are believed to accord and agree at mes with a false
interpreta on, I also declare and propose this: that we select the open and clear. If such
things were not found in the Holy Scriptures, there would be no way for the closed to be
opened and the obscure to be clarified, etc. Thus we should put aside those things that are
stated obscurely and are concealed with the veils of figura ve language, things that can be
interpreted according to us and according to them. In this argument of ours, then, let us
avoid such interpreta ons and look for something clear by which the church may be
manifested.

Chapter 6: “Why are you adding something by saying that Christ remains as
heir in no lands except where He could have Donatus as co-heir? We are
not jealous of anyone. Read this to us from the Law, from the prophets,
from the psalms, from the Gospel itself, from the wri ngs of the apostles.
Read it, and we will believe it.” Chapter 16:
We must acknowledge that the church is the Body of Christ, just as He is the Head. We must
look for it in the Holy Scriptures, not in the various rumors and opinions and deeds and
sayings and visions of men, etc. Let them show with nothing but the canonical books of Holy
Scripture whether they have the church, because neither do we say that they should believe
us because we are in Christ’s church, or because the church we have was commended by
Optatus of Milevis or Ambrose of Milan or innumerable other bishops of our communion, or
because councils of our colleagues have preached it, or because our colleagues are
performing such great miracles of gran ngs and healings in the holy places where our
communion assembles. Whatever such things are done in the catholic church must be
approved because they occur in the catholic church; but the catholic church is not revealed
just because these things occur in it. When our Lord Jesus had risen from the dead and
offered His body to the disciples to be seen with their eyes and touched with their hands—
lest they thought they were experiencing some trick—He considered it more important to
strengthen them with the tes mony of the Law, the prophets, and psalms, showing that
those things which had previously been prophesied had been fulfilled in Him. So also He has
commended His church, saying that repentance and forgiveness of sins is preached in His
name among all na ons beginning from Jerusalem. He Himself tes fied that this was wri en
in the Law and prophets and psalms. These are the tes monies, these the founda ons,
these the supports of our case. We read in the Acts of the Apostles about some believers
that they examined Scripture daily to see if these things were so. What Scriptures except the
canonical wri ngs of the Law and the prophets? To them have been added the Gospels, the
apostolic Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Revela on of John. Examine all these and
pull out something clear by which to prove that the church has remained in Africa alone,
etc.

(This is the very thing we tell the Papists: examine all these and pull out
something clear by which to prove that the church which is a ached to the
Roman pon ff is the true church.) The passage from Le er 48 agrees with
this: “None of us looks for the church in his own righteousness but in the
divine Scriptures.” And from Le er 166: “In the Scriptures we have learned
Christ; in the Scriptures we have learned the church. Why, then, do we not
retain Christ and the church in them in common? etc. Behold, the common
Scriptures! Behold, where we have come to know Christ! Behold, where
we come to know the church!”
** Le er 48, col. 178: “We have learned Christ and the church from the
same source. How are we confident that we have received Christ clearly
from Holy Writ if we do not also receive the church clearly from it?” Page
180: “None of us seeks the church in his own righteousness but in the
divine Scriptures.” Le er 50, col. 208, at the very beginning: “In the holy
books where our Lord Christ has been revealed, there also His church is
declared. But they” (the Dona sts) “with remarkable blindness, though
they do not know Christ outside the Scriptures” ([praeter Scripturas]
instead of nisi ex Scripturis, as Erasmus notes correctly in the margin), “yet
they know the church not by the authority of Holy Writ, but, as they
imagine, by the vanity of human and false accusa ons. But let them show
with nothing but the canonical books of Holy Writ whether they have the
church.” **
In De symb. ad catech., bk. 4, ch. 13, he very beau fully calls Scripture
“the marriage cer ficate” of that Bride which is the church.
Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2) responds: “One can prove from
Scripture where the church is, not as by a mark of the church, but because
Scripture teaches what the marks are when it explains of what sort the
church is, where it began, and how it grew.”
We respond. On the contrary, Augus ne wanted the church to be
demonstrated from the Scriptures because Scripture reveals which
assembly defends the soundness and integrity of doctrine. He wants
people to pass judgment about doctrine from the Scriptures, and he wants
people to pass judgment about the church from its doctrine, for he writes
in ch. 3 of that book: “He is believed to have surrendered the sacred books
who is convinced that they do not agree with the books he has read.”
Chapter 4: “Those who disagree with this chief part from the Holy
Scriptures are not in the church.” Chapter 10: “One should not agree even
with catholic bishops if in any place they are by chance deceived to think
something contrary to the canonical Scriptures of God.” In ch. 16 he
teaches that “those are the true church who by hearing and doing the
words of Christ build upon the rock.” The same thing is clear from other
passages of Augus ne. In De civ. Dei, bk. 11, ch. 1, he calls Scripture “the
witness of the church.” He says: “We are speaking of the city of God,
whose tes mony is that Scripture which surpasses in divine authority all
the literature of all na ons and has subjected to itself all kinds of human
minds, not by accidental movements of minds but clearly by the supreme
arranging of providence.” He explains how Scripture is the witness of the
church in De civ. Dei, bk. 6, ch. 3: “True religion was not established by an
earthly city, but itself has clearly established the heavenly city. The true
God, the giver of eternal life to those who worship Him, inspires and
teaches it.”
Therefore Scripture is the witness of the church not only with respect to
how it reveals marks of the church but also with respect to how it sets
forth the divinely revealed true religion, which has established and
founded that heavenly city, the church. Scripture not only describes some
marks of the church but also transmits the dogmas of faith for this definite
purpose: that the church may hear, learn, and accept them. Therefore with
respect to those dogmas, it will be a mark of the church, for those who
keep whole and inviolate those dogmas that Scripture has published are
Chris ans and children of the church. Scripture is the only rule of
theological truth. Therefore the truth of the church, too, must be
demonstrated from Scripture. If the only func on of Scripture were to
transmit some marks of the church but not dogmas on the basis of which
one must judge concerning the church, then the en re ma er could have
been finished in very few pages or even lines, and there would have been
no need for so many books. However, the Holy Spirit wanted to set forth a
complete system of doctrine in the Scriptures so that one could pass
judgment concerning the church from it. On Psalm 69:
If you seek Him who first sought you and you became His sheep, and you hear the voice of
your Shepherd and follow Him, note what He reveals to you about Himself. See what He
reveals about His Body. Do not err concerning Him; do not err concerning the church. Do not
let anyone tell you, “This is Christ,” who is not Christ; or, “This is the church,” which is not
the church, etc. Listen to the voice of the Shepherd. He reveals Himself to you; follow His
voice. He also reveals His church, so that no one may deceive you with the name “church.”
On Psalm 103: “O church, you wish to please God. You cannot as long as
you are deformed. What will you do to become beau ful? What are you
looking at when you say, ‘I will look at myself’? He has put Holy Scripture
before you as your mirror.” Sermon 237 de temp.: “Let Holy Scripture be
like your mirror. This mirror has a reflec on that does not deceive, that
does not fla er, that does not show favori sm.”
Eucherius, on Genesis 7, bk. 2: “At the me when the languages were
made different, only in the house of Heber did the language remain, which
had been the language before. So also now, it is certain that the church
alone, which is the house of Christ, maintains a united peace of confession
and faith, with all schisms condemned.”
Bede, on Psalm 8: “ ‘I shall see the heavens,’ that is, the books, ‘and the
moon and stars that You’ in those books, that is, in the heavens, ‘will
establish.’ For the commandments of the divine books are the founda on
both of the universal church and of individual churches. By them they are
strengthened and supported as is a building by its founda on.”
Gregory, Moral., bk. 6, ch. 6: “The churches of the na ons are like
dis nct regions in the world. They are built upon one faith but are divided
by a diversity of customs and languages.” (Therefore the unity of faith is a
mark of the church because churches that are varied in customs and
language are recognized on the basis of the unity of faith.)
Rupert, on Revela on 12, bk. 7: “The true river, the river of living water,
is the Holy Scripture and true catholic teaching that the church” (that is,
the woman) “sends forth from the fount of truth.”

The confession of our adversaries themselves

§ 139. We can also in some way prove our posi on from our adversaries
themselves. Thomas, [ST,] 2, q. 83, art. 2; “The church is perfected through
the unity of faith.”
Albertus, on Luke 13: “The church is rooted in the Sacraments and in
the doctrine of the prophets.”
Erasmus, Symbol. catech. 4, p. 146: “By what sign do we recognize the
one dove of Christ? Whatever strays from the sacred volumes is not of
Christ.”
 Hosius, Confess. Petricov., ch. 20: “It cannot be denied that sound
doctrine and the legi mate use of the Sacraments are marks of the
church.”
Enchir. Christ. ins t. in conc. provinc., published in Cologne, in the
explana on of the Creed on the ar cle “Credo sanctam ecclesiam”: “We
have very sure marks and signs that do not allow us to have doubts as to
where the church is. First, no one denies that the pure evangelical and
apostolic doctrine should be in the church and that this is the chief mark of
the church, according to the passage: ‘My sheep hear My voice.’ ”
Driedo, De dogmat. variis, bk. 4, ch. 4: “The church must be sought and
recognized from the Scriptures.”
Mar nus Isengrinius (De ecclesia, ch. 7) writes: “Catholics certainly do
not deny that these marks which we indeed claim are marks, namely, the
pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate use of the Sacraments, but
they are not such illustrious marks.”
Georgius Cassander (Consultat., art. 7) acknowledges: “The marks of the
church are the teaching of the Gospel and the use of the Sacraments.” Only
he adds that “a third mark is also necessarily required: obedience to the
ministerium of the church.”
The book Interimis cus, ch. 10: “The true marks of the church are sound
doctrine and the use of the Sacraments, by which the church is
dis nguished from the assemblies of the Jews and of the heathen, who
certainly lack sound doctrine and the Sacraments of the New Testament.”
Stapleton (Relect. princ. fidei, controversy 1, q. 4, art. 5, p. 113) admits
that “the wise and spiritual recognize Christ’s church through sound
doctrine and the right use of the Sacraments.” In De princ. fid., bk. 1, ch.
22, he says: “The preaching of the Gospel is the proper and very clear mark
of the catholic church.” However, he adds: “in legi mate ministers.”
Gregorius de Valen a, tom. 1, disput. 1, q. 1, de objecto fidei, punct. 7, §
18: “We admit that Christ’s church cannot be without the truth of doctrine
nor the legi mate use of the Sacraments, and the church consists of those
among whom these things are preserved.”
Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 2) defines the church as follows: “It is
the assembly of people bound together by the confession of the same
Chris an faith and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the
governance of legi mate pastors and especially of the one vicar of Christ
on earth, the Roman pon ff.” We do not disapprove of that defini on, as
long as the third part about subjec on to the pope, which cannot be
proved from the Scriptures, is removed. But now, no mark of a thing is
more certain than the essen al defini on of the thing, for it expresses the
thing’s essence. Consequently, because the confession of the true faith and
the legi mate use of the Sacraments are part of the defini on of the
church, they surely must also be the true and proper marks of the church.
Because the third part, subjec on to the Roman pon ff, is listed among the
marks of the church—for this is what the word “succession” chiefly means,
which is Bellarmine’s fi h mark—why is it that the first and second parts of
the defini on find no place among the marks that our adversaries a ribute
to the church?
In bk. 4, ch. 2, he concedes: “When people have accepted Scripture and
when it speaks clearly and a ques on arises about the church, then the
church can be judged from Scripture, since the la er is be er known.” He
also cites the example of the African church and says: “When they were
arguing whether the church was only in Africa, Augus ne began to prove
his posi on from Scripture, since the Scriptures had been accepted and
were clear.” Yet both sides, our side and the Papist side, have accepted
Scripture, and it speaks clearly in this ques on. Therefore the church will
have to be judged from it.
(Bellarmine does add: “At mes Scripture is be er known than the
church, but only hypothe cally. Simply, however, the church is be er
known and is prior to Scripture because the church existed before
Scripture. God gave Scripture to the church, and she has transmi ed and
explained it to others.” But he is playing with the word “Scripture,” as if we
should take this word to mean only the shapes of the le ers and not the
wri en Word of God, which is the same as the preached Word of God. But
this is older than the church because the church was bego en by the Word
of God. Furthermore, he contradicts himself shamefully. In De verb. Dei, bk.
1, ch. 2, he writes clearly: “Nothing is be er known, nothing is more
certain, than the Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the prophe c and
apostolic books.”)
In De ecclesia, bk. 4, ch. 11, he says, “Holiness of teaching is the true
mark of the church.” Yet holiness of teaching cannot be recognized except
from the Scriptures. In ch. 12 he asserts: “The church alone has
immaculate doctrine.”
Costerus, Ins t., ch. 2, de eccl. privil., prop. 1: “The pure preaching of
the Word of God is only in the church.” Prop. 2: “The true worship of God
and the pure administra on of the Sacraments are only in the church.” (If
the church is posited when something is posited, then that is the church’s
most certain mark. But the church is posited when the pure preaching of
the Word and the pure administra on of the Sacraments are posited. The
reason is that these are found only in the church, as Costerus concedes
here. But now, whatever is found only in the church, when that is posited,
the church is posited. Therefore the pure preaching of the Word and the
pure administra on of the Sacraments are the church’s most certain
marks.)
Pistorius (Hodeget., p. 112) says: “We can show irrefutably from
Scripture that the Lutheran church is not the true church.” (Yet if one can
demonstrate from Scripture what church is false, then he surely can also
show from it what church is true, for Scripture is the norm both of what is
straight and what is crooked.)
The Jesuits in the Colloquy of Regensburg, sess. 8, p. 216, Speyer
edi on: “The Catholics, too, have o en demonstrated the church from
Scripture alone against the sectarians and s ll are prepared to show it.”
(Yet if they can demonstrate the church from Scripture, and even Scripture
alone, why do they avoid establishing Scripture as a mark of the church?)

The arguments of Bellarmine in opposition to our marks.

In general: First, [that] Luther omitted the marks
assigned in the Creed of Constantinople
§ 140. Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2) argues both in general and
specifically against these marks that we have assigned. In general, he
reproaches us, saying: (I) “Luther was very careful not to accept any mark
that is included in the Creed of Constan nople, though by these marks,
especially by ‘the apostolic church,’ all the ancient councils wanted to be
discerned from all sects.”
 We respond. On the contrary, Luther accepted all those marks because
the pure preaching of the Word causes the church to be one, to be holy, to
be catholic, to be apostolic. These are the four adjuncts of the church that
are men oned in the Creed of Constan nople. The church is one because
of its one faith. It is holy because of the holy words of Christ. It is catholic
because of its catholic teaching concerning Christ. It is apostolic because of
the apostolic teaching of the Gospel, which the apostles first preached
orally in the New Testament and which, having been put into Scripture
later, is being preserved in the church un l the end of the world. But if
Bellarmine contends that these marks should have been men oned
explicitly, he accuses himself, because except for the name “catholic,” not
even he himself men ons them expressly in his own marks. When the
ancients appealed to the apostolic church, that is, to the church which the
apostles founded and which con nued to spread un l their days, the
integrity and purity of the apostolic faith was s ll being preserved. But
today, a er heresies have taken over the apostolic churches, that is, the
churches that the apostles once established and built, “there can be no
proof of the true church other than on the basis of the Scriptures,” as
Chrysostom teaches (Opus imperf. in Ma h., homily 49).
** Luther says in the Smalcald Ar cles, art. XII: “I believe there is the
holy catholic church.” Therefore he has not omi ed the marks that the
Creed of Constan nople assigned. **

Second, [that] these marks are not sufficient

(II) “These marks are in no way sufficient, because they do not declare
which one is the true church according to the here cs except with
probability. We cannot know from this who the elect or righteous are, and
we learn where the church is hidden rather than which one it is.”
We respond. On the contrary, these marks reveal the true church not
with probability but conclusively, because the pure preaching of the Word
and the legi mate use of the Sacraments are the proximate causes through
which the church is gathered to God. They are also goods that are proper
to the church. But now, one can gain definite and dis nct knowledge of any
thing from its proximate causes and proper adjuncts. When Bellarmine
argues that we cannot know from these marks who the elect or righteous
are, he is digressing from the state of the ques on. The ques on here is
not about the marks of the elect but about the marks of the visible church.
Not even the Papists’ marks reveal who the elect are; therefore according
to Bellarmine’s hypothesis they, too, will not be sufficient. It is sufficient for
us that these marks reveal where the church of the elect is hidden, since
the elect must not be sought outside the assembly of the called. From this
it becomes clear which one is the true church of God on earth. Although
wicked people are mingled with the elect and bad ones with the good in
that assembly in which the Gospel is preached purely and the Sacraments
are administered legi mately, that is, in external, par cular churches, and
though we cannot know individually who the elect and righteous are,
nevertheless because of this pure preaching of the Word and the
legi mate use of the Sacraments we do know that some elect people are
there and consequently that the church is there, which we can safely join.
** Finally, it is sufficient for us against Bellarmine that these marks
teach with probability which one is the true church, because its marks do
not effect “the evidence of truth” but “the evidence of credibility” (ch. 3, §
2). **

Specifically, against the pure preaching of the Word:

First, because this mark is common to all sects
§ 141. Specifically, Bellarmine rises up with three ra onal arguments
against the first mark, namely, the pure preaching of the Word: (I) “Marks
should be proper, not common. But the pure preaching of the Word is the
most common mark among all sects, at least in their opinion. Although it
does not fit all sects, yet it does fit them all according to their opinion.
A er all, when was there ever a sect that would not say that it had the
pure preaching of the truth?”
We respond. (1) We accept what Bellarmine says, that marks should be
proper and not common. He says: “If I wished to describe for you a certain
man whom you had never seen so that you could discern him from others
as soon as you saw him, I should not say, ‘He is a certain man who has two
eyes, two hands, etc.,’ for these are common to all.” Yet by this logic he will
be forced to erase most if not all of his own marks, for most are common
to the true church as well as to here cal assemblies.
 (2) He makes an absurd demand when he adds that “marks should not
be common even in opinion.” The opinion of erring people does not
change the fact itself; therefore it is enough for them to be proper truly
and according to fact. What this or that person supposes is his own does
not immediately become proper to him, but rather what truly does befit
him. Madmen claim many things for themselves, but those things remain
the property of their true owners. Thus the pure preaching of the Word
remains a true and proper mark of the church, though a false church may
claim it for itself. Our adversaries themselves admit that “only in the true,
catholic church is there the pure preaching of the Word.” From this it
follows inevitably that here cs and sectarians claim it for themselves
falsely. Those things that by their nature are true signs of something do not
cease being such, even if others claim them for themselves and do so
falsely.
(3) Although here cs may boast that they preach the truth, they can be
convicted of false boas ng on the basis of the tables of divine truth, that is,
on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. Hilary, Ad Constant.: “All here cs quote
the Scriptures without understanding. They pretend faith without faith.
The Scriptures are not a ma er of reading but of understanding. They are
not for transgressing but for loving.” Jerome, Adv. Luciferianos: “They
should not fla er themselves for appearing to affirm what the chapters of
the Scriptures say. A er all, even the devil quoted Scripture. The Scriptures
consist not of reading but of understanding.” Augus ne, De Trin., bk. 2, ch.
3 and 6, and De unit. eccles., ch. 4: “All here cs try to defend their false and
deceiving opinions from the Scriptures, but they are condemned by the
clear and harmonious voice of the divine tes monies.” Augus ne, Cont.
Donat., bk. 3, ch. 7, writes: “The divine oracles are not to be dishonored
just because the here cs convert the divine mysteries [sacramenta] and
oracles to the images of their own concep ons, so that they would be
considered to be theirs. You see, they cling to the Scriptures for
appearance, not for salva on.”
** A dis nc on must be made between marks that are considered as
internal with regard to essence and those that are considered external with
regard to opinion or es ma on. Bellarmine should have brought forth an
argument from the instruc on of Scripture, not from the opinion and
boas ng of here cs. **
 (4) The marks that Bellarmine assigns are likewise not proper to the
church but are common to other assemblies, at least in their opinion. We
can prove this easily by induc on. Therefore they, too, must not be
genuine marks. The Dona sts used to claim for themselves the name
“catholic”; Greek churches lay claim to the succession of bishops. Yet the
Papists do not consider these to be true churches, etc.
(5) If anyone wants to demonstrate something unknown by means of
something certain, he has carried out his responsibility sa sfactorily if he
assigns such marks as are actually and really proper to it, even though
others may claim those for themselves. Perhaps the thing that is to be
described does not have the sort of marks that others can claim for
themselves. Later an examina on will determine whether they claim those
marks for themselves rightly or wrongly, truly or falsely. If a woman claims
to be the bride of the king, goes about clad in purple robes, and
counterfeits every external splendor of the king’s bride, in the opinion of
many she could be considered the bride of the king. But when they go back
to the cer ficate of the marriage covenant, it will then become clear that
she is not the true bride. In the same way, though an apostate church may
claim to be the true bride of Christ and may shine with outward splendor,
s ll the cer ficate of the heavenly betrothal made in faith, that is, the Holy
Scriptures, reveals that that is not the true church. In connec on with this,
Augus ne (De symb., bk. 4, ch. 13) calls Scripture “the marriage cer ficate
of this Bride.”
(6) We invert Bellarmine’s argument. You see, since any sect boasts
about the truth of its teaching and strives to claim this for itself, we can
conclude from this that the pure preaching of the Word is a mark of the
church. If true money were not true, people would not coin counterfeit
money a er its pa ern in a corrupt imita on.
“But,” says Bellarmine, “this preaching ought to be free of every error,
or at least of fundamental and essen al errors. If we concede the first, we
shall conclude from this mark that the church exists among none of the
Lutherans, for they themselves admit that their churches are not free of
blemishes. If we concede the second, then it will be a mark common to
many sects.”
We respond. We do not take “blemishes clinging to the church” to mean
here cal doctrines, but rather certain opinions that by no means conflict
with the founda on of faith. All heresies, properly speaking, fight against
the founda on, if not primarily and directly, then secondarily,
consequently, and indirectly. But it is different with the wood, straw, and
chaff that are built upon a founda on which is preserved safe and
unbroken.
** Therefore a dis nc on must be made: (1) Between errors in
ques ons of faith and errors concerning faith. In the la er there can be
disagreement while the truth of the church is preserved, but not in the
former. (2) Between blemishes of doctrine and blemishes of behavior. **
Earlier [§ 126] we pointed out that there are levels of the purity that we
a ribute to the church. The more pure and sound the preaching of the
Word is, the more pure the condi on of the church is; and the more chaff
is mixed in, the more impure and corrupt it is. If heresies prevail and
overturn the founda on, it ceases to be a true visible church and becomes
a “church of evildoers” [Ps. 26:5]. Meanwhile, if Bap sm and some chief
parts of doctrine are s ll preserved unharmed in the corrupt condi on of a
visible church, and even amid an assembly of here cs, God gathers to
Himself an invisible church of the elect through the aforemen oned
means.
What Bellarmine adds is false, namely, that “the Pelagians did not
disagree with the church in the primary ar cles before they gave birth to
the Nestorians.” You see, they corrupted the doctrine of original sin, of free
choice, of jus fica on, and the like.

Second, that [the pure preaching of the Word] is not

better known than the church
§ 142. (II) “Marks should be be er known than the thing whose marks
they are. Otherwise they are unknown [ignotae], not marks [notae]. But
now, the pure preaching of the Word is not be er known than the church.
Therefore it cannot be a mark of the church.”
He confirms his minor premise with three kinds of arguments. (1) From
our hypotheses. He says: “Our adversaries want not only the preaching of
the Word to be a mark of the church but both the preaching and the
receiving. They say that the true church is there where the Word is
preached, heard, and believed. But who can know where the Word is truly
believed?”
We respond. When some of our people connect with the preaching of
the Word its correlate, namely, recep on, they understand it not as the
internal recep on by faith but the external recep on by which a place is
given to the true teaching. Therefore, though we cannot recognize
individually those who accept the Word with an inner faith of the heart,
yet we can certainly recognize where a place is given to true teaching and
where the Word of God sounds forth in the public ministry. But wherever
the Word is preached purely, there are always some who receive it by the
faith of the heart. This is because the Word of God never returns void; it
always catches some good fish in the net of Gospel teaching. For us it is
enough that we can evaluate and recognize the church on the basis of the
pure preaching of the Word, publicly received, even though we may not
know which people receive the Word with true faith and in this way
become true and living members of the invisible church.
(2) From some statements of the fathers. He says:
Without doubt, it is be er known what the true church is than what the true preaching of
the Word is, for we learn the Word from the church, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Augus ne, and
all the ancients teach. Irenaeus, bk. 3, ch. 2: “Even if a dispute had arisen in regard to a
moderate ques on, would it not be necessary to have recourse to the oldest churches and
to bring forward from them what is certain and clear about the present ques on?”
Tertullian, De praescript.: “Whatever the apostles preached, whatever Christ revealed to
them, should be proved in no way other than through the same churches that the apostles
themselves founded.”

We respond. Some things are be er known by nature; some things are

be er known to us. Aristotle (Post. anal. 1, ch. 2, text 5) says that essen al
causes and proper es are be er known by nature. Some external and
common accidents or effects that engage the senses are be er known to
us. Those things that are be er known by nature provide a solid and
dis nct knowledge of a thing. Those that are be er known to us are
uncertain and confused. Here we are looking for such marks that offer a
certain, infallible, and scien fic knowledge [scien ficam cogni onem].
Therefore we shall have to look for them from things be er known by
nature, namely, from their internal and essen al causes and proper es,
because “to know [scire] is to recognize [cognoscere] a thing through its
cause.” But now, the Word of God is by nature be er known than the
church, for it is the principle and cause for establishing and gathering the
church. It is “the seed” from which the church is born (Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1
Pet. 1:23). It is “the founda on” of the church (Eph. 2:20). Therefore the
Word of God is the proper, infallible, and certain mark of the church.
On the contrary: Whatever is defined essen ally and is recognized and
proved a priori from the Word of God, that is not by nature be er known
than the Word of God. This is because an essen al defini on must be taken
from things that are by nature prior and be er known, and a
demonstra on a priori is likewise taken from the proximate, internal cause.
But now, the church is defined essen ally and is recognized and proved a
priori from the Word of God. Therefore the church is not by nature be er
known than the Word of God. The minor premise cannot be denied, for
whatever we can and should know [scire] about the church must be taken
from the Word of God as from the unique principle of theological
knowledge [scien a].
Bellarmine says, “One must learn from the church what the pure
preaching of the Word is.” We concede this, but in this sense: In the true
catholic church, the pure preaching of the Word sounds forth publicly.
However, what the true catholic church is can be learned only from God’s
Word, for the true catholic church must be evaluated and judged on the
basis of the catholic faith and teaching. But now, the unique principle, rule,
and norm of catholic faith and teaching is God’s Word. From certain
external accidents we can indeed suspect that this or that assembly is a
true catholic church. But that cannot be evident conclusively and with
certain knowledge except on the basis of the proper and formal principle,
namely, on the basis of catholic faith and teaching. Thus we do not deny
that the true preaching of the Word must be asked for from the church and
sought in it alone, because the church’s func on and duty is to preach,
preserve, propagate God’s Word, etc. But it does not follow from this that
the church is by nature be er known than the Word of God. This is
because, before the church preaches and propagates the Word, it is first
born of the Word. Therefore the Word of God is by nature prior and be er
known than the church.
Irenaeus and Tertullian do refer us back to the church, but it is to that
church which s ll was preserving the integrity of apostolic doctrine.
Therefore just as it would be wrong for anyone to say: “At the me of
Irenaeus, Chris ans could march off to the Ephesian church and seek the
truth from it; therefore if a controversy arises now, Chris ans ought to seek
the truth from the Ephesian church,” so also no one should infer: “At the
me of Irenaeus, Chris ans could learn the apostolic truth from the Roman
church; therefore s ll today the truth must be sought from it.” This is
because both churches—the Roman as well as the Ephesian—though they
were established by the apostles, have departed from the integrity of
apostolic doctrine. Therefore what those churches once received from the
apostles and what the apostles received from Christ cannot be learned
from the present-day tes mony of those churches. Instead, it can be
learned from the apostolic wri ngs.
(3) Bellarmine produces this ra onal argument:
The true preaching of the Word is the preaching and interpreta on of the true Holy
Scripture. But we cannot know which Scripture is true and what its true meaning is except
from the tes mony of the true church. Not even our adversaries themselves can deny this.
The guardian of a treasure should be recognized [notus] prior to the treasure, and a teacher
prior to the teaching, since teaching is sought from a teacher, not the other way around.
Therefore the church is the mark [nota] of true preaching rather than true preaching being
the mark of the true church.

We respond. A dis nc on must be made between confused,

rudimentary, and incipient knowledge [cogni o] and dis nct, perfect, and
ascertained knowledge. A dis nc on must also be made between Scripture
taken materially as God’s Word put into wri ng and taken formally as the
shapes of le ers and the joining together of the canonical books in which
God’s Word is contained. From the tes mony of the church one can learn,
first, which Scripture is true and what the true meaning of Scripture is,
namely, with a confused, rudimentary, and incipient knowledge. However,
the dis nct and scien fic knowledge of this thing does not depend on the
external tes mony of the church but on the internal criteria and the total
concord of doctrine and of interpreta on with the Holy Scriptures.
The tes mony of the church can indeed move people to believe that
these books are holy and canonical, but to this confused knowledge
[no a] and to this ini al stage of faith a proper and adequate principle of
faith must be added, namely, taking Scripture itself in hand, reading, and
unrolling it. Then the Holy Spirit tes fies to His words and convinces the
reader’s mind of the truth. 1 John 5:[6]: “The Spirit is the one who tes fies,
because the Spirit is truth.” This can be explained by the account of the
conversion of the Samaritan woman described in John 4. The Samaritan
woman who had listened to Christ and had learned from Him the truth
“went away into the city and said to her fellow ci zens, ‘Come and see a
man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?’ ” (John 4:28–
29). The Samaritans were moved by the tes mony of this woman, who led
them to Christ. A er they themselves had heard the word of Christ, they
burst out with these words (v. 42): “No longer do we believe because of
your words, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly
the Savior of the world.” That is precisely how it is with the tes mony of
the church. Its func on can be to lead us through it—as by the kindness of
someone leading us by the hand—to Christ who speaks to us in the
Scriptures. But a erward, the very voice of Christ so strikes our hearts that
we no longer believe because of the tes mony of the church, but we
ourselves perceive clearly the majesty and divinity of the heavenly Word
through the working of the Holy Spirit. Both are God’s property. The church
is the kingdom of God; Scripture is the Word of God. The kingdom of God is
administered through the Word of God; the church produces children of
God through the Word, because the Word contains the wisdom of God
through which people become the children of the church. Therefore
because that wisdom has authority over the children of wisdom, surely
also the Word of God has authority over the church and over the children
of God. But they do not have authority over Scripture or over the wisdom
of God. The church and Scripture show their works mutually, but the
authority belongs to Scripture, while the ministry belongs to the church.
The church makes Scripture known, but it does so by its ministry. Scripture
makes the church known, but it does so by its authority, as Carleton writes
correctly, De consensu cathol. contra Trid., p. 162.
Let us pass the same judgment regarding the interpreta on of Scripture.
Anyone can claim with probability that this or that interpreta on is true
because it is from Augus ne, Ambrose, or someone else. However, he
cannot claim this with certainty and infallibly before he himself sees its
agreement with all other passages of Scripture, with the analogy of faith,
with the context, etc., because the true and genuine interpreta on of
Scripture must be taken from Scripture itself. The true church interprets
Scripture not to add any foreign light to it nor to arrogate for itself some
absolute right to interpret, but because it is seeking its interpreta on from
Scripture itself, as we have shown elsewhere in greater detail [On the
Interpreta on of Scripture (1610 Loci Theologici, locus 2), §§ 1–72; On Holy
Scripture (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace I), §§ 437–80, 528–37].
If one has observed these points correctly, it will readily appear that
these two concepts do not conflict with each other: that the true
preaching of the Word is a mark of the church and that the church bears
witness to what the true Scriptures are and what its true meaning is. The
cause is recognized from the effect, that is, a posteriori; and, conversely,
the effect is recognized from the cause, that is, a priori. This demonstra on
of effect from cause is stronger and clearer than the demonstra on of
cause from its effect. The church’s proper duty and func on is to preach
the Word of God. Therefore we can proceed from the preaching of the
Word, as from the effect, to a recogni on of its cause, namely, the church.
Conversely, the church is born from the Word, is preserved by the Word, is
increased by the Word. In this way, the preaching of the Word is the
instrumental efficient cause and the formal cause of the church. Therefore
we can proceed from the preaching of the Word, as from the cause, to a
recogni on of its effect, namely, the church.
Bellarmine adds: “The guardian of the treasure is be er known than the
treasure, and the teacher is be er known than the teaching.” This can be
explained most correctly on the basis of the aforemen oned dis nc on
between confused and dis nct knowledge. By an uncertain, obscure, and
doub ul knowledge we can indeed suspect that this or that man is the
guardian of the treasure because he carries the keys, because he is greeted
as such; and that someone is a teacher because he claims to be a teacher.
However, whether the one really is the guardian of the treasure, whether
the other really is a teacher, cannot be known [sciri] with certain and
ascertained knowledge before it becomes obvious that the former has had
the treasure entrusted to him and that the la er has been instructed with
the teaching. All of Scripture cries out that teachers must be judged from
their teaching, that prophets must be recognized from their fruits, that the
spirits must be tested on the basis of their doctrines, but not that doctrine
should be judged on the basis of teachers. One of the ancients used to say,
“We do not test the faith on the basis of persons, but persons on the basis
of the faith.”
 Finally, if the church is be er known than Scripture, why does
Bellarmine write, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 2: “Nothing is more certain,
nothing be er known, than the Holy Scriptures, which are contained in the
prophe c and apostolic wri ngs, so that whoever denies that they should
be given credence must necessarily be the most foolish of all”? Why does
he write, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2: “Some mes Scripture is be er known, for
instance, when it is received and speaks clearly, and when a ques on
about the church arises”? Why is it sufficient to prove from Scripture the
authority of the church, its marks, its infallibility, etc.? Surely if our en re
knowledge of the church depends on Scripture, then it is not simply be er
known than Scripture. In fact, he claims, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 10: “God’s
Word is the primary founda on of our faith; the witness of the church, the
secondary founda on.” Yet if “the church simply is be er known than
Scripture,” as he says here, and “if the firmness of every doctrine depends
on the tes mony of the church,” as he claims elsewhere (De eccles., bk. 3,
ch. 10, and De sacram., bk. 2, ch. 25), then the church must surely be the
primary founda on of our faith because it is directed to that as its ul mate
object.

Third, that this mark is separable from the church

§ 143. (III) [Bellarmine writes:]
True marks are inseparable from the true church. But the churches of the Corinthians and
Gala ans, to which Paul was wri ng, were true churches, yet there was not a pure preaching
of the Word there, as we can learn from the apostle, who says that he is wri ng to the
“churches of God,” which are at Corinth or in Gala a (1 Corinthians 1; Gala ans 1). Yet in 1
Corinthians 15 the Corinthians are reproved for teaching that there would not be a
resurrec on, and the Gala ans throughout nearly the en re Epistle are being rebuked for
teaching that the Mosaic Law must be kept along with the Gospel.

We respond. (1) We accept what Bellarmine gives, that the marks of the
church ought to be inseparable from it. By this reasoning, however, he
again will be compelled to erase most of those fi een marks that he
assigns to the church, as an examina on of them shows very clearly.
(2) The pure preaching of the Word and the purity of the church walk at
the same pace. If the preaching of the Word is pure in every part and free
of errors, the church will also be pure. If some errors are mingled with the
preaching of heavenly doctrine, the condi on of the church begins to be
corrupt, but it does not immediately cease being the church. If the
preaching of the Word completely ceases, then a visible church will also
cease exis ng there.
(3) Some errors had crept into the churches of the Corinthians and
Gala ans; nonetheless they kept the name “church” because not everyone
was embracing those errors. 1 Cor. 15:12: “How do some of you say that
there is no resurrec on of the dead?” Gal. 4:21: “Tell me, you who desire
to be under the Law.” They were “church,” also, because they s ll retained
some chief parts of doctrine. Gal. 3:28: “You are all one in Christ.” Gal. 5:1:
“In the freedom by which Christ has called you, stand fast, and do not
submit again to a yoke of slavery.” Finally, they were s ll “church” because
they were not stubbornly defending those errors; there was s ll hope of
their conversion and correc on regarding those errors.
(4) Therefore a dis nc on must be made between the pure and
uncorrupted state of the church and the partly corrupted state of the
church. The church of the elect can be preserved under a corrupt ministry
of the visible church. When we claim that the pure preaching of the Word
is a mark of the church, this has to do with the prior state of the church,
because a corrupt state of the church must be examined and reformed
according to that prior state. We pointed out earlier [§ 126] that par cular
churches do not have the same level of purity. Therefore corrupt churches
must be restored according to the norm and form of the Word. From this
we draw the firm conclusion that pure doctrine is the form and mark of the
church.
(5) A dis nc on must also be made between the errors themselves and
the stubborn defense of them, a dis nc on that Bellarmine himself
embraces here, for he writes: “It is one thing to err and to be prepared to
learn and, when you have learned, to obey. It is something else to be
unwilling to learn and to refuse to give assent to the truth when you have
heard it.” In a par cular church that first condi on can exist, but not the
second. That second can occur only in the synagogues of Satan and in the
churches of evildoers.
(6) Bellarmine adds: “That first condi on does not take place in the
universal church.” One can easily see from previous paragraphs what
should be thought about this statement. If with the expression “universal
church” he means the Roman church, he is misusing words, for the Roman
church is a par cular church and is by no means universal. If he takes the
expression “universal church” to mean “all par cular visible churches,”
then we say that such a me can occur that the public ministry of the
en re visible church, or of all par cular churches, is corrupt. If he takes the
expression “universal church” to mean “the invisible church of the elect,”
we say that the elect can become ensnared in fundamental errors
temporarily but will struggle out of them before the end of life. We also say
that they can be ensnared in less serious errors not only temporarily but
even finally; yet those errors are burned up in them by the fire of the cross
and of trials [tenta onum].
(7) However, Bellarmine adds another point in which he boldly
contradicts both himself and the truth. He says, “In a false church there can
be doctrine that is pure of every error, for the Luciferian and Dona st
schisma cs in the beginning had sound doctrine, yet they are outside the
church.”
We respond. Bellarmine himself writes, ch. 12 of this book: “Only the
church has unstained doctrine.” If unstained doctrine exists only in the
church, how can there be doctrine that is pure and free of every error in a
false church? It is paradoxical to say that pure doctrine—which is the form
of the true church, her proper treasure, in fact, like its very soul—can be in
a false church. From church history it is known that the Luciferians and
Dona sts erred. The Dona sts claimed that the sacraments were polluted
by ministers, that Bap sm of here cs had to be repeated, that the church
on earth consisted only of good people and did not admit bad people into
its external fellowship. Consequently, Augus ne said to an important
Dona st: “You are schisma c because of your sacrilegious departure, a
here c because of your sacrilegious doctrine” (Contra Gaudent., bk. 3). As
far as schisma cs are concerned, they all err in the ar cle on the church,
for the dogma of the orthodox is that one should not leave the communion
of the church because of some blemishes. Schisma cs, however, fight
against the ar cle: “I believe there is one church” [Credo unam ecclesiam].

[Against the legitimate use of the Sacraments]

§ 144. Bellarmine a acks the second mark with the same arguments,
namely, that
 all claim it for themselves. The legi mate use of the Sacraments is less well-known than the
church, for one must pass judgment about it on the basis of Scripture, but Scripture
depends on the church. Finally, the legi mate use of the Sacraments can be separated from
the true church. You see, the Corinthians are reproached for not dealing with the sacrament
of the Eucharist purely, yet the church of the Corinthians was a true church. Also, the African
churches under Cyprian did not deal with the sacrament of Bap sm purely, yet they were
true churches.

We respond. (1) In the same way, here cs actually [de facto] claim that
they have the legi mate use of the Sacraments, but they do not do this
justly [de jure]. Therefore one should not pay a en on to what they claim
for themselves, but how truly they claim it for themselves. We must
consult the Scriptures, which teach us clearly about the Sacraments that
Christ has ins tuted and show plainly in which assembly their legi mate
administra on exists.
(2) We join the pure preaching of the Word to this mark, namely, to the
legi mate use of the Sacraments, because here cs can keep a sacrament
pure, and yet it does not follow from this that they are a true church.
(3) The legi mate use of the Sacraments does not depend on the church
but solely on Scripture. This is because the church, just as it cannot and
should not ins tute new sacraments, should also change nothing in the
Sacraments that Christ has ins tuted. Of course, the church should teach
about the legi mate use of the Sacraments, but it should do so in the same
way as it was first taught: from the Scriptures.
(4) The legi mate use of the Sacraments must be evaluated on the basis
of their essen al parts. The Corinthians were not trea ng the Eucharist as
purely nor were they approaching the Lord’s table as religiously as they
should have, and the apostle rebukes them with that accusa on. Yet they
undoubtedly preserved its essen al parts unharmed. The African churches
erred in the ques on about the Bap sm of here cs. Yet they administered
a pure and legi mate Bap sm because they retained its essen al parts
unharmed.

On the basis of those marks, we deduce that the church

of the Lutherans is a true church
§ 145. On the basis of these facts, therefore, we draw the inevitable
conclusion: Whatever church has the pure preaching of the Word and the
legi mate administra on of the Sacraments, that is a true, pure, and
orthodox church. But the Lutheran church (we call it this in a sound sense)
has the sincere preaching of the Word and the legi mate administra on of
the Sacraments. Therefore the Lutheran church is a true, pure, and
orthodox church. Our adversaries cannot deny the major premise, for
though they may deny that these are the marks of the church, yet they
admit that only the true, catholic, and orthodox church has them, as we
have shown above from their words. For this proof, that is enough for us.
You see, if something is found only in the church, when that is posited, the
true church is posited. If a proper and inseparable adjunct belongs to
something, the subject belongs to it too.
We prove the minor premise from the induc on of each and every
doctrine that is taught in our churches. In each and every doctrine we
appeal to the Holy Scriptures. Outside of Scripture, we teach nothing at all
in the ar cles of faith. We embrace the Apostles’ Creed, and we do not
disagree with it in even the slightest point. Here note carefully what Eck
admi ed at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 before Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria:
“We can in some fashion refute the Lutheran religion from the fathers, but
not from Scripture” (as is quoted in Luther’s works, German, vol. 5, fol. 35,
fac. 2).
If our adversaries wish to counter: “This is a doub ul mark because it is
s ll uncertain whether our churches have the pure preaching of the Word
and the legi mate administra on of the Sacraments and because the other
sects, too, claim this mark for themselves,” we respond from Augus ne, De
unit. eccles., ch. 3: “Surely these are those books of the Lord on whose
authority we both agree and that we both believe and serve. Let us look
for the church there. Let us examine our case there.” We also respond from
Basil, Le er ad Eustathium medicum: “Let the God-inspired Scripture be
the arbiter for us, and the vote of truth will surely come to them whose
doctrines are found to agree with the divine words.”
Now, in this place we must observe correctly that, just because some
people have doubts as to whether this or that thing has this mark, one can
by no means infer that the mark itself is something doub ul. It is one thing
to be doub ul about the mark itself; it is something else to be doub ul as
to whether the mark fits this or that. For example, we doubt that the
marks assigned to the church by the Creed of Constan nople fit the Roman
church, namely, that it is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. Yet
Bellarmine will not concede that we may infer from this that those marks
are doub ul and uncertain in themselves. In the same way, even if
Bellarmine and others, who are unwilling to give assent to the truth
revealed in the Scriptures, doubt that the sincere, pure preaching of the
Word and the legi mate administra on of the Sacraments befit our
church, they should by no means infer from this that those marks are
doub ul and uncertain. Rather, let them come down into the struggle with
us on the basis of the Scriptures. Let them listen to the confession of our
faith in regard to each ar cle, and let them examine that confession on the
basis of the Scriptures. Only then will it become clear whether we are
claiming that we have the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate
administra on of the Sacraments truly or falsely, rightly or wrongly.

On the contrary, the Roman church is not a true church

§ 146. On the contrary, we conclude on the basis of these marks against
the Roman church of today as follows: Whatever church does not have the
pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate administra on of the
Sacraments, that is not a true, pure, catholic, and orthodox church. But the
Roman church of today, which is a ached to the Roman pope, does not
have the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate administra on of
the Sacraments. Therefore it is not a true, pure, catholic, and orthodox
church. The minor premise can be proved from the induc on of the
doctrines for which people in the Roman church contend against Scripture.
What kind of doctrines those are can be seen from the individual
controversies. Here we shall give briefly some chief points in which the
Roman church of today departs from the rule of the Scriptures and from
the consensus of the truly catholic church.
(1) The true church acknowledges Christ alone as her Head and
Bridegroom (Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18; etc.). But the Roman church of today
acknowledges the Roman pon ff as its head and bridegroom.
(2) The true church is “built upon the founda on of the prophets and
apostles” and rests solely upon that and accepts nothing outside the Word
(Eph. 2:20; Gal. 1:8; etc.). But the Roman church of today makes tradi ons
equal to God’s Word and claims that we must accept them “with an equal
affec on of piety” along with the Word of God.
(3) The true church bestows the worship of invoca on upon the one
true God (Ps. 50:15; Isa. 42:8; Gal. 4:8; etc.). But the Roman church invokes
dead saints.
(4) The true church worships God according to the revealed Word (Deut.
4:2; Ma . 15:9; etc.). But the Roman church has ins tuted new kinds of
worship outside the Word.
(5) The true church holds ghtly to the fundamental ar cle of free
jus fica on through faith in Christ (Gal. 5:4, etc.). But the Roman church
contends for the merit of works and one’s own sa sfac ons.
(6) The true church holds the teaching of the Law uncorrupted, namely,
that it demands a spiritual obedience that is perfect and absolute in every
part and that cannot at all be achieved in the weakness of this flesh (Acts
15:10; Rom. 8:3). But the Roman church teaches not only that we can fulfill
the Law completely but also that we can perform works of supereroga on.
(7) The true church teaches that the concupiscence le in the reborn is
sin in the true and proper sense, for “Forgive us our debts” (Ma . 6:12) is
the voice of the whole church. But the Roman church teaches that
concupiscence in the reborn a er Bap sm does not have the essence of
sin [pecca ra onem].
(8) The true church teaches the full assurance and certainty of faith
(Rom. 4:[21]; 8:38; etc.). But the Roman church contends for the dogma of
doubt and thus takes away this important ar cle of faith: “I believe there is
the forgiveness of sins.”
(9) The true church recommends the reading of Holy Scripture to all her
children (John 5:39; Col. 3:16). But the Roman church forbids her children
to read the Scriptures.
(10) The true church honors marriage as a sacred ordinance of God and
keeps no one away from this state of life (1 Tim. 4:1[–4]). The Roman
church does not leave marriage free to priests.
(11) The true church preserves unharmed the Sacraments ins tuted by
Christ (Gal. 3:15). To the two Sacraments that Christ ins tuted, the Roman
church adds five others. It turns the Eucharist into a sacrifice, forbids the
laity from using the chalice, teaches that the bread is transubstan ated
into the body of Christ, etc.
 (12) The true church endures persecu on (Gal. 4:29); a false one inflicts
it (Rev. 17:6). But the Roman church is drunk with the blood of the saints.
** There were civil wars over a period of thirty years from 1550 to 1580.
According to their calcula on, there were thorough and diligent
persecu ons in Belgium, France, England, Italy, and Spain. Because of their
confession of an evangelical religion, 840,000 people were taken, among
whom were 39 princes, 148 counts, 237 barons, 147,518 nobles, and
700,060 commoners. By how many hundreds of thousands did this number
of the slain increase in the preceding years, from 1517 un l 1550? How
much did it grow in the years following, from 1580 un l now? **
The Englishman Robert Glover (according to Fox, Martyr., p. 1710)
confirmed with four arguments that the Roman church is not Christ’s true
church. (a) The church of Christ acknowledges only Jesus Christ as its Head;
but the Roman church acknowledges the pope as its head. (b) The church
of Christ listens to His voice and is ruled by His Word, neither adding to it
nor subtrac ng from it; but the Roman church adds many things to the
Word of God and the administra on of the Sacraments, and takes some
things away. (c) The true church resists the lusts of the devil, the world,
and the flesh; the Roman church indulges in all pleasures as much as
possible. (d) The church of Christ endures persecu on; but the Roman
church persecutes and kills the servants of God.
Therefore on the basis of these points and many others one can prove
clearly that the pure preaching of the Word and the legi mate
administra on of the Sacraments do not flourish in the Roman church of
today. The author of Onus ecclesias c. (in ch. 19, sect. 6, and in many other
places) complains about this bi erly. Concerning this ma er, one can learn
from the Catalog. tes um verita s and Wolf’s Centenar. that even before
Luther began the Reforma on, public complaints about this had been
heard in the church.
§ 147. This concludes our discussion on the true and proper marks of
the church. The Papists reject those and set up other marks, but they vary
greatly concerning the number of them.
** Salmeron (tome 6, trea se 23) says: “The faith and church of the
Lutherans are not true.” He tries to prove this on the basis of five
founda ons: (1) because it lacks signs and miracles; (2) it lacks the glory of
martyrdom; (3) it lacks obedience to the church, secular princes, and the
emperor; (4) it lacks concord of doctrine; and (5) it does not allow new
counsels. **
Lindanus (Panoplia, bk. 4, ch. 83) and Canisius (Catech., trea se de
praecept. eccles., ch. 9) claim that “the Roman pon ff and the Roman see
are the one undoubtable mark of the church.” Horan us (Cont. ins t.
Calvin., bk. 6, ch. 6) gives one most certain mark of the church: “the
con nued succession of priests” and prelates, especially the Roman
prelates.
The Catechismus synodi Triden nae makes two marks of the church:
that it is and is called (1) “catholic” and (2) “apostolic.”
Stapleton (De principiis fidei, introduc on to bk. 4) establishes three
marks of the church by which one should discern it from the false church
of here cs and schisma cs: mul tude, visibility, and perpetuity. Driedo (De
eccl. dogmat., bk. 4, ch. 2, part 2) and Petrus a Soto (Defens., first part, ch.
44) establish three other marks, according to Bellarmine, De eccl., bk. 4, ch.
5. Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth., bk. 6, annot. 104) praises the three marks of
Vincent of Lérins, which are the “universality, an quity, and consent of
ecclesias cal tradi on.”
Cardinal Hosius (Expl. symb.) and Costerus (Enchir., ch. 2, p. 86) posit
four marks of the church: that it is holy, that it is catholic, that it is one, that
it is apostolic.
Sander (De visibili monarch., bk. 8, ch. 50) proposes six marks: first, its
height and sublimity; second, its splendor and brilliance; third, its large size
and immensity; fourth, its success and perpetuity; fi h, its consent and
unity; and sixth, its unconquerable faith and constancy.
The Jesuits of Posen set up seven marks of the church. They are:
“brilliance, spread, an quity, the name ‘apostolic church,’ the legi mate
ordina on and calling of pastors, holiness, and unity.”
Michael Medina sets up ten in De recta fide, bk. 2, and adds an eleventh
in bk. 7, ch. 26.
Cunerus Petri, De no s eccles., posits twelve. Pistorius observes the
same number in Hodeg., ch. 4, where he lists the marks of the church in
the following order:
(1) Christ will be present un l the end of the world with His church, which will endure un l
the end of the world. (2) Christ’s church began at Jerusalem and from there spread to the
 ends of the earth. (3) She was propagated from herself, and the succeeding church has
grown out of the earlier church. (4) There are always true teachers, legi mately called,
placed in the church, and they are pure. (5) She always has not only evil sheep but also
elect. (6) The whole church never errs, even minimally, but is always the pure church with
pure faith and pure sacraments within her. (7) The church must be heard because by her
office and governance she looks a er her children and keeps them obedient. (8) She has not
only the cross and contempt but in her me also glory, peace, and happiness. (9) She
extends from one sea to another. (10) Christ’s church has been separated from that of the
Jews, for God has bound Himself to her without condi on. (11) She alone will endure,
agreeing among all. (12) She is visible and conspicuous.

Jacob Reihingius (Muri civita s sanctae) lists twelve founda ons of the
Papist faith that he calls very solid reasons by which the Papist religion
becomes very persuasive to any prudent person: “(1) The imposi on of
false doctrines that the Papists do not teach. (2) The magisterium of the
church in interpre ng the Scriptures. (3) Apostolic origin. (4) The primacy
of Peter. (5) The succession of the Roman pon ffs. (6) The authority of
councils. (7) The consensus of the fathers. (8) The holiness and miracles of
its supporters. (9) The name ‘Catholic church.’ (10) The concord and unity
of the Romanists.” To these he adds: “(11) Whoever refuses to join the
Papist church is guilty of inexcusable imprudence and (12) of extreme
pride.” These last two items are not so much new and dis nct founda ons
as they are conclusions gathered from the earlier founda ons. Thus they
are merely added so that those reasons may somehow correspond to the
number of founda ons assigned to the heavenly Jerusalem in Rev. 21:14.
Bellarmine (De eccl., bk. 4, chs. 4ff.) lists fi een marks that he says can
somehow be referred back to those four that recent people assign
commonly from the Creed of Constan nople: “one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic.” They are as follows:
(1) The name “catholic church” and “Chris ans.” (2) An quity. (3) Long and uninterrupted
dura on. (4) Large size or mul tude and variety of believers. (5) The succession of bishops
from the apostles. (6) Agreement in teaching with the ancient church. (7) The union of
members with one another and with their head. (8) Holiness of teaching. (9) Efficacy of
teaching. (10) Holiness of life of its authors. (11) The glory of miracles. (12) Prophe c light.
(13) The confession of its adversaries. (14) The unhappy death of those who a ack the
church. (15) Temporal felicity.

Socolovius, De no s ecclesiae, has twenty marks; Thomas Bozius, one

hundred.
 Our business will be with Bellarmine. In general, we say that his marks
are not “proper, certain, adequate, perpetual, and infallible” marks of the
true church, if they are separated from purity of teaching. If they are to
have some power to mark the true church, however, they ought to borrow
it all from purity of teaching, which is connected to the true church. This
will become obvious from a specific examina on of each mark.
Chapter XI: On the Marks of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine in Particular
Section I: On the First Mark of the Church:
The Name “Catholic”: Whether the name “catholic”
is a mark of the church
§ 148. In lis ng those fi een marks of the church, Bellarmine has as his
aim to prove that the Roman church alone is the true church and that ours
is false and here cal. Therefore in our examina on of each mark we shall
have to evaluate three points: (1) Whether that mark, which Bellarmine
assigns and from which he draws the major por on of his argument, is a
true, genuine, and proper mark of the church. (2) Whether it befits the
Roman church, for he assumes this in the first part of his minor premise,
which always has two terms. (3) Whether that mark does not befit our
church, for he denies this in the la er part of the minor premise, as is
evident from this syllogism: “The word ‘catholic’ is a mark of the true
church. Yet the Roman church is catholic, while the Lutheran church is not
catholic. Therefore the Roman church, but not the Lutheran church, is the
true church.” It is convenient to separate this syllogism into two dis nct
syllogisms, the first of which affirms and the second denies, while the
major premise of both remains the same.

The origin of the name “catholic”

§ 149. The first sec on. In order that it may become quite clear whether
the name “catholic” is a true mark of the church, we must search out the
origin and meaning of this word. Its origin is correctly referred to the
Apostles’ Creed, in which this ar cle stands: “I believe there is one, holy,
catholic church.” There are some people who doubt that the word
“catholic” came from and was put into the Creed by the apostles because it
is found nowhere in Holy Writ (from which the Creed was taken, according
to Augus ne, De symb., bk. 1, ch. 1); because Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 2, p. 34,
and bk. 3, ch. 4, p. 172) and Tertullian (De praescript. adv. haeres., p. 110.,
and De veland. virginib., p. 566) cite a summary of the Apostles’ Creed but
do not men on this word; and, finally, because it has not yet been proved
beyond doubt whether the apostles, before they went out into all the
world to preach the Gospel, organized and composed that creed (which
the greater por on of the ancient writers affirms), or whether someone
else gathered it from the sermons and wri ngs of the apostles, and then
the apostles approved it. Therefore Pacian (Le er 1 ad Sempron.) and
Lindanus (Panopl., bk. 3, ch. 8) think that in the Apostles’ Creed the sense
of the word was very similar to “the church sca ered throughout the
world,” as Irenaeus reads it (bk. 1, ch. 3). Later, however, Greek
theologians, or at least people with a knowledge of Greek, began to say
more clearly and explicitly “catholic church.” Yet they are uncertain when
this was inserted into the Apostles’ Creed and whether that occurred
before the Council of Nicaea.
** Of course, according to some learned men the name “Chris ans,” by
which the faithful were dis nguished from the heathen and Jews, spread
about all the world (Acts 11:26) much earlier than the word “catholics,” by
which those who were preserving the purity of apostolic teaching that s ll
existed in the world wanted to be and generally were dis nguished from
the deceiving opinions and assemblies of newly emerging here cs, which
happened especially a er the Council of Nicaea. Consequently, Johannes
Franciscus Picus thinks that it was only then that this word came into the
Apostles’ Creed, and his opinion is not at all unlikely. **
However, we do not deny that this word has come from the apostles
themselves. From the mouth of their Master they heard that the church in
the New Testament was not going to be contained within the narrow
boundaries of Judea, as in the Old Testament, but that the Gospel was
going to be preached “in all the world” [ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ οἰκουμένῃ] (Ma .
24[:14]), “in the whole world” [ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ] (Ma . 26:13), “to the
whole world” [εἰς ὅλον τὸν κόσμον] (Mark 14:9). For this reason they
called the church of the New Testament “catholic” because it was gathered
in all the world from all kinds of people, without respect and discrimina on
for places, na ons, languages, peoples, and persons. Just as the Epistles of
Peter, John, and James are called “catholic” or “universal” because they are
not addressed to specific persons or par cular churches, and because
there is no addi on of the name of a region or city to which they are
specifically directed, and because they are addressed in general to all
Chris ans, so also the church of the New Testament is called “catholic” or
“universal” because it is gathered not from some par cular people or
na on but from all na ons in all the world.
 § 150. Therefore the first origin of this word arose from the an thesis
between the Israelite church in the Old Testament and the Chris an church
in the New. The former was ordinarily bound to a definite na on and
people, namely, the people of Israel. All who wanted to be members of the
church had to join with the Israelites. For this reason they were called
“proselytes,” which means “those who come” or “foreigners” (Acts [2:11]).
The la er is gathered from all na ons in all the world by the universal
preaching of the Gospel, and it is sca ered throughout all the earth. As
me passed, however, heresies grew strong in the New Testament church,
and “catholic” began to be understood as a consensus in catholic teaching,
that is, in the confession of faith that the apostles first preached orally and
later le in the Scripture by the will of God. In order that here cs might not
take over the expression “catholic church” for their own congrega ons
because of the mul tude of those who applauded them, the word
“catholic” was expounded and explained through “apostolic,” just as in the
Nicene Creed of AD 325 the ar cle of the Apostles’ Creed on the church
was explained in this way: “I believe there is one holy catholic and
apostolic church.” Thus one may understand that the true church is the
one that is built upon the founda on of the prophets and apostles in any
part of the world and that protects the teaching of the apostles faithfully
and purely. Likewise, in the Council of Ephesus in 434, the words “catholic”
and “apostolic” are connected, and one is explained by the other. The
fathers of that council speak as follows: “This is the catholic and apostolic
faith that all orthodox bishops from both the East and the West approve.”
Also: “The holy and apostolic church anathema zes those who claim the
contrary,” where the tle “catholic” is omi ed.
** Therefore “catholic” is a ributed both to the doctrine that the
apostles first preached orally throughout the world at Christ’s command
and later put into wri ng and handed down to posterity, and to the people
or assemblies that accepted this teaching through the work of the Holy
Spirit, preserved it undefiled, and to whose witness the orthodox appealed
in the course of later centuries whenever controversies arose. Gregorius de
Valen a (Anal. fidei cathol., bk. 6, ch. 4, f. 37; and Comm. in Thom., vol. 3,
disp. 1, q. 1, part 6, f. 172) writes as follows: “The church is called ‘catholic’
because of the universality of its teaching, place, me, and people who are
called to it without any dis nc on of peoples or age or sex or condi on.”
But the first defini on predominates over the others and gives “catholic”
its essence. The other defini ons depend on that one, being changeable in
and of themselves. You see, if you consider places, mes, and subjects, the
appearance of the church has not always been the same, nor will it always
be the same. Meanwhile, one and the same faith always endures (Eph.
4:6). **

The meaning
§ 151. We can refer the meaning of this word back to the following chief
points. The church is called “catholic” primarily with respect to the elect
and the saints, insofar as it includes within its embrace all who truly
believe in Christ, the en re mys cal Body whose Head is Christ. This is the
genuine and proper meaning of this word as well as the way in which it is
taken in the Apostles’ Creed when we say, “I believe there is one holy
catholic church.” There the word “believe” shows clearly that the invisible
church is being discussed, and this is also proved by the predicate “holy”
that is added. The Head and members are the material of this catholic
church. The Head is Christ. The members are all who truly believe, whether
they are already triumphant in heaven or are s ll militant on earth. The
form is the spiritual fellowship and communion of the members both with
the Head and with one another. Its proper es are that it is holy, invisible,
and exempt from any error that would overturn the founda on of faith.
On the other hand, because the elect and truly believing are not outside
the assembly of the called but are in this assembly of the visible church (in
which hypocrites, too, are intermingled), secondarily and consequently the
visible church of the called is also called “catholic”: (1) With respect to its
substance, according as it includes within its embrace all the called, among
whom are not only the elect and truly believing but also hypocrites and
nonsaints who, nonetheless, are in agreement about the doctrine. In this
sense, the expression “catholic church” is contrasted with par cular
churches that are gathered in a certain region or city or household.
(2) With respect to its quan ty, that is, places and mes, according as it
includes the faithful of all places and mes. We can call this “external
universality.” In this sense it is contrasted with the Israelite church of the
Old Testament, which was bound to a certain loca on and lasted un l
Christ.
** Christ’s church is defined as catholic with respect to all na ons not
affirma vely, which would necessarily require the sort of large size by
which it would always spread itself visibly throughout the world, but
nega vely, that it is no longer bound to a definite and par cular people, as
it was previously to the people of Israel, but that its gates are open to all,
without restric on, throughout the world. **
(3) With respect to quality, namely, of its teaching, according as the
en re church has one faith and confession, built upon the founda on of
the prophets and apostles. We can call this its “internal universality.” In this
sense, the tle “catholic church” is contrasted with the conven cles of
here cs that lack the catholic faith and the consensus of the ancient
church, even though they some mes spread widely and endure for a long
me. This last tle “catholic” first began to be used when various heresies
grew and spread and the orthodox could no longer appeal only to the
mul tude, who had once rightly been opposed to the synagogues of the
Jews and the conven cles of here cs, and when they realized that the
consensus of the catholic faith really had to be connected to it.
** Therefore the church is called “catholic” either with regard to
quan ty or with regard to quality. Quan ty is considered either with
regard to all parts and members, and thus quan ty determines the subject,
or with regard to all languages, peoples, and na ons from which the
church catholic is gathered, and thus it is predicated about the church. The
church is called “catholic” with regard to quality because of the teaching
and faith in which it agrees with the en re church or with the assembly of
true believers spread over all the earth. This agreement is some mes
perceived clearly so that one can appeal to it. Then the “catholic” church
denotes the same thing as “orthodox,” according to the interpreta on of
Emperor Jus nian (C. de summ. Trinit. et fid. cathol., lib. Cunctos populos).
Some mes—namely, when the public ministry has become corrupt—that
agreement is hidden among those who are not guilty of public error. **

The dis nc on
 § 152. From these one can draw an easy conclusion whether and to
what extent the tle “catholic” is a mark of the church. A thing is called
“catholic” or universal in name only or as having the thing connected with
it. Bellarmine claims that only the name “catholic” is a mark of the church.
Yet drawing an argument from a mere tle is very slippery, as we shall
show later. But if we consider the thing itself (that is, universality)
connected with the tle, we shall discover a dual universality. One is
external. It is evaluated on the basis of the external circumstances of place,
me, status, condi on, age, sex, etc. The other is internal. It has to do with
the catholic faith or the consensus in the catholic faith. But now, this
catholic faith must be evaluated on the basis of the prophe c and apostolic
wri ngs, since they indeed contain the canon and norm of the true catholic
faith. Therefore the true catholic faith is the one that embraces the
teaching of the prophets and apostles, which is comprehended in their
wri ngs. Consequently, the true catholic is the one who truly and sincerely
believes the teaching of the prophets and apostles and preserves
unharmed the consensus of faith revealed in the wri ngs of the prophets
and apostles. On the other hand, a here c is one who embraces a peculiar
doctrine outside the canon of prophe c and apostolic Scripture and
stubbornly adheres to it. Therefore if that universality of faith, determined
by the wri ngs of the prophets and apostles, is joined to the name
“catholic,” we readily admit that the church which is and is called “catholic”
is the true church because of its catholic consensus in the prophe c and
apostolic teaching. On the other hand, we also admit that the church
which lacks this consensus of the catholic and apostolic faith is here cal.
Augus ne (Quaest. in Ma h., q. 11) defines good catholics as “those
who pursue sound faith and good behavior.” In De morib. eccl. cathol., bk.
1, ch. 18, he describes “the catholic faith and church” as “that which
retains the truth and consensus of the Old and New Testaments, which has
Christ dwelling in it by faith, and which is filled with all the fullness of God.”
Vincent of Lérins, Adv. novit., ch. 25:
A true and genuine catholic is one who loves the truth of God, who loves the church, who
loves the Body of Christ; who places nothing ahead of divine religion, nothing ahead of the
catholic faith, etc.; who cares not for the authority, not for the love, not for the abili es, not
for the eloquence, not for the philosophy of any man, but despises all these and, remaining
fixed and stable in the faith, acknowledges whatever the catholic church has held universally
from of old and determines that he must hold and believe it alone. Whenever he senses that
 anything new and unheard-of is being introduced by one person beyond all the saints, or
against all the saints, he understands that it does not belong to religion but to tempta on.

** Vincent again, Adv. haereses, ch. 3: “That is truly and properly

catholic which has been believed everywhere, and always, and by all.” Here
he points out that for the catholic faith one must pursue “universality”
(which he contrasts with the separa on and individuality of the here cs,
who depart from the Body of Christ), “an quity” (which he contrasts with
the novelty of here cal doctrines), and “consent” or unanimity (which he
contrasts with the diversity of those who hold corrupt and wrong beliefs),
and, finally, “the truth divinely revealed and comprehended in the
Scriptures.” This alone is what the consent of the devout looks to, what the
an quity of the saints regards, what the universality of the faithful
receives. **
Pacian, Le er 1 ad Sempron.: “Whoever is a catholic, this ‘just one’ is
obedient. And whoever is obedient is a Chris an, and thus a catholic is a
Chris an.”

An argument cannot be drawn from the bare word

§ 153. Therefore because Bellarmine has set the catholic faith aside and
concludes on the basis of the name “catholic” alone that the Roman church
is the true church because it is called “catholic,” we set against him the
following founda onal truths.
(I) One cannot draw a firm and unshakable argument from a name
alone to the thing itself. This we prove: (1) From the Scriptures. The Jews
called themselves “the children of Abraham” and “the children of God”
(John 8:33). Nevertheless how far indeed were they from being the
spiritual seed of Abraham and the sons of God! False teachers call
themselves “prophets and ministers of Christ,” yet they are “false
prophets” (Ma . 7:15) and “false christs” (Ma . 24:24). False apostles
called themselves “ministers of righteousness” (2 Cor. 11:15) and were
“transforming themselves as apostles of Christ” (v. 13), though that is not
at all what they were. On this point, nothing is more evident than Rev. 2:9:
“You are slandered by those who say that they are Jews and are not, but
are a synagogue of Satan,” which is repeated in 3:9. The Jesuit Ribera,
commentary on Revela on: “In regard to the church at Sardis, the Spirit
says: ‘I know your works. You have the name of being alive, and you are
dead.’ This was a dead church, though it had the name of being alive and
was alive in its own opinion.” In 1 Cor. 8:5 the apostle says that there are
many in heaven and on earth who “are named gods,” though there is only
one God. Simon Magus was called “the great power of God” (Acts 8:10).
Diana of the Ephesians was called “a great goddess” in Acts 19:27.
However, the former was a very wicked impostor; the la er, a detestable
idol.
(2) We prove this from the statements of the ancients. Jus n, Apol. 2.
pro Christ., p. 42: “The appella on of a name is not judged either good or
bad apart from the works that belong to that name.” Augus ne, Epist. Joh.,
tractate 2: “How can you boast that you are a Chris an? You have the
name, but you do not have the deed. If a name would follow the work,
everyone would call you a pagan. Show that you are a Chris an with your
deeds. If you do not show that you are a Chris an with your deeds, and all
call you a Chris an, what advantage will that name provide you when the
thing is not present?” Augus ne again, Epist. Joh., tractate 4: “How many
are called physicians who do not know how to heal! How many are called
watchmen who sleep the whole night through!” Salvianus (De provident.,
bk. 4) wisely judges: “The name without the act and its office is nothing.”
He says, “What is another holy word without merit except a decora on in
the dirt?” In reference to here cs Cyprian says, bk. 1, Le er 6: “They wish
to be the servants of Christ, and they serve the An christ.”
** Cyprian, De simpl. praelat.: “The devil has come up with a new trick:
deceiving the careless under the tle of the name ‘Chris an.’ ” Cyril,
Catech. 4: “Wickedness imitates virtue, and weeds desire to be seen as
fruit.” Prosper, De vit. contempl., bk. 3, ch. 1: “Impudence ascribes the tle
‘trustworthiness’ to itself. Shamelessness pretends the name of liberty.
Wordiness feigns eloquence.” **
Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 2: “They pretend to be Christ and fight
against Christ.” Nazianzen, Apol. 2: “Under the name of Chris ans they are
figh ng against Christ.” Leo, Le er 1 ad Palaest., Le er 83: “They arm
themselves with the name ‘church,’ but they fight against the church.”
(3) We prove this from civil laws and the witness of lawyers. Paulus
responds: “He is truly called a false tutor who is not a tutor, whether or not
he had been given as a tutor to whoever has him. So also a testament is
false if it is not a testament. A measure that is dishonest is dishonest”
([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] ff. De verb. et rer. signif., bk. 221). Goeddeus
comments on this law and warns that one cannot infer from this that there
is a twofold testament, one true and the other false. He says: “Whatever is
a lie, whatever is merely a ma er of opinion, whatever is false, whatever is
pretended in imita on of the truth, that is not real” (Leg. 1 et tot. t. C. si
fals. tut. inter leg. 5. C. de legibus). In the same way Everhardus (Topic.,
locus ab etymolog., no. 12) points out that “a common statement must be
limited.” This is men oned in the gloss on the expression “nomen non
habent,” in [Ius canonicum,] 68. dist., c. corepiscopi, § quod autem: “If you
are deprived of the office, you do not deserve to have the name,” namely,
in order that it may appear [to be so]. “At mes the name signifies that
there is a necessary substance or quality in a subject; otherwise the name
signifies only a simple designa on.” In no. 13 there is added: “Solely from a
naming, for example, just because a man and woman call themselves
husband and wife, their marriage is not proved. An adulterous wife who
makes a profit by a sort of pros tu on is nevertheless called a wife.” Tot.
t. ff. ad l. Jul. de adult. coërc. “Among deacons and collegiates are some
who conceal themselves under the bare pretext of the tle” (C. de sacros.
eccles., bk. 9).
(4) We prove it from natural reason and the tes mony of philosophers.
Many names have been imposed on things falsely. Therefore there is no
perpetual and certain logical consequence from the name to the thing.
Names are not always given on the basis of a certain judgment, but
rather on the basis of a common opinion. Therefore we cannot argue truly
and correctly from the name to the thing.
Some mes things keep the names by which they were once called,
though the reason they were called by that name no longer exists. For
example, at the me of Christ, the Jews were called “the seed of Abraham”
not because they actually were that but because their forefathers had
been. But by then they had fallen away from the fathers’ integrity and
religion. Therefore a firm argument cannot be drawn from a name.
The Philosopher (Metaph., bk. 4, ch. 11; De generat. animal., ch. 1; and
several other places) teaches that some things are predicated as synonyms;
other things, as homonyms: “Homonyms at least have a common name,
but not a common thing. There is a great difference between univocal and
equivocal predica ons. No argument can be drawn from an equivocal
name, except a sophis c one,” etc.
(5) We prove it from common experience. O en a well-known pros tute
is greeted as a virgin. Muhammad called himself a “great prophet” and s ll
is considered as such among his followers, though he was not. The
disciples of Muhammad call themselves “Muslims,” that is, “orthodox.”
They also call themselves Abdullam, that is, “servants of God.” They call
their pon ffs Caliphe Lullahe, that is, “vicars of God.” In the early church,
some here cs called themselves Apostolics, Angelics, Cathari, Encra tes,
Gnos cs, etc. These tles have a splendor greater than or at least equal to
the word “catholic.” Armenian Chris ans call their patriarch “Catholicos,”
as is apparent from the discussion of Theorianus with the Catholicos of the
Armenians. Yet Bellarmine does not acknowledge them as Roman
Catholics.

Here cs claim that name for themselves

§ 154. (II) Whatever name here cs claim for themselves is not a genuine
and proper mark of the true church. Yet here cs claim even the names
“catholic” and “Chris an” for themselves. Therefore the names “catholic”
and “Chris an” are not genuine and proper marks of the true church.
Bellarmine cannot deny the major premise because earlier (ch. 2, § 5) he
argues: “The pure preaching of the Word is not a mark of the church
because it is common to all sects, at least in their own opinion.”
The minor premise becomes obvious when we bring in examples.
Cyprian (Le er 73) writes about the Nova ans: “Like monkeys that imitate
men, though they are not men, they want to claim for themselves the
authority and truth of the catholic church.” Tertullian, Adv. Marcion., bk. 4:
“Wasps build their nests, and Marcionites build their churches.” Lactan us,
Ins tut., bk. 4, ch. 30: “Each and every assembly of here cs thinks that
they are especially Chris ans and that its church is the catholic church,”
which statement Bellarmine cites, De eccl., bk. 3, ch. 1. The Arians formerly
called themselves “catholics” but called others “Homoousians” and
“Athanasians,” according to Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth., bk. 4. The Jesuits of
Posen, thesis 4: “The Arians called the orthodox ‘Homoousians’ by way of
insult, and the Dona sts even called them ‘traitors.’ ” Augus ne, Contra
epistolam Fundamen , ch. 4: “All here cs want to be called ‘catholic.’ ” In
Le er 48 he men ons that the Dona sts wrote this inscrip on for their
book against Caecilian, which they sent to the emperor: “The book of the
catholic church, containing the charges against Caecilian, sent to the
emperor by the majority.” From the Colla o. ter i diei cum Dona s s, it
appears that the Dona sts were arguing that they ought to be called
“catholics” rather than their adversaries. The judge responded to them,
saying, “The more they call themselves ‘catholics,’ so much the more did
they plead their case that in this way they could prove they were
catholics.” (This is what we, too, respond to the Papists today.) The words
of Augus ne in the Breviculus colla onum cum Dona s s, in the report of
the third day, ch. 2, read as follows: “Among these points a few things were
also said and objected by both sides” (the orthodox and the Dona sts)
“about who possessed the name ‘catholic.’ It was ordered to be reserved
instead for the principal case. A li le later, when the Dona sts repeatedly
men oned the name ‘catholic’ and said that ‘catholic’ rather belonged to
them,” etc.
** In this report the Dona sts also in the third discourse kept tes fying
that the name “catholic” belonged to them. Reihingius declares (Fund. 9, p.
226) that the Nova ans called the catholics “Cornelians.” Epiphanius
(Haeres. 37) says in regard to the Arians that they “strove to make the
name ‘catholic’ their own.” Baronius (Annal., vol. 3, year 357, no. 3) cites
this quota on from Epiphanius. Salvianus, De Dei guberna one, bk. 5, p.
150: “Among us, they” (the Gothic Arians) “are here cs, but not among
themselves. For they judge that they are catholics to such an extent that
they defame us with the tle of a here cal name. Therefore what they are
to us, so we are also to them. We are certain that they are doing an
injus ce to the divine bege ng by saying that the Son is less than the
Father. They think we are insul ng the Father because we believe that
Father and Son are equals.” Lindanus, preface to Panopl.: “In those early
centuries, here cs were falsely accusing the spreaders and defenders of
the catholic and apostolic faith—men such as Basil, Nazianzen, Ambrose,
Jerome, Augus ne—of being corrupters of the apostolic faith and here cal
Manichaeans, Homoousians, Sabellians, and Basilianists.” Book 4, end of
ch. 7: “Jovinian called Ambrose a Manichaean, and the Pelagians called
Augus ne a here c.” Ibid.: “The Dona sts boasted that they alone were
Chris ans.” Canus, Locor. theol., bk. 4, toward the beginning of ch. 1: “It is
common to all here cs that they transfer the property and name of
‘church’ to themselves and deny it to those where they actually are.”
Augus ne, De u lit. credendi, ch. 7: “All here cs want to appear to be
catholics and call others besides themselves ‘here cs.’ ” Bellarmine, De
not. eccles., ch. 1, art. 2: “Every heresy draws the true church to itself alone
and places all others outside the church.” Chapter 4, art. 1: “Every heresy
wants to appear as and to be called ‘the catholic church.’ ” Lorinus, on Acts
20:30: “The Arians used to call themselves ‘catholics,’ but they called
catholics, that is, the orthodox, ‘Homoousians, Athanasians, Romans,’ that
is, here cs.” The Marcionites wanted to be called “Chris ans,” according to
Eusebius, Histor. eccles., bk. 4, ch. 11, p. 721. **
The Pelagians used to call their foes “here cs” in order to be able to
claim the name “catholic” for themselves, according to Augus ne, Sermon
14 de verb. apost. In Contra duas epist. Pelag. (bk. 1, ch. 2) and Contra
Julian. (bk. 2), Augus ne also tes fies that when he was defending grace
against the Pelagians, he was called a “Manichaean.” Jerome, Le er ad
Marcum: “If the Arians call me a here c, it is deserved.” The Greek church
calls itself “catholic,” though the Papists call it schisma c and here cal. The
patriarchs of the see of Constan nople call themselves “universal” and
“ecumenical,” names with which their predecessors once had been
honored ([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] C. de summ. Trinit., bk. 7; Novella 3, 5, 7, 16,
and 42). Roffensis, Adv. Luth., art. 3: “Both Marcionites and Valen nians
wanted to be called ‘catholic’ and ‘orthodox’ and called others ‘here cs.’
The Nova ans called themselves ‘pure’ and all others ‘impure.’ ” Lindanus,
preface to Panopl., § quod inquiunt: “In the early centuries, here cs were
calling the defenders of the catholic faith—men such as Basil, Nazianzen,
Ambrose, Jerome, Augus ne—here cal Manichaeans, Homoousianists,
Sabellians, and Basilianists.”
Therefore the argument drawn from a name is slippery, for it is an old
trick of false teachers and of the false church to conceal the shamefulness
of their own doctrines under the specious blanket of a name. Irenaeus, bk.
1, ch. 30: “They hold forth the name ‘Christ Jesus’ like a seduc on, but
they introduce the wickedness of Simon in various ways. They mor fy
many through that good name while wickedly publicizing their own
opinion. By the sweetness and beauty of the name they distribute to
others the bi er and vile venom of the serpent, the prince of apostasy.”
For the name “Simon” subs tute the name “the An christ,” and you will
see how very aptly this declara on of the doctor of Lyon fits our Jesuits.
But if they counter, saying that the Arians, Dona sts, and Greeks alone
called themselves catholic but that no one else did, but that others—and,
in fact, even we—call them “catholic,” then we respond that this occurs in
that name and sense by which they call us “Evangelicals,” and not because
we claim that they are truly catholic, as will become clear later [§ 159].

It did not begin with the church

§ 155. (III) Whatever name did not begin with the church itself cannot
be a proper and genuine mark of the church. The reason is because it will
be accidental to the church, not essen al, since essen al ma ers are
perpetually connected with the thing itself, arise with it, and perish with it.
But now, the name “catholic” did not begin with the church itself.
Therefore it is not a proper and genuine mark of the church. As our earlier
argument proves that this mark does not befit only the one true church, so
this argument shows that this mark does not always and perpetually befit
it. From both arguments, the result is that it is not a genuine and proper
mark, which, indeed, befits one thing alone and always.
The minor premise is confirmed by what Pacian says, Le er 1 ad
Sempron.: “Under the apostles no one was called ‘catholic.’ ” From this
they conclude that the apostles themselves did not write the Apostles’
Creed but that someone else collected it from their wri ngs.
** The same Pacian, loc. cit.: “Whoever is a catholic, this ‘just one’ is
obedient. And whoever is obedient is a Chris an, and thus a catholic is a
Chris an.” At the me of the apostles no one called himself “catholic.”
Perhaps the Mele an schism that arose ca. AD 304 provided the first
opportunity for the name “catholic.” In that schism, those who stood on
the side of Bishop Peter of Alexandria called themselves “the catholic
church,” while those who were on the side of Mele us called themselves
“the church of the martyrs,” according to Epiphanius, Haer. 68. **
But let us concede that the apostles themselves put that name into the
Creed. Nevertheless it is certain that at the me of Christ, before the
preaching of the Gospel reached all na ons, the church was not called
“catholic.” Yet one cannot by any means deny that this was the true church
and, in fact, the best church.

Bellarmine’s arguments that the name “catholic” is a mark of the

church
§ 156. Let us see how Bellarmine proves that the name “catholic” is a
mark of the true church. From the Scriptures, he brings up 1 Cor. 3:4, which
shows that “at Paul’s me schisma cs had taken their names from men, so
that some were saying that they were of Paul, others were saying that they
were of Cephas, and others, of Apollos.” From this he concludes that
“those who are named a er men are schisma c, but that those are truly
catholics who have their name from Christ alone and are called by the
name of no one else.”
We respond. (1) We concede that those are schisma c who take upon
themselves names from men, though they agree in the founda on of faith.
Such were the Corinthians, to whom the apostle is wri ng this. They
agreed in the fundamental ar cles of faith but meanwhile were dispu ng
about insignificant ma ers and especially about the authority and
preeminence of their teachers. Because of this they were going off into
different sects. We also concede that those are here cs who depart from
the unity of the catholic faith and embrace the opinions and false doctrines
of men. In this way, the Arians are named a er Arius, the Pelagians a er
Pelagius, the Nestorians a er Nestorius, the Eutychians a er Eutyches. But
one cannot and should not infer from this that those who are called with
the common names “Chris ans” and “catholics” are not schisma cs or
here cs, for we have shown earlier [§ 154] that the Arians and other
here cs wanted to be called “catholics.”
(2) Many here cs have not taken their name from any man. Such
especially are the heresiarchs who, though they are quite here cal, yet did
not take their name from men. Alphonsus de Castro, De haeres., tle De
Christ.: “The Acephali arose, who were growing in power at the same me,
for no one was discovered to be their chief and master. They said that
Christ had only one nature.” To these Acephali we can add also the
Alogians, the Agnoëtae, the Anthropomorphites, the Angelics, the
Apostolics, the Cathari, etc., who did not wear the name of any man but
wore the names of their heresies.
** Alphonsus de Castro, Adv. haeres., bk. 2, tle aqua haeres. 2: “The
here cal Flagellants were given their name from their work. They would
flagellate themselves with kno ed whips into which they had inserted
barbs.” Book 6, tle eucharis a haeres. 6, on the Aquarii: “No one can
determine who the ins gator of this heresy was and when it began.” **
Here we should men on the outstanding passage of Bernard, on Song
of Songs, sermon 66, where he discusses some here cal apostles’
statements:
Ask them who the originator of their sect was, and they will offer no one. What heresy has
not had its own heresiarch? The Manichaeans had Manes as prince and instructor, the
Sabellians had Sabellius, etc. But under what name or tle will you list them? Under no
one’s name, because their heresy is not from a man nor did they receive it through man.
They certainly did not receive it through the revela on of Jesus Christ! Rather and
undoubtedly, as the Holy Spirit foretold, they received it through the entry and deceit of
demons, etc.

(3) We shall explain later [§ 160] in what sense and respect we are
called “Lutherans.” If Luther had introduced a novelty that differed from
the ancient catholic faith, as Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and many others
did, we, too, would be called Lutherans a er him in the same sense as
Arians are named a er Arius, Nestorians a er Nestorius, Eutychians a er
Eutyches, etc. Then Bellarmine’s argument would prove something.
However, Luther did not introduce any novelty but removed papal errors
that had been brought into the catholic church and taught the old and truly
catholic faith on the basis of the catholic wri ngs of the prophets and
apostles.
(4) It is not we who call ourselves Lutherans. Rather, our adversaries call
us that. We allow this to the extent that this tle is an indica on of the
consensus that our churches have with the orthodox and catholic doctrine
that Luther set forth from Holy Writ. Therefore we allow ourselves to be
named a er Luther, not as the inventor of a new faith but as the asserter
of the old faith and the cleanser of the church from the stains of Papist
dogmas. Consequently, we also do not reject the names “Chris an” and
“catholic,” nor do we render ourselves unworthy of it by the approval of
any here cal dogma, as did the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, etc. Rather,
we are called “Chris ans” from Christ as the only Author and Teacher of
our faith. We are called “catholics” from our consensus with the catholic
faith. We are called “Lutherans” from Luther as the asserter and defender
of that faith, but especially as the reformer whom God raised up.
(5) On the other hand, the Papists have made themselves unworthy of
the name “catholic,” embracing papal doctrines that are contrary to the
catholic faith and calling themselves “Roman Catholics,” as we shall show
later [§ 159]. Vincent of Lérins defines a catholic as someone “who does
not place the authority of anyone ahead of the true faith.” But the Papists
place the authority of the pope ahead of the true faith. Therefore they are
not truly catholic.
(6) Finally, we admit that in a sound sense we are “schisma c,” namely,
because we have seceded from the Roman church and from its head, the
Roman pon ff. By no means, however, have we separated ourselves from
the unity of the church catholic and its head, Christ Jesus. But oh what a
happy schism it is, by which we are united with Christ and the true church
catholic! There once was this sort of schism, by which the Chris an church
separated itself from the Jewish synagogue. This sort of schism is even
commanded in Acts 2:40: “Be saved from this crooked genera on,” and
Rev. 18:[4]: “Depart from it.”
The fathers also command this kind of schism. Igna us, Le er 6 ad
Philad.: “If anyone follows him who has cut himself off from the truth, he
will not inherit the kingdom of God. Whoever does not depart from a lying
preacher will be condemned to hell.” Ambrose, commentary on Luke 6: “If
there is any church that has rejected the faith, it must be abandoned.”
Chrysostom, Homily 46 on Ma hew: “He who leaves the church bodily
does not actually leave it. He who spiritually abandons the founda ons of
the church’s truth is the one who leaves it. For we depart from them” (the
Arians) “in body, but they leave in faith.”
Warned by these precepts and examples and depar ng from the
idolatrous Roman church, we have not abandoned Zion but have fled from
Babylon. We have not rent the church but have followed Paul’s example in
the church at Ephesus (Acts 19:8) and have separated the disciples. We
have not erected altar against altar a er the example of Jeroboam or of
the Dona sts but have thrown down the altar of Damascus from the
temple of the Lord and have restored the true worship of God.
 § 157. To this tes mony of Scripture Bellarmine adds various statements
of the fathers that bear witness that “here cs are named a er men, while
the name ‘catholic’ has been le to the true church.” However, all these do
nothing for his advantage, because: (1) The fathers are not speaking about
the name alone but about a name that has the thing connected to it, as we
have shown earlier. If the fathers had judged that the name “catholic”
alone and separated from the catholic faith was sufficient, they would not
have fought with such a struggle of minds for the purity of the catholic
faith against the here cs who were claiming the name “catholic” for
themselves. When Cyril (Catech. 18) had taught that the name “catholic”
belonged to the holy church, he added that the church is called catholic
“because it teaches universally [καθολικῶς] and completely all doctrines
that ought to come into the knowledge of men.” Therefore he shows that
this name befits the church because of the catholic faith. Therefore if the
catholic faith is in exile from a church, it will no longer be catholic except by
way of homonym. Chrysostom, on Ma hew, homily 7: “If you see a
Chris an man, consider if his confession agrees with the Scriptures. If so,
then he is a true Chris an.” He repeats this in homily 33 on Acts. We say
the same thing about the name “catholic,” because Bellarmine connects
both of them in this place. Augus ne, De unit. eccles., ch. 10: “We must
not believe the catholic bishops if perhaps they are deceived into thinking
something contrary to the canonical Scriptures.” Therefore we must
evaluate the name “catholic” on the basis of the teaching. We must not
simply believe those who call themselves “catholic” without any
examina on.
(2) When ba ling against their foes, the fathers did not sta on the
name “catholic” in the front line, the way Bellarmine establishes it as the
first mark of the church. Rather, they put it in last place, namely, a er they
have first demonstrated the truth of their faith from the Scriptures. For
example, a er Augus ne (Contra epist. Fundam., ch. 4) had men oned
many other ma ers of greater importance that were keeping him in the
catholic church, he adds at the end: “Finally, the very name ‘catholic’ holds
me because it is not without cause that the church alone among so many
heresies has kept this name.” In the same chapter he adds: “If the
Manichaeans could prove the truth, of which they boast and which they
promise, then I would want to cast off all this and go over to them.” Hereby
he also shows very clearly that he a ributes nothing to the name “catholic”
without the truth being connected to it.
(3) When the ancients boasted about the name “catholic,” they s ll
retained the purity of the catholic faith. But the Papists, who boast of that
name, can by no means prove that they enjoy the purity of the catholic and
apostolic faith on the basis of the catholic oracles of the prophets and
apostles, from which alone we must learn and prove the catholic faith.
Therefore they are calling themselves “catholic” with the name alone, but
the thing itself is not found among them.
(4) Here cs are correctly named a er the names of their heresiarchs,
according to the cons tu on of Theodosius and Valen nian, [Corpus Iuris
Civilis,] C. de haere c., bk. damnato 6:
Now that Nestorius, the author of this portentous supers on, has been condemned, let his
followers be branded with the fi ng mark of his name. They should not use the name or
tle “Chris an.” As Arians are named a er Arius by the law of Constan ne (of blessed
memory) because of a likeness of wickedness, and Porphyrians from Porphyrius, so also
everywhere the followers of the wicked sect of Nestorius should be called “Nestorians.”
Inasmuch as they have imitated his wrongdoing in abandoning God, let it seem right that
they have been given his name.

However, we are by no means named a er Luther in the same way

because no one can prove that Luther taught any novelty.
(5) Today the church does not have the same outward appearance and
status that it once had. Thus one cannot prove the truth of the church
conclusively on the basis of the name “catholic.” Formerly, the catholic
church had spread far and wide while the idolatries of the heathen were
being restrained, as well as the supers ons of the Jews and the false
teachings of here cs. If any heresies were rising, they would be limited to
the narrow territory of certain regions. Then there would be a correct
appeal to the catholic name, to which the catholic faith was joined, which
held sway far and wide. But a er Arianism had crept through the en re
body of the church like gangrene, it stru ed about with its head li ed on
high and tried to transfer the glory of the name “catholic” to itself. Now the
name “catholic” alone could no longer be set against the here cs, but the
catholicity of the faith had to be proved. So also, because in earlier
centuries Papism swept over the en re church like a flood and wretchedly
defiled its external appearance, the truth of the church cannot be proved
from nominal or external catholicity. Rather, one must have recourse to the
internal catholicity of the true faith. Casaubonus writes in a le er
published in the name of the king of England to Cardinal Perronius:
The great difference between the days of Augus ne and our day should be considered
carefully. Therefore the church is called “catholic” in a different sense today than it was in
those days. The appearance of the church and its en re exterior form have changed, to say
nothing about its interior. Formerly, the catholic church, like a city set on a hill, was by no
means doub ul. It was known to all; it was clear, certain, spread far and wide throughout
the world, flourishing under emperors whose dominion reached from east to west, from
north to south. One could easily see bishops of the East and West communica ng daily
through their le ers and personal emissaries, etc. A er the empire was torn asunder, the
catholic church was as well, and li le by li le all those things ceased that served very well to
preserve the union and communion of the catholic body. The catholic church did not cease
exis ng at that me, for it will always be, but it did begin to be less evident inasmuch as it
had been divided among itself into several completely separate parts, as far as external
communica on is concerned. Therefore the churches of Rome, Greece, An och, Egypt,
Abyssinia, Moscow, and many others are members of the catholic church whose structure
has long been broken as regards exterior form. Therefore it is a surprise that the Roman
church, which once was a member of the en re body, now draws every claim of universality
to itself, makes the name “catholic church” its own property, excludes all the rest who
disagree with it in any ma er from its fellowship, and immediately and boldly declares that
they have nothing to do with the catholic church.

Whether the Roman church is correctly called “catholic”

§ 158. The second sec on. Should the Roman church be called
“catholic”? The Papists customarily call the Roman church “catholic.”
However, the facts tes fy that, properly speaking, it is not catholic with
regard to place, me, or faith. Therefore against that boas ul tle, by
which they claim the name “catholic” for the Roman church alone, we
produce the following arguments.
(1) The church catholic includes the en re number of those who are
going to be saved (Heb. 12:23). Some of these are already reigning in
heaven; some are s ll ba ling on earth. However, the former were not all
in the fellowship of the Roman church. In fact, many of them departed
from this life not knowing, much less approving of, the supers ons and
idolatries of the Roman church.
(2) Outside the church catholic there is no salva on. However, many are
saved outside the Roman church. For example, if true Bap sm is
administered in our churches, certainly salva on must not be denied to
infants bap zed in our church.
(3) The church catholic embraces the catholic faith, that is, the faith that
agrees with the teaching of the prophets and apostles (Eph. 2:20).
However, the Roman church departs from that catholic consensus of the
true faith in many main points.
(4) The church is called “catholic” because it includes all members of the
church sca ered throughout all the world. But the Roman church does not
include all the members of the church sca ered throughout all the world
because a greater part does not accept Roman doctrines and ceremonies.
Therefore.
(5) The fathers make a dis nc on between the Roman church and the
church catholic. Jerome, Ad Evagr., says this about the Roman church: “If
you are looking for authority, the world is greater than the city.”
** When Igna us wrote to the Roman church, he sets this gree ng at
the beginning: “To the church that is located in the district [χωρίον] of the
Romans.” The word χωρίον means diocese, as is apparent from the
Council of Chalcedon, Acta 15. **
Augus ne (Le er 86) says in regard to Urbicus, who was struggling to
impose on other churches the custom of the Roman church in fas ng, that
“he blasphemes the church spread throughout all the world, except for the
Romans and a few others from the West.” Ambrose, De sacram., bk. 3, ch.
1: “I desire to follow the Roman church in all things. Yet we men have
understanding too. Therefore what is kept elsewhere more correctly, we
also correctly maintain.” (Ambrose would say that he never disagreed with
the Roman church, but when he disagreed with the Roman church in
ma ers of ritual, he did not hesitate to have his own mind and to dissent.)
Gregory, on Job 9, bk. 19: “All the churches that make up the one church
catholic are called ‘very young maidens,’ for they are not yet old through
fault but are young through grace.” (If “all churches” make up the church
catholic, then the Roman church alone is not the church catholic.) Bede,
Histor., bk. 5, ch. 22: “All the churches throughout the world make up the
one church.” Consequently, the fathers of the Council of Basel (Epist.
synod. 3) write as follows: “We say that the Roman see is chief among the
other sees, but while you are praising a part of something, will you forget
the whole? While you are extolling one church, will you omit that which is
universal and which contains the Roman church?” In the appendix of that
council it says: “The Roman church is not universal but is of the
universality.” Likewise, in the Council of Ferrara, session 9: “The Roman
church is inferior to the universal church.”
If you counter, saying that today the name “catholic” is commonly given
to the Roman church, we respond: (a) This name does not have the thing
itself beneath it, that is, the catholic faith, from which it has already fallen
away in many main points. (b) The Roman church has appropriated that
honorific tle for itself because of an appearance of external universality.
(c) Our people call it “Catholic” not because we actually consider it to be
such, for otherwise we would immediately renounce our confession and
promptly withdraw into the bosom of the Roman church. Instead our
people call it “Catholic” because it is commonly considered to be such—
but on the basis of their hypothesis, ironically, even as they call us
“Evangelicals.” (d) At the me of Isaiah, Jerusalem called herself “the holy
city,” and the evangelists called her that at the me of Christ (Ma . 4:5),
though she had “become a whore.” At the me of Christ and the apostles,
the Jews used to call themselves, and were called by others, “the seed of
Abraham,” not because they were but because their forefathers had been,
from whose teaching and piety they had fallen away. In the same way, the
Papists s ll keep the name “Catholic” that they received from their
ancestors, though they have fallen away from the faith of their forefathers,
that is, from the confession of the ancient Roman church, as we have
shown earlier [§ 125].
(5) Because of the renown of the city and its episcopate, the Roman
church formerly was called “catholic” by synecdoche, for it was the most
important member of the church catholic. This name, properly speaking,
means the church, not of one city or region, not of Rome nor Italy, but “the
universal church of all mes, places, and peoples, which is spread through
all the world and which includes all the saints before the Law, under the
Law, and under grace,” according to Gregory, bk. 4, Le er 38. Eventually,
however, that preroga ve of honor, dignity, and rank that has been
a ributed to the Roman church degenerated into the usurpa on of power,
jurisdic on, and dominion.
** (However, there is a profound silence in the Scriptures concerning
that no on by which the Roman synagogue considers itself the catholic
church by reason of the jurisdic on that it has over all other churches that
are a ached to it under the fellowship of one visible head. Furthermore,
sisterhood, that is, the equal rela onship of the churches, does not permit
that subjec on.) **
Today, that preroga ve clearly has turned into a tyranny that the Roman
pope has usurped for himself in both ecclesias cal and secular ma ers. It
is on this basis that he calls his Roman church “catholic.” But what does
domina on have in common with doctrine? If catholic domina on makes
the church “catholic,” what keeps Roman paganism from having been
called “catholic” when the Roman Empire was flourishing? Meanwhile—
not to men on that there are many Chris an churches in Africa, Egypt, and
Ethiopia that have not even heard the name of the Roman pon ff, much
less have bent their necks to his tyranny, and that there are many
churches, Greek churches in Asia, for instance, and even some in Africa,
which have strongly resisted his dominion—many in Europe have thrown
off the violent yoke of his domina on.
§ 159. Here three things must be pointed out. (1) The Papists are not
content with the name “catholic” but call themselves “Roman Catholic,”
something that those experienced who fell into the hands of the harpies,
that is, of the inquisitors. Yet in this way they show that they are not truly
catholic because they are binding the church to a certain place, namely, to
Rome. Whether “the Roman church” is taken as the church of the city of
Rome or whether as the en re dominion of the pope, it cannot be called
“catholic,” because something par cular is never universal, a species is not
a genus, a member is not the whole body.
(2) Those for whom alone Bellarmine here claims the verity of the
church are not only called “catholics” but also “Papists” [Pon ficii].
Therefore if we are not catholics because we are called “Lutherans,” they
also will not be catholics because they are called “Papists” [Pon ficii ac
Papani].
** Lorinus, on Acts 20:30, § unus est: “We are not afraid nor
embarrassed to be called Papists [Papistae] a er the pope [papa]. In fact,
we freely acknowledge and confess that an outstanding record and
tes mony of the orthodox faith are found in him.” Cf. Reihingius, Mur.
Babylon. (which he calls “the holy city”), fund. 9, pp. 226–27. **
 If being named a er a man conflicts with the name “catholic,” surely
also being named a er the pope must conflict with it, because the pope is
a man, unless perhaps we wish to say with canon law that “the pope is
God” (dist. 96, c. sa s). [Ius Canonicum,] gloss on the word “declaramus,”
toward the end of c. cum inter nonnullos, Extr. de verbor. significat.: “The
pope, our Lord God.”
Bellarmine does not disapprove of the name “Papist” [Papista]
“because,” he says, “it is taken from the pope, such a one as was Peter and
Christ Himself.” We respond. Neither Peter nor Christ were popes as
Bellarmine shamelessly claims here, but both forbade papal denomina ng
in the church. If either Christ or Peter were popes, how is it that Chris ans
were not immediately called “Papists”? If it is legi mate to be named a er
the pope, why could they not have been called “Petrians” a er Peter, who,
according to their hypothesis, was a pope? However, Paul disapproves of
this (1 Cor. 3:4). Also, Athanasius (Contra Arian., orat. 3) correctly points
out that “we have not acquired names from our blessed teachers, the
apostles, but we are and are called ‘Chris ans’ a er Christ.” Augus ne, on
Psalm 44: “However many the apostles fathered” (through the word of the
Gospel) “they called them not Paulines nor Petrians but Chris ans.”
If we wish to examine the facts, they are more correctly called “Papists”
a er their pope than we are called “Lutherans” a er Luther. They
acknowledge the pope as the head of their church, as the infallible judge of
all controversies. They embrace his decrees with no further examina on
and proof from the Scriptures. They even consider him as the only master
of their faith. We, on the other hand, a ribute no such honor to Luther. Or
if we embrace his teaching, it is not because it came from Luther but
because we have discovered that it agrees with the Holy Scriptures.
Therefore our faith is not directed toward the authority of Luther as its
ul mate object, as happens among the Papists toward the shrine of the
papal heart. Rather, we listen to Christ’s voice speaking in the Scriptures;
Luther, as a minister of Christ, has faithfully taken our hand and led us to
Christ’s voice.
Bellarmine adds: “We are called ‘Papists’ by no one except by Lutherans
in Germany and the neighboring areas.” We respond. So also we are not
called Lutherans and sectarians except by the Papists and other sectarians.
Therefore it is frivolous to try to draw an argument solely from a name.
Rather, we must go to the thing itself. Those are truly catholics among
whom the catholic faith is learned from the catholic records of Holy Writ;
but those are not truly catholics who are only so called by men.
** Those who believe in the one deity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
under equal majesty and under the Holy Trinity, according to apostolic
discipline and evangelical teaching, are commanded to embrace the name
“catholic Chris ans” ([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] Cod. de summ. Trin., t. 1, §
cunctos), that is, they are ordered to confess that they are catholic.
However, the members of our church believe in the one deity of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. Therefore. Moreover, whatever religion has both the
external and internal universality of faith is truly catholic. However, such is
our orthodox church. For whether you look at external universality, which
is threefold—of place, age, and me—or whether you look at internal
universality that consists of the prophe c and apostolic orthodoxy, you see
it in our church. **
(3) If being named a er a man conflicts with the name “catholic,” why
are their monks called “Augus nians” a er Augus ne, “Dominicans” a er
Dominic, “Franciscans” a er Francis? Surely Augus ne, Dominic, and
Francis were men. But now, they not only permit such names to be
imposed upon their conven cles, they even glory in those names.
** Ambrose, De incarn. sacram., ch. 9, vol. 2, p. 186, on the Arians:
“How can they deny the master whose inven on they are following? **

Whether the church of the Lutherans is catholic

§ 160. The third sec on. Because we are called “Lutherans,” Bellarmine
concludes that we are “not catholics nor members of the true church.”
We respond. (1) We are not ones who have placed this name upon
ourselves. For the sake of dis nc on we allow ourselves to be called a
name, in the sound sense, that was imposed upon us by our adversaries.
(2) Luther himself gives the serious warning (Jena German, vol. 2, fol.
92, fac. 1) that no one should call himself a Lutheran in this sense and
respect: that he holds Luther as the teacher and originator of his faith.
Therefore Bellarmine is in opposi on to the truth when he a ributes to us
this sense of the name “Lutheran.”
 ** Luther, Wi enberg edi on, vol. 6, f. 372: “Although I dislike the fact
that the doctrine and people are being called ‘Lutheran,’ and though I must
endure their shaming of God’s Word with my name, yet they should leave
the Lutheran doctrine and people to Luther and become honorable. On the
other hand, they and their doctrine should perish.” Jena edi on, German,
vol. 2, fol. 81a, to Hartmut von Cronberg:
Chris ans do not believe in Luther but in Christ Himself; the Word has them, and they have
the Word. Luther is not important, whether he is a rogue or a saint. God can speak through
Balaam just as well as through Isaiah, through Caiaphas as through St. Peter, in fact, even
through a donkey. I agree with them, for I myself do not know Luther, nor do I want to know
him. I do not preach of him but of Christ. Let the devil take him if he can. If he only leaves
Christ in peace, then we, too, are well.

Folio 92a:
Truly, on peril of body and soul you should not say, “I am Lutheran” or “Papist,” for none of
them has died for you nor is your master, but Christ alone. You should confess yourself only
as “Chris ans.” But if you think of it in this way, that the teaching of Luther is evangelical and
the teaching of the pope is unevangelical, then you dare not cast off Luther so completely.
Otherwise you will also be cas ng off his teaching with him, which you recognize as Christ’s
doctrine. Rather, you should say: “Whether Luther is a rogue or a saint does not disturb me.
However, his teaching is not his own but is of Christ Himself.” The tyrants, you see, are not
only out to destroy Luther but also to wipe out his teaching. Because of that teaching they
grab you and ask you if you are Lutheran. Here you must not speak with ambiguous words
but must confess Christ openly. No ma er whether Luther, Claus, or George preaches Him,
let go of the person, but you must confess the doctrine.

(Cf. vol. 2, Jena addi on, fol. 104, Von beiderlei Gestalt der Sacramente.)
Volume 4, Jena, fol. 317a: “Luther himself does not wish to be Lutheran
except so far as he teaches Holy Scripture purely.” Same volume, fol. 541a,
from Psalm 7:
It is my hear elt prayer and desire that my diligent teaching and wri ng would be directed
toward nothing else than to help the wretched mass of Your people, so miserably sca ered
and erring because of human dreams and sects, again to be converted to You and to
acknowledge You in the one faith and Spirit as their only Shepherd and Master. For their
sake I also ask that You would exalt and maintain Yourself and Your Word through our
ministry so that they may remain with You and near You in this one faith. I certainly have not
tried to make them cling to me, nor to make myself honorable and exalted. Rather, I have
directed and a ached them to You so that You might be high and exalted, glorious and
praiseworthy among them.

“Thus I, too, say,” he says in his explana on of John 7, Eisleben edi on, vol.
2, f. 229a., “the Gospel is mine, to differen ate it from the preaching and
doctrine of others who otherwise do not have my doctrine. Therefore I say
that it is my doctrine—Luther’s! And yet I also say that it is not my
doctrine. It is not in my hand. It is God’s gi .” See the passage also in the
Wechselschri en of the men of Darmstadt, p. 79. **
(3) We are not called Lutherans a er Luther in the same way as Arians
once were named a er Arius, Nestorians a er Nestorius, etc. For Luther
did not think up new here cal teachings as did Arius and Nestorius. Rather,
he pointed out and repudiated from the Word of God papal errors newly
introduced into the church and called us back to the ancient catholic faith.
Therefore we are named, or rather permit ourselves to be named, a er
Luther, not as a teacher of a new heresy (as the Arians formerly were
named a er Arius, the Nestorians a er Nestorius, etc.) nor as the inventor
of a new rule (as the Franciscans are named a er Francis, Dominicans a er
Dominic, etc.) but as the asserter of the ancient faith, the overthrower of
Papism, and the cleanser of the churches, whom God raised up.
(4) The Roman church and its followers refused to acknowledge the
evangelical truth demonstrated from the Scriptures but went on to fight for
their deeply rooted errors with pen and pike and claimed for themselves
alone the name “catholic.” As a result, it happened that for the sake of
dis nc on the tles “Evangelical” and “Lutheran” were granted to us in
order that our church might be separated from their assemblies not only
by the profession of faith but also by a difference in name. We are called
Lutherans, therefore, because we embrace the teaching that Luther, raised
up by God, brought out into the light again a er it had been submerged for
so long under papal errors and that he bravely defended against the
Papists.
(5) Experience shows that being named a er a man does not conflict
with the names “Chris an” and “catholic.” The history of the ancient
church also shows that the Arians called the orthodox “Athanasians.”
Chrysostom proves this especially brilliantly toward the end of his homily
33 on Acts, toward the end, vol. 3, p. 439, c. d.:
Are we separated from the church? Do we really have a name taken from men? Do we have
a leader, just as that one had Marcion, and that one had Manes, and this one had Arius, and
another had the leader of another heresy? But if we are given a name of this sort, yet it is
not as from leaders of heresies but as from those who preside over us and govern the
church. We do not have teachers upon the earth. No, not at all! We have One in heaven.
 “And they pretend the same thing,” says the heathen. But the Name stands there, accusing
them and closing off all other names, etc.

In how many ways the word “here c” is taken

§ 161. Because Bellarmine frequently calls us here and elsewhere
“here cs,” unworthy of the names “catholic” and “Chris an,” we must
explain the ambiguity of this word. Either he takes the word in that sense
which is true, genuine, and proper, as it is used in the Holy Scriptures and
the fathers, that it is a perverse opinion, stubbornly defended, against the
rule of faith. In this case we deny that we are here cs. Or he takes the
word in that sense which was first hammered out in the Roman workshop,
that whoever does not obey each and every decree of the pope is a
here c. In this case we freely admit that we are here cs according to this
papal defini on.
Tertullian, De praescript., ch. 37: “From where do strangers and enemies
of the apostles come except from diversity of doctrine that each either
offers or takes from his own will against the apostles?” Augus ne, De civ.
Dei, bk. 18, ch. 51: “Those in Christ’s church who think” (sapiunt;
elsewhere, sen unt) “anything morbid and corrupt and, if corrected that
they might think what is sound and right, stubbornly resist and do not
emend their destruc ve, deadly dogmas but persistently defend them,
these are here cs.” If the Papists wish to apply this descrip on of
“here cs” to us, they must first prove that we have departed from sound,
apostolic teaching. In [Ius Canonicum,] 24, c. haere cus and c. dixit, q. 3,
“here c” is defined as one “who produces and follows false and new
opinions for the sake of protec ng temporal convenience and especially to
protect his own vain glory and preeminence.”
** [Ius Canonicum,] 24, c. Haeresis, q. 3: “Whoever understands
Scripture otherwise than is demanded by the mind of the Holy Spirit, who
wrote it, even if he has not le the church, can s ll be called a here c and
is picking out from the works of the flesh those that are worse.” Ibid., c.
Qui in ecclesia: “Those are called ‘here cs’ who think something corrupt
and defend it stubbornly.” Toletus, Instruct. sacerd., bk. 4, ch. 3: “Heresy is
the stubborn error of a Chris an partly contrary to the catholic faith.”
Therefore four things are necessary for a heresy: (1) an error in the
intellect; (2) that this error be contrary to the faith, for not every error is
heresy (Thomas, [ST,] 2.2, q. 11, art. 2); (3) that this error, which is contrary
to the faith, be connected with a stubbornness in the will; (4) that he who
errs be a Chris an, that is, incorporated into the church through Bap sm.
Augus ne (De u l. cred., ch. 1) makes a dis nc on between “a here c” and
“one who believes a here c.” **
Vergerius (Scholia in literas papae ad senatores laicos regni Poloniae)
shows in detail that this defini on fits the Papists, not us. The same
judgment is made about the defini on of “here c” that is given in Decret.,
part 2, caus. 24, q. 3, c. 30: “Those who do not go back to the words of the
prophets nor to the wri ngs of the apostles but only to themselves are
teachers of error.” This defini on fits the Papists, not us. The emperors
Gra an, Valen nian, and Honorius judged: “Those must be considered in
the number of the here cs who have been found to deviate even by a
slight argument from the judgment and course of the catholic religion”
([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] C. De haeret., leg. 2), where “the course and
judgment of the catholic religion” means the rule of faith, as Dauth (De
testam., f. 300) proves from Acursius and Salicetus.
We must also add of necessity that not every devia on from the rule of
faith makes one a here c, but only that which is accompanied by
stubbornness and destroys the founda on of faith. Augus ne, Le er 162:
“We must by no means consider among here cs those who without any
stubborn animosity defend a false and perverse opinion of their own,
especially an opinion that they have produced with no boldness of their
own presump on but who have received such an idea from parents who
have been misled and who have fallen into error, and who seek the truth
with careful anxiety and are prepared to be corrected when they discover
it.”
The opposite of heresy defined in this way is the catholic teaching that
retains the rule of faith uncorrupted and, as the emperor defines it
([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] Novell. 115, § si quis), “which embraces the four holy
councils: of Nicaea, of Constan nople, the first of Ephesus, and of
Chalcedon.” Sozomen, Hist. eccles., bk. 7, ch. 4: “Emperor Theodosius used
to declare that he wanted only the church of those people who worshiped
the divine Trinity with equal honor to be called ‘catholic,’ and that those
who thought differently should be called ‘here cs.’ ” Yet we have by no
means departed from the rule of faith nor from the canons of those four
councils; nor have we denied faith in the Trinity. Consequently, a certain
German bishop, renowned for the splendor of his family and for his
authority, said in the Diet of Augsburg, celebrated in 1530 in the public
session of the empire: “The Lutherans cannot be considered and
condemned as here cs because they do not deny any ar cle of the
Chris an faith,” according to Osiander, Contra Feucht., conc. 7, p. 214.
However, it is some other defini on of “here c” that the Romanists have
thought up on the basis of their own whim. Pope Lucius, [Ius canonicum,]
De haeret., c. De abolend.:
We bind with the bond of perpetual condemna on all those who presume to think or teach
about the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; or about Bap sm; or
about the confession of sins, marriage, or the other ecclesias cal sacraments differently
than how the Roman church preaches and observes. We do the same in the case of those
generally who have been judged as here cs by the same Roman church, or by individual
bishops throughout their dioceses with the advice of the clergy, or by the clergy themselves
if the see is vacant, but with the advice of neighboring bishops if necessary.

This is repeated in the same tle, c. excommunicamus extr.; and in 23, c.

principes, q. 5. The reason for this defini on is given in 11, q. 3, c. si
inimicus: that “he is not worthy to enjoy the light of the sun, if the pope is
an enemy to him.” The gloss on dist. 19, c. nulli, also defines that he is a
here c “who is not obedient to each and every decree of the pope or who
does not believe all those things that are handed down in the Roman
church as true.” This defini on is also sanc oned by the prac ce of the
Roman church, which condemns to the grave those who, contrary to the
decrees of the pope, eat meat on a prohibited day, who read Scripture in a
vernacular language, who refuse to listen to Masses, etc. However, this rule
is very irregular and uncertain because the decrees of the popes are not
principles but should be proved on the basis of another principle: Holy
Scripture.
The pope o en decrees that people must believe useless and worthless
lies. He canonized the Liber conformitatum Francisci, in which (f. 234, col.
3) those are called here cs who do not believe those worthless jokes—in
fact, the blasphemies—told about Francis. Thus the pope defined that the
church must believe that “Dominic performed more miracles than Christ
and all His apostles and that no one greater than he ever existed on earth,”
according to Antoninus of Florence in his Historia Dominici. Aven nus
(Annal., bk. 3) relates that a German bishop named Virgilius, who was very
learned in the mathema cal arts, was condemned of heresy by Pope
Zacharias because he claimed that “there are an podes.” If the word
“heresy” is taken in this sense, we confess quite cheerfully that we are
here cs, for we do not obey all the decrees of the pope, nor do we believe
all those things that are considered true in the Roman church. Rather, we
make inquiry about these from God’s Word. We do not deny that there are
an podes because we are convinced by mathema cal proofs and by the
evidence of reason, and we place no confidence in the noisy nonsense
about Francis. Therefore let us allow ourselves to be called here cs in this
sense: because we separate what is precious from what is vile (Jer. 15:19),
and we select what is true and precious and reject what is false and vile.
** Acts 24:14: “I confess to you that according to this sect, which they
call a heresy, I serve the God of our fathers, believing everything that is
wri en in the Law and the prophets.” **
The Papists, on the other hand, are here cs because they select the lie
and stubbornly reject divine truth.
Section II: On the Second Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Antiquity: Whether
antiquity is a mark of the church
§ 162. The first sec on. Is an quity a genuine and proper mark of the
church? We respond. (1) An quity is either true (κατʼ ἀλήθειαν) or it is
apparent (κατὰ δόξαν). (2) An quity is either first, being able to trace its
origin back to God Himself or to divine revela on, or it is begun a er the
first, having come in a er the divine revela on and having endured for
several centuries. (3) An quity either has the truth and purity of the
heavenly teaching connected to it, or it is separate and apart from it.
Now that we have first stated these dis nc ons, we say that an
an quity which is such only in opinion, which cannot trace its origin back
to the divine revela on, and which does not have the truth and purity of
the heavenly teaching connected to it, I say, this an quity is not a genuine
and proper mark of the church. We shall demonstrate this with the
following arguments.

The arguments of our nega ve posi on: First, from the Scriptures
(I) By a divine command we are ordered to inves gate whether an
an quity that is feigned is a true and first an quity having the origin of
divine revela on and the truth of heavenly teaching connected to it.
Therefore an quity alone and of itself is not a mark of the church. The
antecedent is clear. Ezek. 20:18–19: “I said to their children in the
wilderness: ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their
judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I am Jehovah, your God;
walk in My statutes, and observe My judgment and do them.’ ” The
teaching of Christ and of the apostles was reproached with the charge of
being new. In Mark 1:27 the Jews exclaim: “What is this new doctrine?” In
Acts 17:19 the Athenians say to Paul: “Can we know what this new
teaching is that you present?” However, this was only an apparent novelty,
which seemed to be novelty to people who had been brought up with old
errors. It was the responsibility of the truly faithful to turn their minds and
eyes away from that external appearance of novelty and to seek out the
true an quity in Holy Writ. The Bereans are commended in Acts 17:11
because they passed judgment on the teaching of Paul and Silas “from the
Scripture,” not from the appearance of an apparent an quity. Therefore in
just the same way, it is our duty not to be moved by the a rac ve pretext
of an quity but to pass judgment from Scripture about any doctrine as to
whether it is truly ancient [an qua]. In Ma . 19:3 the Pharisees in the
ques on about divorces appeal to an quity—that they were customary for
many centuries among the Jewish people. But Christ brings them back to
the true and first an quity described in Holy Writ, v. 4: “It was not so from
the beginning.” Therefore, by His own example, He teaches that in
ques ons of faith there should be no considera on of long-standing
custom, of apparent an quity, or of a precept, but that we must inves gate
the truth from Holy Writ, which is the most ancient of all.

[Second and third, from ra onal arguments]

(II) Whatever does not always befit the church is not a genuine and
proper mark of the church. The logic is clear from the defini on of
“proper.” Yet an quity does not always and perpetually befit the church.
Therefore an quity is not a genuine and proper mark of the church. The
minor premise is obvious because there was a me when the true church
was not yet ancient. If you consider the church of the Old Testament, it had
its beginning with Adam; if you consider the church of the New Testament,
it began at the me of Christ and the apostles.
Consequently, we draw inferences in the following way: At whatever
me a thing is given its beginning, it is not yet ancient. But the church of
the Old Testament was given its beginning at the me of Adam; and the
church of the New Testament, at the me of Christ and the apostles.
Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 5, § sed in: “The Chris an religion, just
recently born, was soon a acked by the scribes and Pharisees.” Here he
himself acknowledges an infancy of the Chris an religion. Therefore at that
me it was not yet ancient.
The Jesuits today boast that they are establishing and founding many
churches on the new islands. However, these are not ancient; they are
new. Will they say, then, that those are not true churches? If they respond
that they are ancient by virtue of their consensus with the ancient catholic
church, we respond that this can be said much more accurately about our
churches—that they agree with the ancient catholic and apostolic church.
We are prepared to prove this on the basis of the apostolic Scriptures in
each ar cle of our confession. Therefore let them stop disparaging us with
the accusa on of novelty.
Furthermore, we ask in what, finally, do those new and recent churches
agree with the ancient catholic church? Surely not in an quity of me,
because they were planted not so many years ago. Therefore it must be in
the truth of teaching. Yet from this it must follow that truth of teaching,
not an quity of me, is a mark of the church and that the truth of a church
must be evaluated on the basis of the truth of its teaching, which is
something like the “soul” of an quity, without which an quity is a corpse
lacking a soul. The true an quity is that which has to do with “the Ancient
of Days” (Dan. 7:13), which has a divine origin, and which has truth of
teaching connected to it.
(III) Whatever does not befit the church alone is not a genuine and
proper mark of it. The logic of this asser on is obvious from the defini on
of “proper.” But now, an quity does not befit the church alone. Therefore
an quity is not a genuine and proper mark of the church. The minor
premise is evident, first, from what Augus ne shows in De civ. Dei, that
already from the beginning of the human race there have been “two ci es,
of God and of the devil”; and, second, from the example of the heathen.
You see, in their debates against Chris ans they have always appealed to
an quity. Jus n (Apol. 2, p. 66) a ributes to the heathen that “they said it
is good to keep the ancient customs.” The pagan Symmachus, in a le er to
Theodosius (found in Ambrose, bk. 3, Le er 30), writes: “If long age
procures authority for religions, then we must preserve the faith for many
centuries, and we must follow our parents who happily followed their
parents.” ** “Let us now imagine that Rome is standing by and is discussing
faith with you in these words: ‘O great princes, fathers of the fatherland,
revere my years, to which the pious ritual has brought me, that I may use
the ancestral ceremonies. For this is not displeasing. I shall live in my own
fashion, for I am free. This worship has brought the world under my laws.’ ”
** But what Ambrose (Le er 32) responded to this argument of
Symmachus is what we want to answer the Papists: “He blames the
harvest because its ripeness is late. He blames the vintage because it
occurs at the end of the year. He blames the olive because its fruit is last.
Our harvest is the faith that remained in the saints from the beginning of
the world, but in this last age has spread to the peoples. Therefore, now
that the opinion which previously was popular has exploded, what was
true has been rightly preferred.” Lactan us (Ins tut. divin., bk. 2, ch. 6, p.
88) writes as follows about the heathen: “These are the religions that their
ancestors handed down and that they very stubbornly persevere in
protec ng and defending. They do not consider what kind of religions they
are. They are confident that they are tried and true because the ancients
handed them down. Such is the authority of age, that they consider it a
crime to inves gate it.”
** Caecilius, the pagan orator, in the wri ng of Minucius Felix: “How
much more venerable and honorable it is to receive the priest of the truth,
the discipline of the elders, to keep the tradi onal rites, and to worship the
gods whom you were taught by your parents to fear rather than know, nor
to pass judgment on the powers, but to believe the forefathers.”
Chrysostom, on 1 Corinthians, homily 7:
Although he certainly understood the error of those who worshiped the gods, yet Plato is
said to have condescended to their solemn rites and other ceremonies. I suppose he did this
as a man who was incapable of figh ng against custom. He actually learned this from his
teacher (Socrates) who was suspected of having innovated some things in regard to religion;
yet instead of having a ained what he wished, he much rather departed from life, however
much he was defended. Now, how many people do we see persevering in wickedness on the
basis of their former opinion, who, having been accused of heathenism, draw their fathers,
grandfathers, and great-grandfathers into their accusa on, though they cannot by any
means defend themselves? Because of this, some writers have called custom a “second
nature,” and when this is in doctrines, it becomes far more steadfast. For it is easier to
change anything else in the world than religion and the reverence for custom. **

Augus ne, De quaest. V. et N. T., q. 114: “For the sake of pagan

an quity, they contend that what is the earliest cannot be false, as if
an quity or long-standing custom prejudges the truth.” A li le later: “This
is a devilish custom, that deceit is commended through the transmission of
an quity.”
** When a heathen was objec ng that “the Gospel is a new custom that
departs from the old,” Isidore (bk. 2, Le er 46) responded: “To bring in
something new is neither troublesome nor wicked, because usefulness is
joined with the novelty. Harmfulness and usefulness do not depend on
length of me. Rather, we must inves gate this: whether vice is found in
the older things, or, on the other hand, whether virtue is discovered in the
more recent things.” **
Arnobius, Adv. gentes, bk. 1, p. 47: “You” (heathen) “say, ‘Our religion is
older and, consequently, is filled with faith and truth,’ as if an quity is not a
mother filled with errors. Has that an quity herself not given birth to those
things that have caused the most shameful marks of God in disgraceful
fables? Ten thousand years ago, false things could not be heard and
believed. Is it not more likely true that our friends and neighbors have
credibility rather than those who are distant from us by a great length of
me?”
** The same Arnobius, Contra gentes, bk. 2, p. 55, p. 117:
When you speak about the novelty of our religion, your religion does not come to mind, nor
are you concerned to inves gate when your gods came about, what origins or what causes
they have, or from what roots they sprang forth and grew. To whose shame is it, or, rather,
to whose immodesty, that you rebuke in others what you see yourself doing? To give, as a
curse and accusa on, those things that can be turned back against you when it becomes the
other person’s turn? etc.

In the same book: “The authority of religion must not be measured on the
basis of me.” Arnobius goes on:
But what we are doing is new; what you are doing is ancient and of very great age. How
does that help you, or how does that damage our case and philosophy? It is a new thing that
we are performing; at some me it, too, will become old. What you are doing is old, but in
the days when it began it was unexpected and new. The authority of religion must not be
evaluated on the basis of me but on the basis of deity. It is proper not to look upon what
day you began to worship, but how. Four hundred years ago, he says, your religion did not
exist, nor did your gods exist two thousand years ago.

Page 119: “Does the omnipotent and first God seem to you to be a novel
thing, and do those who revere and worship Him seem to be s rring up
and introducing unheard-of, unknown, and unexpected religion? Is there
anything more ancient than He? Can anything be found that precedes Him
in reality, me, or name? Is not He alone unbego en, immortal, and
eternal? etc.” **
When Rochardus, king of the Frisians, was going to be bap zed around
AD 720 and had already put one foot into the holy bath, he asked, “Where
has the larger part of my predecessors gone—to hell or to paradise?”
When he heard: “Most of them are in hell,” he immediately drew back the
submerged foot and said, “It is be er to follow the more than the fewer.”
Surely these have always been the perpetual boas ngs of the heathen
about the an quity of their religion, to which Ambrose, Augus ne,
Arnobius, and others of the ancients answered: “Each religion must be
evaluated on the basis of the truth, not of its an quity.”
We give the same answer to the Papists. In fact, they should claim from
us the same response that they themselves give to the Indians who are
about to be converted to the Chris an faith. The Jesuit Xavier, bk. 4, Le er
1: “That they might not become Chris ans, the Indians were giving this
reason: that, from the me of their forefathers, they had always been
worshipers of the gods and that those gods had bestowed very many
things on their Bonze priests,” etc. Acosta, De salut. Indor. procur., bk. 2, ch.
18: “A very difficult hindrance to the faith for us among the Indians
proceeds from inveterate custom itself, for everywhere custom has great
power, especially among barbarians.”
The minor premise is evident, third, because very many corrup ons,
supers ons, and heresies have been accustomed to boast about their
an quity; but, on the other hand, the true teaching has been reproached
with the charge of novelty. Before the flood, people were unwilling to
listen to Noah, and the Sodomites refused to listen to Lot, the herald of
righteousness, undoubtedly because they appeared to be proposing a new
teaching different from that which had been used over a long period of
years. The Egyp ans rejected Moses because he seemed to be teaching
new kinds of worship. Exod. 5:2: “Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the Lord that I
should hear His voice and let Israel go? I do not know that Lord.’ ” The
idolatry of Israel under the name of an quity boasted proudly against the
prophets. The worship of Baal claimed for itself the appearance of
an quity. On the other hand, the prophets, divinely s rred up to reform
idolatry, were forced to be called “innovators.” The Samaritans appealed to
an quity in their debates against the Jews. Carolus Sigonius, De republica
Hebraeor., bk. 2, ch. 6:
God was selec ng two ci es for His worship: Shiloh in Samaria and Jerusalem in Judea. In
the former He placed the tabernacle; in the la er He placed His temple. Having rejected
Shiloh, He loved Jerusalem. Nonetheless the Samaritans claimed for themselves the praise
of divine worship because the name of the Lord had been invoked first in Shiloh. The Jews,
on the other hand, were assuming this honor to themselves because God later preferred
Zion, that is, Jerusalem, instead of Shiloh.
Cornelius Jansen, on John 4: “The Samaritan woman was arguing in favor
of the an quity of the place for divine worship and was ci ng the example
of Abraham and of the patriarchs. She said, ‘Our fathers worshiped on this
mountain.’ However, the Jews were defending themselves and their
worship by the authority” (Note well!) “of the prophets and of God’s Word.
The Samaritans, on the other hand, seemed to follow the footprints of
an quity.” The Pharisees rejected Christ because He seemed to be offering
a new teaching, etc.
Therefore no one should allow himself to be deceived by the
appearance of an quity or to be disturbed in the faith by an objec on of
novelty. Rather, let him seek out from the wri ngs of the prophets and
apostles what the true an quity is, which can trace its origin to divine
revela on and which has purity of teaching connected with it. Those who
are marching under the same military standard should not watch the
second or third man walking in front of them, where they may be plan ng
their steps, but should direct their eyes to the banner itself above all the
men. In the same way, we who are doing ba le in the church militant
under Christ’s standard over a succession of centuries should not look to
those ancestors who preceded us, nor to what they established, but should
li our minds over all others to Christ Himself as the only standard-bearer
of the church militant. Just as we must go back to the source if a stream
runs muddy, so also we must have recourse only to the sources of the
prophe c and apostolic wri ngs if the Chris an religion has contracted a
defect or fault over the course of so many centuries.

[Fourth], from the fathers

(IV) The fathers do not appeal to an quity alone but declare that we
must pass judgment on an quity on the basis of truth. In Le er 6 ad
Philadelph., Igna us men ons that some were making this objec on
against him: “If I do not find the Gospel among the ancients [ἐν τοῖς
ἀρχείοις], I will not believe it.” To these he responds: “Jesus Christ is my
archive [ἀρχεῖα]. To disobey Him is obvious destruc on.” Later he adds:
“For me, the authen c an quity [ἀρχεῖον] is His cross, His death, His
resurrec on, and the faith concerning these things.”
 Jus n, Apol. 2, p. 46: “Honoring customs more than the truth is unheard
of.” In his Le er ad Diognetum (p. 381) he shows that “Chris anity once
was considered a new race and custom.”
Tertullian (Apolog. contra gentes, beginning of ch. 47) teaches:
“An quity is of no importance without divine Scripture. Unless I am
mistaken, truth is older than all things.” Later he adds: “An an quity
founded on divine Scripture brings me this advantage: that I quite easily
believe that it is a treasury of wisdom for everyone who comes a er.” Adv.
Marc., bk. 4, beginning of ch. 5: “That which is earlier is truer; that which is
from the beginning is earlier; that which is from the apostles is from the
beginning.” (Here he is showing that we must have recourse to the first
an quity and to the origin of divine revela on.) De veland. virgin.,
beginning of ch. 1:
Nothing can claim preeminence against the truth—not a length of ages, not the patronage
of persons, not the privilege of territories. For from these, some custom, having begun
usually from some ignorance or simplemindedness, would be strengthened in use by
succession, and thus it is claimed against the truth. But our Lord Christ called Himself “the
truth,” not “the custom.” If Christ is always and before everything, then the truth is likewise
something eternal and ancient. Therefore let those to whom it seems new realize that it is
old in itself. It is not so much novelty as truth that refutes a heresy. Whatever judges against
the truth will be a heresy, even an ancient custom.

Cyprian (Le er 63) follows his teacher Tertullian: “If we must listen to
Christ alone, we should pay no a en on to what someone else before us
thought we should do. Rather, we should take note of what Christ, who is
before all, first did. One must not follow the custom of man but the truth
of God.” Le er 74: “Custom without truth is ancient error.”
Clement of Alexandria, Orat. adhort. ad gent., p. 22: “Custom suffocates
a man; it turns him away from the truth; it leads him away from life; it is a
snare, a pit, a wicked sieve.”
** Cyprian, [Le er] ad Jubajanum: “Some who are overwhelmed by
reason vainly set custom against us, as if custom were greater than truth or
as if we must not follow something be er in spiritual ma ers that the Holy
Spirit has revealed.” Sent. episcop.: “In the Gospel the Lord said, ‘I am the
truth.’ He did not say, ‘I am the custom.’ Therefore once the truth has been
revealed, custom must yield to the truth.” Ibid.: “Truth and reason always
exclude custom.” Chrysostom, on Genesis, homily 56: “Whence this
madness, that you would dare approach me with custom as your excuse?”
And later: “You see that it is not proper to use custom as an excuse but to
seek out what is just. Behold, because this was a bad custom, it has been
abolished, and no one is allowed to use it as an excuse. Therefore let us
never, I beg you, inquire into custom. Rather, let us always do what is
useful and anything that is good, even if it is not custom. And if it is
destruc ve, even if it is custom, let us flee it and turn away from it.” **
Jerome, on Jeremiah 9: “We should follow the error neither of our
parents nor of our forefathers, but the authority of the Scriptures and the
command of God, who teaches.”
Augus ne, QQ. V. ac N. T., q. 114: “He” (the devil) “spreads some
decep ons through which he would en ce people into error. Thus it
happened that, through the transmission of an quity, a deceit would be
commended.” Ibid.: “Thieves and adulterers, too, can assert an quity as
their own.”
Arnobius, Contra gent., bk. 2: “Authority must not be evaluated by me,
but by deity.”
Bernard, Le er 91 to the abbots gathered at Soissons: “Let those depart
from me and from us who say, ‘We do not want to be be er than our
fathers.’ ”

[Fi h], from canon and civil law

(V) In canon and civil law, the authority of ancient custom is
subordinated to the truth. [Ius canonicum,] dist. 8, c. veritate, from
Augus ne: “Once the truth has been revealed, custom must yield to the
truth. Certainly, who would doubt that custom must obviously yield to
truth? Let no one put custom ahead of reason and of truth, because
reason and truth always exclude custom.” Same dist., c. si consuetudinem,
from Gregory: “If, perhaps, you set custom against us, you should note that
the Lord says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ He did not say, ‘I am
the custom,’ but, ‘I am truth.’ And surely, to use the statement of Cyprian,
any custom, however old, however common, must take second place to
the truth, and any usage that is contrary to the truth must be abolished.”
Same dist., c. qui contemta, from Augus ne: “Whoever holds the truth in
contempt and has the presump on to follow custom either is hos le and
malicious to his brothers, to whom the truth is revealed, or he is
unthankful concerning God, by whose inspira on His church is instructed.
For in the Gospel the Lord says, ‘I am the truth.’ He did not say, ‘I am the
custom.’ Therefore once the truth has been revealed, custom must yield to
the truth.” Same dist., c. frustra, from the same Augus ne: “Some who are
overwhelmed by reason vainly set custom against us, as if custom were
greater than truth or as if we must not follow something be er in spiritual
ma ers that the Holy Spirit has revealed. This clearly is true, because we
must place reason and truth ahead of custom. But if truth supports
custom, then we must hold on to nothing more firmly.” Same dist., c.
consuetudo, etc. si solus, from Cyprian, repeats the above statements.
[Corpus Iuris Civilis,] Constan ne, Leg. 2, C. quae sit longa consuet.:
“Long-standing usage must not overcome reason or law.” ff. De reg. jur., l.
quae ab ini o: “Whatever things have not prevailed from the beginning are
not confirmed by the length and flow of me.”

Bellarmine’s arguments in favor of an quity: First, [that] God is

older than the devil
§ 163. Now, how does Bellarmine prove that an quity is a mark of the
church? He says: (I) “God existed earlier than the devil was exis ng.
Therefore, without doubt, the true church is older than the false church.”
We respond. (1) The rela on between God and the devil is not the same
as the rela on between the true church and the false. The devil, you see, is
God’s crea on; therefore God is older than he, just as a cause is older than
its effect. But the true church is not the cause of the false church.
(2) The devil, the author of the false church, is called “ancient” (Rev.
12:9). Therefore he also can have an ancient church, something that the
facts prove, for immediately, or at least not long a er, the Cainite church
began to exist with the true church, as Augus ne shows, De civ. Dei.
(3) God is older than the devil and the church, but the true church is not
older than the devil. Before God began to gather His church from humans
through His Word, the devil had already fallen away from God.
(4) Bellarmine is speaking either about the church in general or about
the New Testament church in par cular. If he is speaking about the church
in general, he cannot say that the true church is older than the false,
because the church began either in Adam and Eve or in their children. If
the church began in Adam and Eve (as we correctly claim), then one can
certainly say that the true church is older than the false. However,
Bellarmine (De eccl., bk. 3, ch. 16) explicitly denies that “Adam and Eve
were the church.” If the church began in their descendants, then both the
true church and the false church began simultaneously: the true in Abel,
the false in Cain. If he is speaking about the New Testament church in
par cular, it is obvious that the churches of the Jews and pagans are older
than it.
(5) We concede that the true church is older than the false, for the
former began with our first parents, while the la er began with Cain. From
this, however, it does not yet follow that an quity of itself and alone—that
is, separate from the truth of teaching, and also that an quity which is not
simply first nor can be traced back to the divine origin—is a mark of the
church. That an quity by which the true church is earlier than the false has
purity of teaching connected with it, as well as the majesty of divine
revela on and, likewise, divine origin. However, that an quity in which the
Papists glory lacks all of these and triumphs only in the passage of some
centuries.
(6) The church (ecclesia) is named from ἐκκαλεῖν, “calling out,” for it is
an assembly of humans called out of the human race to par cipa on in a
holy fellowship and to the prize of a heavenly inheritance. Therefore it is
called out of another assembly that is not the true church. From that, it
then follows that there is some par cular church that comes a er that
secular assembly from which it is called out and, again, that this secular
assembly is older than the church.

Second, [that] the good seed is sown earlier than the tares
§ 164. (II) “According to Ma hew 13, we read that the good seed was
sown before the tares. Therefore the true church is older than the false.”
We respond. (1) We admit that the true church is older than the false,
absolutely and simply speaking. Yet from this one cannot infer that some
par cular church must be judged to be the true church because it is old,
for we must have recourse to the first an quity joined with truth of
teaching and with divine origin. For example, the church of Baal disputed
with the church that the prophets had gathered through the Word
concerning the truth. The church of Baal was boas ng about its an quity.
Meanwhile, because it lacked the true and first an quity, which rejoices in
its divine origin and in the purity of its teaching, it cannot and should not
be acknowledged on the basis of just any sort of an quity as the true
church. Rather, that which the prophets were gathering through the pure
preaching of the Word was the true church. So also, the church of the
Pharisees at the me of Christ was boas ng that it was the true church,
basing its boast most of all on the argument of its an quity. But the church
that was gathered through the preaching of Christ and the apostles,
though it was charged with the accusa on of novelty, was nonetheless
alone the true church. This certainly was because the an quity of the
Pharisaical church was not the true and first an quity that has the origin of
divine revela on and purity of teaching connected with it. Let the
judgment concerning the Roman church be the same.
(2) The aim of that parable is certainly not to teach that the true church
is older than the false, but that in one and the same visible church evil
people are perpetually conjoined with good ones and reprobate with the
elect. Therefore, if from this parable one wanted to prove successfully that
the true church is older than the false, he would first have to prove that
there is a church which consists only of the good and of the elect and in
which tares find no place.
(3) Bellarmine (De eccl., bk. 3, ch. 9) cites this parable for the purpose of
proving that “there are great and manifest sinners in the catholic church.”
How, then, can anyone take the good seed here to mean the true church
and the tares, the false church?

Third, [that] the church catholic is the most ancient

§ 165. (III) “The church is called ‘catholic’ because it has existed in every
me; likewise, it is called ‘apostolic’ because the apostles founded it. Thus
it is the most ancient. Therefore an quity is a mark of the church.”
We respond. (1) We explained earlier in what respects the Chris an
church should be called “catholic.” Among those respects is universality of
me, but this respect is neither first nor foremost. According to the first
origin of the word, it is called “catholic” with respect to universality of
place because it was spread throughout the en re world and was no
longer enclosed within the narrow borders of Judea. Especially and
principally it is called “catholic” because of the catholic faith.
(2) We concede that the church has existed in every me. From this,
however, it does not follow that an quity alone—especially an an quity
that cannot be traced back to divine revela on and that lacks truth of
teaching as its companion—is a mark of the church. Already from the very
beginning of the world these two ci es were conjoined: of God and of the
devil, the true church and the false, the temple of God and the chapel of
the devil. In fact, Augus ne argues that among the people born of Adam
and Eve the ci zen of the world was earlier than the ci zen of God. He
writes, De civ. Dei, bk. 15, ch. 1: “In the en re human race, when those two
ci es began to run their courses of birth and death, the ci zen of this
world was born first, and later was born the stranger in this world,
predes ned by grace, elected by grace, a stranger below by grace, a ci zen
above by grace.” How, then, can an quity be a mark of the church? See
also his Enarrat. on Psalm 26 and 61, where he claims that Mother Babylon
is older than Mother Jerusalem.
(3) The church is called “apostolic” principally and especially for this
reason, that it holds the apostolic faith and teaching or, as Paul says in Eph.
2:20: “It is built upon the founda on of the apostles.” You see, whatever
church embraces the faith of the apostles, that church is apostolic, even if
it was not founded by the apostles. On the other hand, whatever church
corrupts and rejects the apostolic faith is not apostolic, even if it was once
founded by the apostles, as Tertullian shows in De praescript. adv. haeres.
Therefore the first and principal reason for the tle is the apostolic
teaching, not the origin from the apostles.
(4) Bellarmine contradicts himself. If a church is called apostolic because
the apostles planted it, the consequence will be that a church which the
apostles have not planted is not apostolic. But now, those new churches
among the Indians were not planted by apostles, unless perhaps we wish
to dignify the Jesuits with the tle “apostles.” Therefore they cannot be
apostolic. If he wants to respond: “They are called apostolic because of
their consensus with the Roman church, which the apostles did plant,”
then he is really admi ng that the apostolic faith and teaching are the
indica on and witness of the apostolic church, because that consensus
with the Roman church consists in the profession of one and the same
faith, which they boast is apostolic.
(5) Furthermore, either the church has been apostolic in every me or it
began to be apostolic at a certain me, namely, during the reign of Tiberius
Augustus. If the former is true, it cannot be called apostolic due to having
been planted by the apostles. If the la er is true, it will not be catholic on
the hypothesis of Bellarmine’s defini on: “The church is called ‘catholic’
because it has existed in all me.”
(6) If the church that the apostles founded is the most ancient, the
consequence will be that there was no church before the apostles.
However, the church did exist before the apostles, not only the true church
(because the Israelite church of the Old Testament was earlier than the
apostles) but also the false church (that of the Jews, from which the
apostles departed).
(7) If having been planted by the apostles causes a church to be true,
apostolic, and the most ancient, surely the Greek churches, too—some of
which the apostles themselves founded—must be true, apostolic, and the
most ancient. But Bellarmine denies the consequent. Therefore he ought
to deny the antecedent too.
Bellarmine adds from Tertullian (Apolog., chs. 19 and 20) and from
Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 18, chs. 37 and 38): “The Chris an church is
more ancient than all the conven cles of the pagans, and Holy Scripture is
more ancient than the gods of the heathen.” However, this does not yet
prove that just any an quity is a mark of the true church but only that
an quity which can be traced back to the divine origin and which has the
truth of heavenly teaching connected to it. The very sound of the words
shows that Tertullian and Augus ne are speaking about this an quity.
** The Papists press the passage of Vincent of Lérins (Contra haereses,
ch. 25), where he defines a catholic as one who “acknowledges whatever
the catholic church has held universally from of old and determines that he
must hold and believe it alone.” We respond. We embrace this gladly, if
“an quity” and “consensus” are understood as the an quity and
consensus that accord with the wri ngs of the prophets and apostles, and
if that which can be proved from the Sacred Books is not judged as a new
doctrine (even if it had been hidden for a while under Papist darkness), and
if that an quity is understood as being what was an quity to Vincent of
Lérins. He lived around the year 440. Therefore what was ancient to him
was what had been received in the church at the me of the apostles or in
the first century a er the apostles. He did not consider “ancient” what
began during his own me or a century or two before his me, much less
what was invented in religion a er his me, etc. **

Whether the Roman church is the most ancient of all

§ 166. The second sec on. Is the Roman or Papist church the most
ancient of all? First of all, we point out that the doctrines of the modern
Roman church are not of one and the same kind. Some agree with the Holy
Scriptures, with regard to which there is a consensus and fellowship with
the ancient Roman church founded by the apostles. Through these
doctrines and with the addi on of the sacrament of Bap sm, which she
s ll retains in its integrity, she bears spiritual children for God, as the
Jewish church once did. On the other hand, some of her doctrines are
opposed and contrary to the Holy Scriptures. They do not originate from
the apostles nor with the ancient Roman church founded by the apostles.
Rather, they were introduced newly, that is, in later centuries. With regard
to those doctrines, that church is properly called “Papist” or “Roman,”
namely, because it follows the authority of the Roman pon ff in the
profession and defense of those doctrines. Therefore when it is asked here
whether the Roman church is the most ancient, the ques on is properly
about whether the Roman church of today—which adheres only to the
Roman pon ff as its head, which mixes error with the sound parts of
heavenly teaching, which joins human tradi ons to the Word of God,
which leads people away from the jus fica on of faith to the merits of
works and their own sa sfac ons, which goes across from Christ to the
An christ, and, to say it in a word, which embraces and defends the faith
expounded in the Council of Trent—is the true and most ancient church.
This we deny, relying on the following argument.
Whatever church does not retain the apostolic faith and teaching and
does not preserve the ancient teaching propagated by the apostles, that is
neither apostolic nor the most ancient. However, the Roman church of
today does not retain the apostolic faith and teaching nor does it preserve
the ancient teaching propagated by the apostles. Therefore it is neither
apostolic nor the most ancient. We prove the minor premise from the
wri ngs of the apostles in each point of the controversies, and we call our
hearers away from the opinions, errors, supers ons, and heresies that
have been newly introduced to the true an quity of apostolic teaching.

Bellarmine’s train of thought on the an quity of the Roman

church
§ 167. How does Bellarmine try to prove that the Papist church is the
most ancient and, moreover, the very church that Christ ins tuted? He
says: “In every great change of religion, these six things can always be
demonstrated: first, its author; second, a new doctrine; third, the me
when it began; fourth, the place where it began; fi h, who has a acked it;
sixth, a small assembly from which it began while others gradually were
added.” He proves this by the example of the church that Christ gathered.
Later he adds the minor premise: “None of these things can be
demonstrated concerning the Papist church a er the mes of the
apostles.” From this he concludes: “It is the most ancient and has suffered
no change.” Becanus presses the same point in his trea se De ecclesia,
concl. 3, q. 1.
We respond. (1) It is false to say that no change has occurred unless
each and every one of these things is demonstrated. When Josiah,
following the norm of God’s Law, reformed the ancient church of the Jews,
abolished the sacrifices to Baal, smashed the idolatrous statues, and
destroyed all the instruments of wickedness (2 Kings 23:4), the priests of
Baal, if they had been taught in the school of the Jesuits, could have
answered in the same way, namely, that they had not departed from the
divine Law in those cults, “because those six circumstances—who, what,
where, when, who cried out against it, and who the few patrons were from
whom it first dispersed—could not be shown.” The Jewish church at the
me of John the Bap st and of the apostles had defected from its original
integrity and purity and had experienced an enormous change, yet one
could not show each and every circumstance of that defec on and change.
The churches of the Gala ans and of the Corinthians likewise had defected
from the integrity of the apostolic teaching and an obvious change had
occurred among them, yet one could not show in par cular the authors,
 me, and place of that change. The Greek churches today are very
different in both faith and behavior from the ancient churches that the
apostles had founded. But who will be able to become fully acquainted
with each of the smallest circumstances of those changes?
(2) The Council of Trent (sess. 6, de reform., ch. 1) admits: “church
discipline has collapsed completely, the behavior of the Chris an clergy
and people has become corrupt, and the ancient canons have gone into
nearly complete disuse because of the injury of the mes.” Session 22, de
observ. et evit. in celebr. missae: “Either because of a fault of the mes or
because of the injus ce and wickedness of men, many things seem to have
crept into the celebra on of the Mass that are abhorrent and alien to the
dignity of so great a sacrifice. Some of those have been invented by greed,
by service to idols; some by irreverence, which can scarcely be separated
from wickedness; some by supers on, the false imita on of true piety.”
Last session, decret. de indul.: “Various abuses have crept in from the same
and similar causes, most of them from greed, from supers on, ignorance,
irreverence, or from elsewhere in any way; but abuses have also crept in
among indulgences.” The chairman of that council, Johannes Cardinal
Maria de Monte, declares in Prorogat., sess. 11: “Countless abuses have
crept into the ministry of the sacraments.” In his Instruct. legat. ad comi a
Norinb., Adrian VI said: “We know that in this holy see for several years
already there have been many abominable things: abuses in spiritual
ma ers, excesses in commandments. Finally, all things have been changed
into a persuasion.” The cardinals whom Paul III appointed in his Consil. de
emendanda ecclesia (later published by Vergerius) tes fy clearly: “God’s
church, and especially the Roman Curia, is afflicted by abuses as by
destruc ve illnesses. By these it has nearly happened that, while those
destruc ve illnesses were increasing gradually, it has suffered great ruin.”
We find similar complaints in Marsilius Patavinus, Nicolaus de Clemangis,
Cassander, and many others.
If some argumenta ve person should deny that such changes have
happened unless their first origin (their cradle, as it were) be shown—by
what parents they were sown, from what seed they were bego en, at
what me they were brought forth into the light, by what midwives and
nurses they were fed and reared, etc.—how great would the trouble be for
the Jesuits? And furthermore, the Papist writers themselves admit that
they do not know the original ins gators of some heresies. Alfonsus de
Castro, Adv. haeres., bk. 5, tle Deus: “The Agnoëtae a ributed ignorance
to God. Who the author of that heresy was or when it began can be
discovered in no one’s wri ngs.”
(3) Christ teaches in Ma . 13:24, in the parable of the good seed and of
the tares, that when people were not watching and no cing the devil
made an addi onal sowing of tares. Thus it was that the farmhands
wondered: “From where did the weeds come?” They did not first ask at
what point in me and by whom the tares were sowed over the good seed.
Rather, they immediately thought about uproo ng them. The same thing
has happened in the me of the papacy. When the bishops became
ensnared in concerns for secular ma ers, snored leisurely, and were not
paying a en on, a large crop of tares grew up in the church.
(4) Some sicknesses are sudden and quickly a ack a man who has been
well and strong earlier. For these, their me and cause can be noted, such
as the plague, apoplexy, etc. Others are slow, their origins hidden, their
growth unhurried. At first they are not sensed, or at least not observed,
but finally they take over the whole body, like consump on, dropsy, cancer
(to which heresy is compared in 2 Tim. 2:17; in Greek it is “gangrene”). For
these, their me and cause cannot be so exactly noted. In the same way, in
the mys cal and spiritual body, which is the church, some changes are
sudden. Some mes there is an obvious and sudden departure by one or
several from the truth in one or several ar cles, while other devout and
orthodox bishops resist. On the other hand, some changes are slow. Their
origin at first is insignificant, but later they grow larger and larger, un l
finally they take over the en re body of the church. The circumstances of
the former changes can perhaps be noted, but not of the la er. But now,
the change that has taken place in the church because of the papal errors
introduced into her is of the la er kind. Consequently, the apostle declares
in 2 Thess. 2:7 that already in his own me “the mystery of lawlessness
had begun to work.” Here with the word “mystery” he signifies that the
an -Chris an domina on and the papal errors would be received into the
church secretly, and even without anyone first no cing them.
** “Just as it is the nature of a good custom, so also it is the nature of a
corrupt custom that it is not understood when it is being introduced, but it
is no ced once it has been introduced.” For this reason it is said to be
approved with tacit consent ([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] l. 32. junct., l. 35. ff. de
LL.). Nauclerus (vol. 2, generat. 27) speaks about the mes that preceded
Henry I and O o the Great, and imitates Pla na, whom he quotes,
elegantly and openly admi ng: “The popes at that me departed far from
the footsteps of Peter. It is a horror to hear what many things almost
twenty-eight popes have wrongfully let in.” **
Some fall into poverty by sudden accidents, for instance, by fire,
shipwreck, the , etc. Some, while their wealth is being dispersed, are
reduced to the ul mate limit of poverty gradually and without no cing. In
the same way, the spiritual riches of the true faith are some mes lost
openly, some mes secretly.
(5) In the Roman republic at the me of Valerius Maximus a striking
change had occurred, a degenera on from the virtue of their forefathers.
He complained about that but was unable to list the original ins gators or
point of me or other outward adjuncts of that change. When Sallust (In
Ca lin.) narrated the ordinances of the forefathers, what sort of republic
they had, how great a republic they le , and that it had gradually changed
from being beau ful and best to being depraved, finally he adds: “First, a
lust for money and power grew, and these were the ‘material’ for all evils,
so to speak. At first these grew slowly. At mes it was claimed that the city
had not been changed even a er the infec on had swept in like a plague.
The empire became turned from something very just and good into
something cruel and intolerable.” Livy (Histor., bk. 1) describes what might
be called “stages” of that change and adds: “Discipline eroded gradually.
Then the disagreeing behavior slid more and more, and then began to
speed downhill. Finally, when his” (Augustus’s) “ me arrived, people could
endure neither their own vices nor their remedies.” In the same way, in the
Roman church there was a striking change in teaching and a degenera on
from the faith of the forefathers, which we perceive from the outcome and
from a comparison with the ancient Roman church, even though we
cannot list the individual circumstances of that change.
(6) Augus ne (Le er 29 to Jerome) argues about the propaga on of
original sin and with a brief account refutes the thoughtlessness of those
who refuse to believe the propaga on of original sin unless the manner of
that propaga on is exactly obvious. He says:
 There is an elegant story told that fits this situa on quite well. A certain man had fallen into
a pit where there was so much water that it was holding him up from dying rather than
choking him so that he could not speak. Another fellow came by and, startled by the sight,
asked: “How did you fall in there?” The first replied: “Please think of a way to get me out of
here so that I do not choke on the mud while you are asking how I fell in here.”

We give this same answer to the Papists, that it is not worth the effort to
debate with anxiety about the author, me, or manner by which that
change and corrup on of teaching in the Roman church occurred. Rather,
we should be thinking about how those corrup ons should be removed
from the Word of God and a remedy should be found for this evil.
Wouldn’t that be an absurd physician who would refuse to apply his
healing hand to a sick man whose illness was obvious unless the physician
first knew exactly by what occasion, or in what way, at what me and place
he had become ill? Wouldn’t that be an absurd surgeon who would decline
to put bandages on a wound before he knew by whom, when, and where
those wounds had been inflicted? If anyone found someone wandering in
the wilderness, it would be preposterous to refuse to bring him back to the
path unless he first learned who the author of his wandering was, who first
led him away from the king’s highway, and also where and when he had
begun to be lost, etc.
(7) “How has the faithful city become a whore?” Isaiah the prophet asks
about the church of Jerusalem (Isa. 1:21). A woman is considered a whore,
and indeed deservedly, if she has lost her virginity outside of legi mate
marriage, even if it is not evident with whom, when, and where she
fornicated. In the same way, since the Roman church, a er the example of
the church of Jerusalem, has lost the integrity and purity of teaching and
has defiled herself with spiritual adultery, that is, with idolatry, she is
deservedly judged to be apostate, though it cannot be exactly evident
today by what author and at what me she began to be apostate. Who in
the world would tolerate someone arguing in this way: “In the cradle and
in the first flower of her life, Thais the pros tute was a virgin; therefore she
was a virgin also in her adulthood”? Yet those are arguing in the same way
who draw a conclusion from the condi on of the ancient Roman church as
it was at the me of the apostles to the condi on of that church today.
(8) If one could prove the second point, namely, novelty of doctrines,
that would be enough to prove that a change has occurred, even if the
external accidents could not be shown according to all their circumstances.
But now, we can demonstrate clearly that in the modern Roman church
they propose and defend new and foreign doctrines that differ very much
from the old teaching of the apostles and from the ancient confession of
the Roman church.
(9) Finally, the hypothesis of this argument instead of undermining our
posi on much rather confirms it. Bellarmine argues: “The Roman church of
today is the true church because, since the me of Christ and the apostles,
no change of teaching and religion has occurred in her, that is, because she
is s ll firmly holding the same teaching and faith that the apostles taught
and that they commended to her.” Yet if the Roman church should be
acknowledged as the true church because she retains the teaching of
Christ and the apostles without change, whole, and unharmed, then the
consequence will be that the teaching which Christ and the apostles first
handed down is a mark of the true church. And this is what we assert with
all our might.

Whether the circumstances of the change in the Roman church

can be shown. First, with regard to its author
§ 168. This concludes our discussion on the major premise of
Bellarmine’s argument. Now we go on to the minor premise.
Bellarmine confidently denies that “any of these six circumstances can
be demonstrated in the Papist church.” Let us see how he tries to prove
this point by point. He says: (I) “They have never cited the author of our
sect against us, nor have they named us a er any par cular man.”
We respond. The apostle points out the primary author of the papal
apostasy in 2 Thess. 2:9: “The coming of the An christ is by the ac vity of
Satan with all power and false signs and wonders and in all seduc on of
iniquity.” 1 Tim. 4:1: “In the last mes some will depart from the faith,
giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” This master of a
thousand arts and most cunning foe first sowed the seeds of papal tyranny
secretly, and later they grew abundantly into a vast crop of almost
universal apostasy. The secondary authors of the apostasy were the Roman
pon ffs, who degenerated from bishops to pon ffs. That is, because they
called themselves and wanted to be called “universal bishops,” they
became the An christ. Now, though the An christ is not one man,
nevertheless he is one in office, rule, succession, and place, namely, the
Roman pope [papa], from whom they are called “Papists.” With the
secondary authors of that apostasy we can also men on those different
here cs from whom the Papists have taken many things, but especially the
Pelagians, as we shall demonstrate in its own place [§§ 227–30], just as it is
shown elsewhere from Pla na, Polydorus Virgilius, etc., which pope is the
author of each dogma and cons tu on.

Second, with regard to origin

(II) “They have never shown the first origin of any doctrine of ours. In
fact, the Centuriators note in each century that our doctrines are found in
the books of the fathers. In the fathers, however, they call them
‘blemishes’; in us, they call them ‘heresies.’ This is their cunning.”
We respond. The dogmas of the modern Roman church, dogmas of
which our churches disapprove, are convicted of novelty because they do
not descend from that “Ancient of Days” (Dan. 7:13), nor can they be found
in Holy Writ, the genuine documents of the first and true an quity. We
admit that the seeds of some papal errors were sown quite late in the
church—about the merits of works, sa sfac ons, etc. In the fathers,
however, these were blemishes and chaff that had not yet grown into that
crop of errors. Cyprian, Le er ad Jubajanum: “One who simply errs can be
pardoned; but one who, a er inspira on and the revela on of the truth
has been made, perseveres with understanding and knowledge in the error
he has made is no longer sinning with the fault of ignorance, for his error is
supported with a presump on and obs nacy, though he is overcome by
reason.” Lest this seem absurd to Bellarmine, we bring forth the error of
the Dona sts about repea ng a Bap sm that a here c has administered.
Because the Dona sts were using the authority of Cyprian as the excuse
for their heresy, Augus ne (De bap sm. contra Donat., bk. 1, last chapter)
called that doctrine a “blemish” on Cyprian, but “soot” on the Dona sts.
He says, “The breasts of charity were covering up that blemish in the
whiteness of his holy soul, but a quarrelsome face shows this soot in their
hellish filthiness.”
 If Bellarmine does not concede that what was a blemish of error in the
fathers can be soot of heresy in others, what answer will he give to the
Anabap sts, whose error is that “the souls of the saints who are res ng in
the Lord will not see God nor enjoy the glory and blessedness of heaven
before Judgment Day”? To this doctrine the following seem to have
subscribed: Irenaeus, bk. 5, ch. 31; Tertullian, Adv. Marcion., bk. 4, and De
anima, last chapter; Origen, on Levi cus, homily 7; Lactan us, Div. ins t.,
bk. 6, ch. 21; the author of the Quaes ones among the works of Jus n, q.
76; Aretas, on Revela on 6; Hilary, on Psalm 138; Chrysostom, on 1
Corinthians, homily 39; the author of the Opus imperfectum in
Ma haeum, homily 34; Ambrose, De bono mor s, ch. 10; Augus ne, on
Psalm 36; Theodoret and Theophylact, on Hebrews 8; Titus of Bostra and
Euthymius, on Luke 23; Bernard, In festo omnium Sanctorum; etc. In
Apollinaris of Laodicea, who was stubbornly suppor ng a chilias c opinion
about a terrestrial kingdom of Christ on this earth, Pope Damasus
condemned that opinion as a heresy, according to Baronius, Annal., anno
118, sect. 2. Yet the seeds of that opinion were already present in Papias,
Jus n, Irenaeus, Tertullian, etc. Whoever will look into the course and
progress of church history will see that those things which had not been
heard in the church while the apostles were s ll alive and teaching began
to be ques oned and debated by the fathers; that those things that s rred
doubt in the fathers were later seen as probable and were accepted by the
Scholas cs and Canonists as true; and that what they embraced, the
Papists today stubbornly defend against the truth that has been
demonstrated from Scripture. So, then, as me passed, there was a
progression from certain es to doubts; from doubts to opinions; from
opinions to errors; and, finally, from errors to heresies. In regard to this,
read Dr. Chemnitz’s Examen conc. Trid., ch. de origine et progressu erroris
in singulis controversis ar culis. Around the year 420, Zosimus claimed for
himself a preroga ve over against all the other churches, ci ng a spurious
canon of the Council of Nicaea. Telesphorus ins tuted Lent; Hyginus,
chrism; Innocent III, transubstan a on; etc.

Third, with regard to me

 (III) “They cannot designate the definite me of our defec on from the
church.”
We respond. Among the Papist writers there is no agreement as to
when Peter came to Rome and who his successor was; yet they will not
allow anyone to conclude from this that Peter never came to Rome or that
no one succeeded Peter on the papal throne. Therefore even if a definite
me of the defec on could not be designated, it s ll cannot be inferred
from this that no defec on occurred. A comparison of the doctrines of the
apostles and the doctrines of the Papists shows clearly that an apostasy
from the true faith preceded.
** Because I do not know the mes when the impure spirit fell, do you
deny the fall of the evil spirits? **
Furthermore, that apostasy from the true faith did not occur
immediately at a single moment but gradually and by degrees. A striking
change occurred at the me of Boniface III, who procured the tle
“Ecumenical Bishop” from Phocas. Concerning the mes of Gregory VII,
Aven nus writes: “Almost all good, open, just, upright, and simple people,
when the kingdom of the An christ began, discerned that at that me
those things were happening which Christ our Savior had prophesied to us
so many years before, having been published in a wri en record.” From
these words of Aven nus we must note two things. First, at the me when
there was a catholic consensus of all good people, the kingdom of the
An christ began under this Gregory or Hildebrand. Second, this account
was recorded in the monuments of literature. However, because this
account no longer exists today, we gather that this and similar wri ngs
were suppressed by the fla erers of the popes, so that it is not strange
that the authors and mes of the changes cannot be shown with specificity
today.
Because the pope Hildebrand assumed to himself the power of
removing Emperor Henry unjustly from his throne, Sigebertus (Chron., ad
ann. 1088) disapproved of that in the pope as a novelty and as a heresy,
though he was afraid to say it. He says, “This alone is a novelty, not to
men on a heresy.”
Malleolus (De nobilitate) reports that around the year 320, on the very
day when Constan ne gave Pope Sylvester the Lateran Palace, the city of
Rome, and the provinces of Italy, a hand was seen in the Lateran that wrote
on the wall as all were watching and reading: “Today poison has been
poured into the church.” Just as poison some mes lies concealed for a long
me but finally takes over all the organs and members of the body, so also
the bestowal of temporal possessions to the pope provided the occasion,
first, for ecclesias cal domina on, then for poli cal domina on, and,
finally, for tyranny, out of which, as out of the Trojan horse, came
supers ons, errors, and idolatries of every kind.
In order to maintain that no striking change occurred in the Roman
church at the me of Boniface—whom Phocas, the emperor-killer, greeted
with the name “Universal Bishop”—Bellarmine responds that Jus nian
([Corpus Iuris Civilis,] C. de summ. Trinitat., bk. 8, in a le er ad Johannem
archiepiscopum urbis Romae) “calls the bishop of Rome ‘the head of all
churches’ a hundred years before Phocas.”
We respond. The same Jus nian (C. de sacros. ecclesiis, bk. 24) writes
that “the church of Constan nople is the head of all other churches.” The
interpreters of law vary greatly in how these two statements should be
reconciled. Hotomanus (Amicab. resp., bk. 1, ch. 1) writes: “There are
many things that can s r up a suspicion of fraud and deceit against that
exchange of le ers between Jus nian and the Roman pope, which are in
the aforemen oned [Corpus Iuris Civilis,] C. de summ. Trin., bk. 8.” He
produces the following reasons for this conjecture: (1) “Many learned men
worthy of our confidence have tes fied for a long me already that this
law is not found in the ancient manuscript codices,” and here he cites
Holoander (Anot. var. lect.) and Con us (Similib. annot.). (2) “The pope had
already been convicted of frauds and deceits of this sort that aided in
amplifying his own power.” Here he cites the fic ous document called
“The Dona on of Constan ne” and the Council of Carthage in which 230
bishops ac ng as judges condemned him for deceit. (3) “That law conflicts
with C. de summ. Trinit., bk. 7.” (4) “It conflicts with bk. 16 of the same
tle, and with C. de sacros. eccl., bk. 24, as well as with Nov. 131.” (5) “The
same emperor makes decrees in many of his Novellae freely and in accord
with his own law about various ma ers having to do with religion without
any men on of the pope.” In fact, in some Novellae he imposes his laws on
the Roman pope and his church—Nov. 7 and 123, for instance. (6) “The
kind of speaking that the author of these le ers used is completely foreign
to the style that Jus nian used in his La n cons tu ons.”
 Fachineus (Controv., bk. 8, ch. 1) tries to respond to these arguments of
Hotomanus. But even if that le er is a ributed to Jus nian, s ll nothing
else can be carved out of it except that, with respect to sea ng and rank,
the bishop of Rome was placed before the other bishops. This is because it
makes the see of Constan nople equal to the Roman see in such a way
that the former yielded nothing to the la er in anything. Yet it did concede
uniquely to the bishop of Rome that “he was to be first in assemblies of the
church but would sit with others on the same benches [sedibus]. Next to
him would sit the bishop of Constan nople.” This is how the inscrip on
reads (Nov. 131, c. 2, de ordine sedendi patriarcharum). Thus a right was
not established for him over against the other bishops. Rather, he was
given the first rank of sea ng. Thus in the Ius canonicum itself, dist. 99, c.
primae sedis, from the Council of Carthage, the decision is made that “the
bishop of the first chair should not be called the chief of the priests or the
high priest or anything of that sort, but only the bishop of the first chair.” It
expressly adds: “Not even the Roman pon ff should be called ‘universal.’ ”
** Our argument is as follows. (1) If Jus nian first made the Eastern
churches subject to the Roman see and united them to it, it follows that
previously they had not been subject to the Roman pon ff. However, the
former is true on the basis of the sentence of that law. Therefore that
fic on falls that all the churches of the en re world were subjected to
Peter through the words of Christ: “Feed My sheep. Upon this rock,” etc.
(2) Even if Jus nian had subjected all the Eastern churches to the
Roman pon ff (which, however, he was not able to do, as an example to
others), nonetheless he s ll would not have established him, because of
that, as the head of all the churches of the whole world, for the East is not
the whole world. It becomes clear that this was not Jus nian’s sentence
from Nov. 131, ch. 3 and 4, where he makes the churches of a great many
provinces subject to the archbishop of Jus niana Prima and to the bishop
of Carthage and commands that in the provinces subject to himself they
should hold the same place as the Roman prelate has in his. He did not
want them to be ordained by the Roman pon ff but by their own council,
lest, if they received orders from the Roman pon ff, their office might
seem to be less dignified than that of his. And because the laws of the
Codex are prior to the Novellae, one cannot say that this cons tu on of
Jus nian was removed through C., the aforemen oned tle [C. d. t.], l.
inter claras, since later laws repeal prior ones, and earlier ones usually do
not repeal later ones.
(3) It is not very likely that Pope Pelagius, who lived shortly a er the
days of Jus nian, and Gregory the Great (in his Le er ad Eulogium, bk. 7,
Le er 30) would have denied the right to the world [jus τῆς οἰκουμένης] if
they had understood that they had this in their power. Yet that is what they
did in [Ius canonicum,] dist. 99, c. nullus; and c. ecce of the same dist.
(4) Therefore what is declared in the aforemen oned place—that the
Roman church is the head of all the holy churches—must be understood in
a certain respect, concerning all the churches subject to the Roman pon ff
or concerning the primacy with respect to the order of sea ng. Although
this primacy of sea ng once belonged to the patriarch of Constan nople at
the me of Emperor Zeno (as is evident from [Corpus Iuris Civilis,] C. de
sacros. eccl., l. decernimus 16), yet a erward this primacy went back to the
Roman church (as we see from [Corpus Iuris Civilis,] Nov. 131, c. 2);
therefore he is called the head of the churches in this respect. **

Fourth, with regard to place

(IV) “They have never shown in what place the defec on began, for fi y
years later Gregory flourished, with whom, as we can see from his le ers,
the whole world had fellowship. A er his death, the Fourth General
Council was held, from which we draw the obvious conclusion that at that
me the en re East and West had been connected to the Roman pope as
members to their head.”
We respond. Daniel and Revela on have shown the place of the
defec on as being “a city on seven hills between two seas, having an
empire over the kings of the earth.” From Rome have come forth papal
decrees, the jubilee year, indulgences, and all the filth of the an -Chris an
teaching. At the me of Gregory, doctrine was s ll rather pure, but later,
with the passing of me, the departure from the original purity became
greater and greater. Hegesippus (in Eusebius, bk. 3, ch. 26) tes fies: “The
church remained a virgin while the apostles were s ll living, but
immediately a er their death it became astonishingly corrupted.” Jerome
(Vita Malchi) calls his mes “the dregs of the church.” Augus ne (Le er
119 ad Januar.) complains that already then “all things are already filled
with presump ons and ceremonies that are more than Jewish.” Bede on
Samuel, bk. 4, ch. 2: “The reader should see and contemplate not without
tears a worthy ma er: to what a degree the condi on of the church is daily
coming into a terrible state, or, to say it more gently, coming into a sicker
state.” How o en and how seriously Bernard complains about the corrupt
condi on of the church! In this way, doubtlessly, the seeds of the tares that
were first sown in secret have grown promptly into an abundant crop with
the passing of me.
In connec on with this, our people list five reasons because of which it
happened that in the Roman church there was a gradual departure from
the ancient purity of the apostolic faith. These are: excessive venera on of
the fathers, the feigned power and jurisdic on of the Roman bishops in
spiritual ma ers, the philosophical specula on of the Scholas cs, very
infrequent reading of the Scriptures, and the violent oppression of the
orthodox. (See Dr. Meisner, An lessium, p. 297.)

Fi h, with regard to its a ackers

(V) “They have never shown who has a acked our religion as something
recently developed.”
We respond. On the contrary, in each controversy that exists between
us and the modern Roman church, we can show the consensus of
an quity. Irenaeus (in Eusebius, bk. 5, ch. 24), as also the Asian churches,
rebuked and a acked Victor, the Roman pon ff, who was trying to exercise
jurisdic on over external churches. Augus ne disapproved of the
mul tude of ceremonies (Le er 119 ad Januarium). The Sixth Council of
Carthage a acked the primacy of the Roman pon ff, which began to be
established by a fic ous canon of the Council of Nicaea. The Sixth Council
of Gangra rejected the dis nc on of foods. The Council of Frankfurt
repudiated the worship of images. Many churches, in Germany especially
and in England, a acked the celibacy of priests, which Siricius had
introduced, as is evident from Aven nus. The Bohemian churches rejected
communion in one kind. The Waldensians condemned many papal
dogmas. But what need is there to be worried about such trifles as these,
and me culously to seek out men of truth as our witnesses, when Holy
Scripture takes the place of judge and speaks clearly?
Sixth, with regard to the separa on
(VI) “No one can show that the Roman church separated itself from a
greater church so that those who were joined to the Roman see were very
few while the rest of the Chris ans were far more numerous.”
We respond. On the contrary, with its acceptance of papal doctrines,
the Roman church separated itself from the church catholic, which is much
greater and larger because it includes the faithful of all mes and places.

Whether our church is new

§ 169. The third sec on. Bellarmine tries to prove that our church is new
from the fact that he can show those six circumstances about it. “(1) Its
author is Luther. (2) He invented new doctrines: that we are jus fied by
faith alone and that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice. (3) This heresy of the
Lutherans began in 1517, (4) in Saxony. (5) It was a acked by Leo X, by the
Council of Trent, and by Catholic universi es and doctors. (6) The
beginnings of that heresy were very small, and there were many more
Catholics at the beginning of the separa on.”
We respond.
** Scripture itself calls the Gospel “a new song” (Rev. 5:9). Christ
Himself compares His teaching to “new wine” (Ma . 9:17). Our doctrine is
new, our Gospel is new: (1) With regard to our erring adversaries who
consider true doctrine as new, imbued as they are with their ancient and
inveterate errors, as their predecessors also were (Mark 1:27; Acts 17:19–
20). (2) With regard to the people who receive it, because only the new
man perceives it, not the old Adam (1 Corinthians 2). (3) Because it kindles
in us a new light of knowledge and faith; it makes new creatures; it gives a
new heart (Ezek. 36[:26]). (4) Because it leads us to a new glory, a new
heaven (Isa. 65[:17]). **
(1) We do not acknowledge Luther as the first author or inventor of our
faith, but we follow the voice of Christ, which sounds forth in Scripture, to
which voice alone Luther brings us back. If Bellarmine could demonstrate
that Luther had thought up a new doctrine foreign to the prophe c and
apostolic wri ngs, as did Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs, then he
could prove something. However, Luther and we along with him constantly
appeal to the true an quity set forth in the Holy Scriptures. Hence the
statements that Bellarmine cites against novelty of doctrines from
Tertullian, Jerome, Optatus of Milevis, and Augus ne by no means strike
us. We are not professing a new doctrine but the old, apostolic teaching
that the kindness of God has restored into the brightest light from the
darkness in which it was submerged. If we can be convicted from the
apostles’ wri ngs of having departed from their ancient teaching and faith,
we do not pray that either the charge or penalty of heresy may be taken
away.
(2) Therefore we draw the conclusion against Bellarmine in this way:
Whatever church keeps the apostolic teaching whole and unharmed, that
is truly an apostolic church. Yet our church keeps the apostolic teaching
whole and unharmed. Therefore it is truly an apostolic church. Bellarmine
cannot deny the major premise, as is evident from what has been said
above. Therefore the en re ques on revolves around the minor premise,
which cannot be overturned, unless it be demonstrated in each ar cle of
faith that we have departed from the apostles’ teaching, which is set forth
in their wri ngs.
** When Petrus Ramus had heard in the Synod of Poissy [in Possiacensi
synodo] from Cardinal Lotharingus that of the fi een centuries a er Christ
the first was truly golden and that all the rest became more wicked and
bad the farther they went, he thought that the century of Christ and of the
apostles should be renewed and chosen for himself. At that occasion, “he
deserted” the Papist religion whose very zealous adherent he had been
previously (Theophilus Banosius, Vita P. Rami). Four hundred years ago,
Anselm of Havelberg wrote: “Most people are surprised at so many
novel es in the church of God: so many ranks of the clergy, so many kinds
of monks, so many diverse forms of differing religions, and the Chris an
religion changed by so many innova ons and agitated by so many new
laws and customs.” Cardinal Ludovicus, archbishop of Arles, was not afraid
to say in the full assembly of the Council of Basel: “The preachers of
Eugenius are everywhere preaching a new doctrine and are subjec ng the
council to the pope” (Aeneas Sylvius, De gest. concil. Basileens., bk. 1, part
3, tle 22, ch. 16). **
(3) Luther and his fellow priests did not want to forge a new church.
Rather, they were striving to cleanse, polish, and restore the prior church
to its original splendor and youthful integrity, since it had been wretchedly
befouled with the filth of bad behavior and false teachings. They preferred
to be considered as physicians who would heal and cleanse, rather than as
parents who would give birth to a new church.
(4) Therefore a dis nc on must be made between the sort of novelty
that is true and that which is only apparent. Our confession is not truly new
because it agrees with the ancient documents of the truth, namely, the
Holy Scriptures, and in all the centuries the truly faithful have embraced
that confession, as is shown elsewhere [§§ 176–79]. Therefore it is only
apparently new, because it appeared new to the long-standing, well-
nourished en cements of papal errors that have been in control for a long
me. In the same way the doctrine of Christ and of the apostles seemed
new to the Jews and Gen les (Mark 1:27; Acts 17:19) because they had
been nursed on the supers ons, errors, and idolatries of their ancestors
for a long me. John the Bap st appeared to be proposing a new doctrine,
and with that accusa on the clergy of Jerusalem sent a delega on to him
(John 1:19). Nonetheless it is truly said of him that “he turned the hearts of
the fathers to the sons” (Luke 1:17). That is, he called his listeners back to
the true an quity that the most beau ful consensus might be established
between the fathers who had died several centuries earlier and their
children or descendants with regard to their teaching and confession.
(5) Therefore the signs that Bellarmine brings forward by no means
show the novelty of our confession, but renewal. They do not prove that
Luther ins tuted our religion, but only that he restored it. It is one thing to
innovate, that is, to introduce new things that never before were known or
used. It is another thing to renew, that is, to restore ancient things that
have collapsed because of the injury of me or the neglect of people to
their original beauty and condi on. If a boundary line that had been
covered with dirt and mud because of the overflowing of rivers be cleaned
off again, the boundary line seems new, though it actually is the old one. In
the same way, Luther recleansed the boundary lines of apostolic doctrine
that had been nearly buried under the filth of human tradi ons and
supers ons. By no means, however, did he set new boundary lines for the
church. A candle whose wick is cleaned by the snuffers seems to burn with
a new light. Yet it is s ll the same candle, though it shines more brightly. In
the same way Luther took away the smoke and clouds of errors from the
light of the catholic faith that it might send forth its splendor in the church
more brightly and majes cally.
(6) The doctrine of jus fica on through faith alone—that is, of our free
jus fica on through Christ, who is apprehended by true faith—is not a
here cal novelty but the ancient truth of the catholic faith, as has been
shown abundantly in its own place [On Jus fica on through Faith
(Commonplace XIX)]. Hamelmann and Flacius have shown in their own
wri ngs that the exclusive par cle in the ar cle of jus fica on had been
preserved in the church from the me of the apostles all the way up to the
dregs of our mes. Accordingly, Camerarius, in his Vita Georgii principis
Anhaldini, reports that Bishop Adolph of Merseburg heard that our
doctrine of jus fica on was being taught as something new. He responded
angrily: “What? Are you calling this teaching new? Do you not remember
what is wri en in the psalm, that ‘no living creature will be jus fied in Your
sight’ [Ps. 143:2]?” Here we appeal to the heart of every truly devout
Chris an and ask whether in the terrors of conscience we are not forced to
flee for refuge in true faith to Christ alone and to rest solely on His merit.
We leave Bellarmine to worry about how he can reconcile what he declares
here, that “Luther discovered that new doctrine of jus fica on by faith
alone,” with what he claims in De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 9: “Simon Magus and
Eunomius and, in fact, some others at the me of the apostles taught the
same thing.”
(7) The ins tu on of Christ teaches that the sacrifice of the Mass is not
old but new. He ins tuted a Sacrament, not a sacrifice. This is also taught
by the liturgy of the apostles, who celebrated a Sacrament, not a sacrifice;
by the ancient writers who lived in the earliest days of the church and who
do not acknowledge some other propi atory sacrifice for the sins of men
except the one that Christ offered up once on the altar of the cross.
Polydorus Virgilius (De rerum invent., bk. 5, ch. 11) and Pla na (Vita Six )
show clearly the origin and progress of the Mass:
Sixtus ordered that in the celebra on “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of Sabaoth” be sung. At
first these were unadorned, and everything was treated simply. When Peter had
consecrated, he had used the prayer “Our Father.” Bishop James of Jerusalem added to
these mysteries. So did Basil. Others did the same. Celes ne added the Introit to the Mass;
Gregory, the Kyrie Eleison; Telesphorus, the Gloria in Excelsis; Gelasius I, the collects;
Jerome, the Epistle and the Gospel. The Alleluia was taken from the church of Jerusalem;
the Creed, from the Council of Nicaea. Pelagius invented the commemora on of the dead;
 Leo III, the incense; Innocent I, the kiss of peace. Sergius ins tuted the singing of the Agnus
Dei, etc.

“Innocent III sanc oned transubstan a on” ([Ius Canonicum,] de summ.

Trin. et. fide cathol., c. firmiter credimus). The Council of Constance
established the withholding of the cup. Zephyrinus mandated that all
Chris ans who had reached the age of puberty partake of the Eucharist at
least once a year, especially on Easter Day. Fabian sanc oned that this
should occur three mes. Innocent III and Honorius sanc oned the
reserva on of the Eucharist for the benefit of the sick. So, then, they
labored for several centuries un l finally the unhappy birth of the Mass
was formed.
Section III: On the Third Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Long Duration:
Whether long duration is a mark of the church
§ 170. The first sec on. Is long and uninterrupted dura on a true and
genuine mark of the church? (1) We place beyond controversy the fact that
the church has endured perpetually and will endure perpetually. (2) From
this, however, one cannot conclude that dura on is a genuine and proper
mark of the church. This is because: (a) Whether dura on is taken with
respect to past me or with respect to future me, it cannot be taken as a
genuine and proper mark of the church. If dura on is taken with respect to
past me, it coincides with an quity. Therefore the judgment about it
should be the same as it was about an quity. If it is taken with respect to
future me, it is not yet present and thus cannot fulfill the func on of a
mark.
(b) Long dura on does not always befit the church. The apostolic
church, which was being gathered a er Christ’s ascension through the
preaching of the Gospel throughout the world, could not boast of the sort
of long dura on that Bellarmine means in this place. Yet it was nonetheless
the true church. The churches that they are today establishing on the new
islands likewise cannot boast of long dura on.
(c) Long dura on does not befit the church alone because it is common
to the church and to the synagogue of Satan, the city of the devil.
Augus ne, De catech. rudib., ch. 19: “Two ci es—one of the wicked, the
other of the saints—are con nued from the beginning of the human race
un l the end of the world. Now they are mixed in bodies but separate in
wills. However, on Judgment Day they will also be separated in body.” He
repeats the same thing in De Genes. ad lit., bk. 11, ch. 15; De civit. Dei, bk.
15, ch. 1; Enarrat. Psalm 61; etc. In the Eastern church, the Nestorians,
Eutychians, Arians, etc., can boast about long dura on. They can trace the
origin of their teaching all the way back to Ebion and Cerinthus, who
appeared at the me of the apostles. Pho nians, Muslims, and pagans can
put forward a long and uninterrupted dura on as a pretext for their
heresies, blasphemies, and idolatries. The synagogue of the An christ has
lasted for a long me and will last un l the end of the world. Cajetan,
commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2: “The followers of the An christ will last
un l the appearance of the coming of Christ, for there is a difference
between ‘consuming’ and ‘destroying.’ ‘Consuming’ is spiritual. ‘He will
consume him with the spirit of His mouth,’ that is, with the spirit of the
preaching of the Gospel, where many will be converted to the Gospel, yet
many will persevere un l the coming of Christ,” etc.
(d) Uninterrupted dura on is not so proper to any par cular church that
it cannot be separated from it. The divine promise is that the church will
endure forever. However, this promise belongs properly not to this or that
par cular and visible church but to the catholic church of the elect, which
has been founded on the rock, which is Christ, and will remain unmoved
against all the gates of hell. Scripture tes fies that the church will be
eternal. Nowhere does it say, however, that the church is bound to a
certain place or to a certain people so that it may rejoice in that place and
people with a con nuing, perpetual, and uninterrupted dura on. Many
churches—at An och, Alexandria, and Constan nople, for instance—once
suffered serious interrup ons, but they did not immediately cease being
true churches. Gregory and Nectarius, orthodox bishops, succeeded the
here c Macedonius in the church of Constan nople. Flavian and other
devout bishops succeeded the here c Nestorius in the church of
Alexandria. The ancient Roman church, s ll quite close to the mes of the
apostles, suffered serious hardships at the hands of both here cs and
heathen. Its first bishops kept fleeing into the wilderness. Marcellinus
sacrificed to idols, Liberius became an Arian, Honorius became a
Monothelite, etc.

Bellarmine’s arguments in favor of dura on

§ 171. How does Bellarmine try to prove that long and never-
interrupted dura on is a mark of the church? He says: (I) “The church is
called ‘catholic’ not only because it has always existed but also because it
will always exist, according to Dan. 2:44: ‘a kingdom that shall never be
sca ered.’ ”
We respond. (1) We certainly do not deny that the church catholic will
endure forever; and the statement of the prophet in Dan. 2:44 confirms it.
From this, however, one cannot infer that the Roman church is that true
church catholic to which such promises of perpetual dura on have been
given. This is because the Roman church is a par cular church; therefore it
can cease to exist, while the church catholic remains, as we have shown
earlier [§§ 86–103].
(2) With equal logic, from the fact that the church catholic will endure
perpetually one cannot infer that every assembly that endures perpetually
is the true and catholic church. A er all, Satan’s synagogue will endure
un l the end of the world; “tares” will be mixed with the good seed “un l
the me of the harvest” (Ma . 13:[30]); “chaff” will be mixed “with the
wheat” un l the future threshing on the Last Day (Ma . 3:12); “the goats”
will finally be separated “from the lambs” on Judgment Day (Ma . 25:32);
the Lord Jesus will finally destroy the An christ by His illustrious coming (2
Thess. 2:8).
(3) Therefore we concede that the church catholic will endure forever.
But we deny that this promise has been made about any par cular church,
such as the Roman church is. We also deny that this dura on is proper only
to the church catholic. From this it follows of itself that dura on is not a
genuine and proper mark of the church.
§ 172. (II) However, Bellarmine provides some statements with which he
seems to want to prove that this perpetual dura on is proper to the church
alone. Acts 5:38–39: “If this plan or work is of men, it will fail; but if it is of
God, you will not be able to overthrow it.” 2 Tim. 3:9: “The here cs will
proceed no farther, for their folly will be plain to all.” Cyprian (bk. 4, Le er
2) says: “Schisma cs always burn brightly at their beginning, but they
cannot have increases. They quickly cease to exist with their corrupt
emula on.” Augus ne, on Psalm 57 [58], on the words “They will come to
nothing, like water running down,” says: “Let them not frighten you, my
brothers. Some of them are like the rivers that are called ‘torrents.’ Their
water runs down and makes a great noise for a me but soon will cease.
They cannot stand for long. Many heresies have already died. They have
run in their riverbeds as much as they could. The streams have dried up.
Their memory is scarcely found,” etc.
We respond. (1) No one can deny that many heresies have endured for
a long me and con nue to endure. Arianism, Pho nianism, Nestorianism,
etc., began many centuries ago and—alas!—s ll endure. Therefore this
must be understood par cularly about some heresies and here cs: that
they do not last for a long me. Bellarmine judges the Greek church as
here cal, but that has endured for a long me.
(2) Even if all heresies were quickly abolished, it s ll would not be
proved that long dura on is a proper mark of the church. At the very me
when heresies are in their flower and vigor, their aboli on is not yet
evident. Only later, when the heresy has been wiped out, does the truth
triumph gloriously. They claim that our church is here cal and have o en
predicted a fatal massacre for it. In fact, they have even dared to
determine the year of its destruc on. (Johannes Taisnierius Hannonius,
Physiogn. Pauli oper. Math., p. 457, predicted from the stars in 1572 that
“the Lutheran religion will be wiped out within three years.” See also
Johann Paulus Windeckius, Prognos c. de futuro ecclesiae statu.) But this
church, by God’s benefac on, s ll stands unmoved, and we hope that it
will con nue to flourish un l the end of the world.
(3) Gamaliel’s statement in Acts 5:38 has this meaning: if those men
thought up with their human cleverness and malice the doctrine that Jesus
of Nazareth is the true Messiah and if they are deluding people with their
deceits and decep ons, their tricks would be revealed in the course of
me, as happened to Theudas and Judas Galilaeus. On the other hand, if
their doctrine was true and divine, you will not be able to hold back the
progress of this teaching and to resist God Himself. From this, however,
one cannot yet infer that no heresies grow strong and endure for a long
me but are immediately laid to rest. You see, a dis nc on must be made
between temporary pressure [pressio] and final overthrow [oppressio].
Heavenly truth and the true church, its abode, can be pressed by heresies
for a me, but they finally emerge again. The soot of heresies can darken
the light of truth for a li le while, but it finally shines forth more brightly. A
dis nc on must also be made between external and internal splendor.
There are mes when here cal churches take on a greater external
splendor than the true church. Nevertheless the internal splendor before
God that consists of sincerity of faith belongs only to the true church and
always remains proper to it.
(4) The apostle’s statement in 2 Tim. 3:9 cannot be taken in the sense
that here cs will not be able to accomplish anything at all, for in later
mes heresies brought exceedingly great disaster to the church, especially
the Arian heresy. In that very chapter (3:13) the apostle adds: “They will go
on from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.” Therefore the
apostle is asser ng something else, namely, that if the ministers of the
church perform their office diligently, it will come to pass that here cs will
not proceed as much as they want. Thomas Aquinas explains it in this way:
“They will not proceed any farther than God allows.”

Whether long dura on belongs to the Roman church

§ 173. The second sec on. Does the Roman church really enjoy a long,
never-interrupted dura on? Bellarmine proceeds to prove this thesis as
follows. He says: (I) “It is evident that our church has endured from the
beginning of the world un l now; or, if we are speaking about its New
Testament status, it has endured from Christ un l now for fi een hundred
years. First Jews, then pagans, and, finally, here cs have a acked it in vain,
but not only has it endured, it has even grown because of the
persecu ons.”
We respond. (1) We readily admit that the church catholic has endured
from the beginning of the world—the “Chris an” church, in the proper
sense, for so many centuries. But what does this have to do with the
Roman church of today, which in many points has gone very far away from
the catholic and Chris an faith?
(2) That dura on of the church catholic cannot be understood materially
about the people who belong to the church catholic, for they change and
succeed one another. Instead, it must be understood formally about the
teaching of the church catholic, which endures perpetually and always
remains the same despite the constant change of people who succeed one
another. So if Bellarmine wants to infer something in favor of his Roman
church from that dura on of the church catholic, he will have to prove that
in the modern Roman church the same doctrine is being taught that was
divinely preserved in the church catholic from the beginning of the world
and then from the me of the apostles. It is very easy to prove this about
our church, but it is impossible to prove it about the Roman church. The
doctrine of free jus fica on through faith in Christ, of the impossibility of
fulfilling the Law perfectly, of rejec ng self-chosen services, etc., is truly
catholic doctrine and has been perpetually preserved in the true church
already from the beginning of the world. However, this is what sounds
forth in our church and what is a acked in the Roman church.
(3) Therefore we dis nguish among the dogmas of the Roman church.
Some are true and orthodox (such as the mystery of the Trinity, of Christ’s
Passion and sa sfac on for our sins, of Bap sm that is to be administered
in the name of the Holy Trinity, etc.), but others are false and here cal
(such as the doctrine of jus fica on through the merits of works, of
making tradi ons equal to the wri en Word of God, of the invoca on of
the saints, etc.). With respect to the former, the Roman church of today
s ll has some kinship with the catholic and Chris an church. With respect
to the la er, however, it is a here cal, apostate church.
§ 174. (II) However, Bellarmine comes closer and begins to fight hand to
hand. He says:
Although here cs of this me do not concede that the Roman church has endured for more
than fi een hundred years, nonetheless they do admit that it has endured without
interrup on from Gregory I un l now, almost a thousand years. Even if this were the only
me, it would s ll be longer than the age of any heresy. However, it is false to say that it has
not endured longer, for they cannot show through any history or any wri ngs of the ancients
that there was a change of religion in the Roman church at the me of St. Gregory.

We respond. (1) It was monstrous for him to declare that we cannot

show through any history or wri ngs of the ancients that a change of
religion occurred in the Roman church at the me of Gregory or even in
the mes following. Let the wri ngs of the apostles be brought forth—
those wri ngs in which, as both par es agree, the apostolic teaching is
contained—and it will appear clearly that the teaching of the modern
Roman church is greatly different than it. Therefore who will possibly be
able to deny that a change of religion has occurred in the Roman church, at
whatever me it may have happened? Consult Paul’s Epistle wri en to the
ancient church of Rome and it will easily become clear what deposit of
doctrine was entrusted to the Roman church and of what sort it is. But a
mutual comparison of dogmas will make it obvious that this deposit is no
longer whole and unharmed [see § 125].
(2) Under what appearance of truth can anyone deny that a change of
religion occurred in the Roman church at the me of Gregory and in later
centuries? Gregory refused to be called “ecumenical bishop” around AD
600. In fact, he called the person who would dare to claim for himself “that
wicked name” the “precursor of the An christ.” But Gregory’s successor,
Boniface III, obtained this tle by requests and bribes from Phocas, the
emperor-slayer, and all the Roman popes have used it from that me un l
now. We make the same judgment about other dogmas, rites, and
ceremonies that have been received into the Roman church over the
course of the years. It is clear from Gra an, from councils, from Pla na,
and from other writers what each pope ins tuted, what dogma was
established in the councils, and how the Roman church arrived at that
condi on a er various changes and innova ons.
(3) In opposi on to the truth, he declares also that no heresy extends
beyond a thousand years in age. Yet in regard to Pho nianism,
Nestorianism, Arianism, etc., no one can deny that they have endured for
more than twelve hundred years. Even if no heresy had endured so long in
the church, nevertheless heathenism and Judaism surpass the Chris an
religion, in the specific sense, in terms of temporal dura on.
Muhammadanism began at almost the same me as Papism, as the
histories tes fy. And Bellarmine will be unable to deny what the apostle
says, that at the me of the apostles the mystery of lawlessness had
already begun to work and that the Lord Jesus at His last coming will finally
destroy the An christ (2 Thess. 2:7–8). From this it follows of itself that the
kingdom of the An christ will endure for a long me.
(4) If Bellarmine wants to derive the long, never-interrupted dura on of
the Roman church from the succession of the Roman pon ffs, a prompt
response is at hand: a personal and local succession is good for nothing
without succession of doctrine, as we shall show later [§ 192]. Leaving this
in silence for now, [we note] that even the external appearance of
succession in the Roman church has been disturbed and interrupted by
various schisms and dissensions. Formosus became bishop of Rome by
bribery and, hence, by simony. But now, a man who enters an office by the
art of simony is not a legi mate bishop according to the edict of canon law
itself. This is proved from [Ius Canonicum,] 1, q. 1, through several canons;
c. sicut Simoniaca, c. quanta, c. insimulatum, Extra de simonia. Stephan
abrogated the decrees of Formosus, but Stephan likewise occupied the
papal throne through bribes. He had the body of his predecessor exhumed
from its tomb, stripped of papal robes, clothed with the garments of a
secular person, and buried in the manner of laymen. He also caused the
fingers that he had used in consecra ng to be cut off and thrown into the
Tiber, and he said that, contrary to the laws of the sacrament, he had
restored Rome and the priesthood. Later, councils were held and John IX
rescinded the acts of Stephan against Formosus and declared the statutes
of Stephan void. Where did a con nuous, uninterrupted succession take
place at that me? At the me of the Council of Constance there were
three an popes: one in Spain, another in France, and the third in Italy. Yet
the Council of Constance rejected all of them as illegi mate and elected a
new pope. We shall say more about this in its own place [§ 197].
(5) If no change of religion had occurred in the Roman church, on what
basis would the Roman popes have been charged so o en with claiming
for themselves an an -Chris an primacy, the source of all corrup ons?
Could a greater or worse change possibly have occurred in the Roman
church than that the pope, its head, has degenerated into the An christ?
But now, already several centuries before Luther was heard of, those
Roman Vejoves had been accused with the charge of being the An christ.
Aven nus (Annal., bk. 4) reports that in 858 the bishops of Trier and
Cologne spoke to Pope Nicholas using these words:
To be sure, you show the persona of a pope, but you s r up tyranny. Under the garb and
clothing of a shepherd we perceive a wolf. Your tle makes a false promise of being a parent,
for with your deeds you reveal yourself as Jupiter. Although you are a servant of servants,
you maintain that you are lord of lords. According to the discipline of our Savior, you are the
least of all the ministers of the temple of God, but you fall headlong by your passion for
domina ng. You feel free to do whatever you please. You have become a deceit to
Chris ans.

In AD 991, Arnulphus of Orleans at the Council of Rheims spoke about the

pope in this way: “Reverend fathers, what do you think about this fellow
who sits on his lo y throne, glowing in his royal purple and golden robes? I
say, what do you think of him? Surely, if he lacks love and is swollen and
li ed up by knowledge alone, then the An christ is si ng in the temple of
God and displaying himself as God.” Aretas, who lived in the year 1010,
writes on Revela on that “the An christ emerged a er the death of
Constan ne the Great, and Babylon is the territory of those whom the son
of sin will dominate.” Aven nus (Annal., bk. 5) writes as follows about
Gregory VII or Hildebrand: “Almost all people were good, open, just,
upright, simple, but then the kingdom of the An christ began. They
perceived that at that me those things had happened which Christ our
Savior chanted to us so many years before. The recollec ons of literature
record this.” Aven nus also reports what happened a er the death of
Hildebrand. He says:
A priest lay ill in Saxony for three days like someone about to die. When he recovered, he
revealed that the tyrants Hildebrand, Rudolph, and Hermann were being slaughtered in hell
with eternal punishments. Then false prophets, false apostles, and false priests emerged,
men who pretended religion and deceived the people. They showed great signs and
wonders and began to sit in the temple of God and to be extolled, that is worshiped, over all
things. (Thus, then, the apostolic prophecy was fulfilled about the coming of the An christ
in power of every kind and in lying signs and wonders, 2 Thess. 2:9.)

Petrus Asilus, De tyrann. pon f., ch. 3, p. 67:

Around the me of Hildebrand, who was called Gregory VII, the bishop Floren nus
(according to others, Fluen nus) taught publicly that the An christ had been born. For when
Paschal II, the successor of this Gregory, was raging against the church of Ravenna, that
Bishop Fluen nus publicly taught that the An christ had come. The Roman pon ff Paschal
realized that that statement was a acking him and not without cause, so he went to him
and imposed silence upon him. The church of Liège in a response given to Paschal II in the
year 1110 calls Rome “Babylon” and says that Peter called it that by the prophe c Spirit
because the church was going to be upset by the storms and whirlwinds of Rome.

Around the year 1120 Honorius Augustodunensis flourished. He

reprimanded the bishops of the city of Rome with these words:
Turn to the ci zens of Babylon and see what kind of people they are and along what streets
they travel. Look! Come here to the summit of the mountain so that you may see all the
buildings of the doomed city. Look upon the princes and judges. Behold, the throne of the
beast has been set among them. At all mes they are intent upon evil; they are insa ably
seized with the ma ers of iniquity. Not only do they commit shameful acts, but they also
instruct others to do the same. They sell holy things, they purchase crimes, and they work
with all their might so that they are not the only ones who go to hell.

Around the year 1157, John of Salisbury published two tracts, one of which
he called Objurga orium cleri and the other Polycra cus. In these he calls
the pope “the An christ,” and Rome, “the whore of Babylon.” Around the
year 1130, Bernard (Le er 125) wrote about Agapetus: “The beast of
Revela on, to whom is given a mouth that speaks blasphemies and who
wages war with the saints, occupies the throne of Peter like a lion ready for
its prey.”
If they wish to make the excep on that “Bernard said these things
about just one man who had taken the papal throne with force and
manifest usurpa on,” we respond: Indeed, let it be so. One must note,
meanwhile, that Bernard himself explains in the same place why Agapetus
was an unjust usurper, namely, that the other of the an popes, who was
called Innocent, had been elected and approved by the kings of Germany,
France, England, Scotland, Spain, and Jerusalem and also had the consent
and approval of all the clergy and people of the aforemen oned countries,
but that the other an pope, Agapetus, had not. Therefore, as far as
Bernard is concerned, not only Agapetus but also nearly all others for many
centuries a er him are that beast revealed in the Revela on, inasmuch as
they have been and s ll are being chosen solely by the college of cardinals,
and it is quite o en divided by fac ons, without any interven on of the
authority of kings and their peoples.
Bernard again, on Song of Songs, sermon 33, col. 602: “They are
ministers of Christ and serve the An christ. As honored men they exult
over the possessions of the Lord, but they do not give honor to the Lord.
From this comes what you see daily—the a rac veness of a whore, the
clothing of an actor, the pomp of a king, etc. For things like this they want
to be and are leaders of churches: deans, archdeacons, bishops,
archbishops.” See also more in the same place, as well as In convers. Pauli,
sermon 1, cols. 81–82, where among other things he says, “There are
many An christs at our me.” De consid. ad Eugen. papam, bk. 2: “It is
clear that the apostles are forbidden to have dominion. But you dare to
take for yourself an apostleship as a domineering person or a dominion as
an apostolic person. Clearly, you are forbidden to have either. If you wish to
have both at the same me, you destroy both.” Ad Eug., bk. 3: “I express
the common murmur and complaint of the churches. They cry out that
they are being butchered and dismembered. There are either none or very
few that either do not fear or do not suffer pain from that wound.” Ad
Eug., bk. 4: “Amid these things, you, as pastor, go forth dressed in much
expensive a re. Were I to dare, I would say that there is more pasture
here for devils than for sheep. That is what Peter prac ced. That is how
Paul played.” Cardinal Hugh quotes from Bernard in his Pos ll. on 1 John:
“Good Jesus, all Christendom seems to have conspired against You. Those
who are first in persecu ng You seem to hold the primacy and to bear the
preeminence in Your church.” Around the year 1200, Abbot Joachim of
Fiore in Calabria showed King Richard of England, who was traveling in the
east, that “the An christ had arisen and, in fact, was at Rome, enthroned in
the church and extolling himself over all things.” Balaeus (Cent. 3, ch. 35)
declared in his German rhymes that “the pope and his clergy are
An christs.” His Picturae super Apocalypsin cum Italicis exposi onibus is
also extant, in which he makes serious charges against the pope and his
clergy. In the year 1240, Bishop Eberhard of Salzburg at the Council of
Regensburg, according to Aven nus (Annal., bk. 7) offered the following
tes mony about the Roman popes: “Those Babylonian flamines want to
rule by themselves. They cannot endure any equal. They will not stop un l
they have trampled all things under their feet and are enthroned in the
temple of God and are extolled over everything that is worshiped.” (You
hear the words of the apostle’s prophecy, 2 Thess. 2:7.) “Their hunger for
wealth and thirst for honors are unquenchable. He who is ‘the servant of
the servants’ wishes to be lord of lords, just as if he were God. He says
great things as if he were God. He changes laws and sanc ons his own
laws; he corrupts, destroys, despoils, defrauds, kills. That man—they call
him the An christ, on whose brow is wri en a name of blasphemy: ‘I am
God. I cannot err’—is enthroned in God’s temple and holds dominion far
and wide.” This same Eberhard, on the basis of a comparison between
Christ and the Roman popes, charges them with an -Chris anity:
Christ forbids us to hate our enemies and commands us to love them, to do good to them,
to keep our word to our foes, to avert curses with blessings. The Romanists, on the other
hand, command us to violate sacred covenants, to misuse God’s holy name to deceive
people, to be thankless for good deeds, to pay back benefac ons with evildoing, to wage
wars, to sue, to defraud, to betray, to deceive, and to do all this with a great superficiality of
piety. They want us to fight against the divine majesty, heaven, providence, nature; they
want us to resist the supreme majesty established by God the Best and Greatest, which is
the imperial majesty.

In the year 1250, Rupertus (elsewhere known as “Robertus”), bishop of

Lincoln, said in a sermon that he delivered before Pope Innocent IV and the
cardinals in regard to the clergy of the Roman Curia:
Because the principal work of Christ, because of which He came into the world, is the giving
of life to souls, and because the proper work of Satan, as a murderer from the beginning—
the work that he especially invented—is to kill and bring death upon souls, those pastors
who have put on the persona of Jesus Christ but do not declare the Word of God, though
they may not add to their own wickedness, are An christs and Satan transfigured as an
angel of light. They are thieves and robbers, sheep-slayers and destroyers, making the house
of prayer into a den of robbers.
Around the same me, Guilielmus Aurifex openly taught that “the pope is
the An christ, Rome is Babylon, and the prelates are the members of the
An christ.” The same thing was done: by Probus, bishop of Toul, who
around the year 1280 called Roman priests “satraps of Satan and
An christ,” as recorded in Aven nus; by Guilielmus de S. Amore, a
theologian at Paris and a canon of Beauvais; by Johannes de Poliaco, a
theologian at Paris; by Ma hias of Paris, Bohemian in na onality; by
Arnoldus de Villa Nova; by Michael Cesenas (otherwise known as
“Centenas”), general of the Minorites; by Petrus Johannis, a Minorite of
the diocese Biranensis; by Francesco Petrarch; by Girolamo Savonarola; by
Nicolaus Horius, Le er ad Carolum Bovillum; and by many others whose
tes monies are found in the Catalogus tes um verita s, in the Lec on.
memorabil. of Wolf, and in many other places. In fact, in a public edict of
the Holy Roman Empire under Louis IV, John XXII (the Roman pon ff) is
called the An christ. They say: “He has a thirst for the blood of Chris ans.
He sows the evils of discord and of sedi on among Chris ans of all na ons.
He arms brothers against brothers. Because of this An christ, Chris ans
are not permi ed to preserve the peace that God has granted.” In another
edict: “He” (Pope John) “longs for a human realm. Just as the An christ
impersonates a pastor, so also is he a mys c.” Again: “By our right, counsel,
sentence, and the common consensus of the princes and bishops of
Germany, and with the Italian priests and Roman people urgently
demanding, we declare that the author of the empire of An christ is
desecrated, abdicated, and condemned for heresy.” Here belongs what
Frederick II writes in a le er to O o of Bavaria, recorded in Aven nus,
Annal., bk. 7: “There are many An christs among the Roman pon ffs, nor
are any others so destruc ve of the Chris an religion as their works
reveal.” Now let Bellarmine go on and deny that any change has occurred
in the Roman church! Let him deny that any change can be demonstrated
from the wri ngs of the ancients, as if there could be any change more
serious and destruc ve than that the head of that church has degenerated
into the An christ.
§ 175. (III) Bellarmine has another argument with which he tries to
prove the truth of the Roman church on the basis of its dura on. He says:
We can prove that our church is the true church also with this argument. Before the me of
Luther, there were in the world only these religions: paganism, Judaism, Muhammadanism,
 Grecianism, Nestorianism, the Hussite heresy, and the Roman church. But it is certain that
the true church of Christ was not among any of those aforemen oned sects, as even the
Lutherans admit. Therefore it was in the Roman church, or else every true, visible church
has perished from the earth, which cannot happen as we have explained earlier. However,
all the here cal sects ceased to exist a er a short me, beyond those that have now arisen.

He tries to prove this by the example of the Arians and Albigensians. He

also adds that “up to the me of Luther, two hundred families of here cs
are listed, of which remain only a remnant of Nestorians, etc., Eutychians
in the east and Hussites in Bohemia. All the rest have completely perished.”
We respond. (1) The Pharisees and the priests of Jerusalem could have
argued in the same way against Christ and the apostles. “Before your
mes, there were in the world only these religions: paganism and the
Jewish church. But it is certain that the church did not exist in paganism.
Therefore the Jewish church is the true church, and, consequently, you
must not depart from it.” Whatever one responds in favor of Christ and the
apostles to this Jewish argument, let Bellarmine claim the same response
for himself.
(2) The explana on shall be given a li le later of how God preserved the
church for Himself in the midst of the darkness of the papacy [§§ 177–78].
We readily admit that the true church under the papacy was not at that
me visible and washed of the stains of errors in the way that it is today,
a er the light of the Gospel has shown forth from that darkness by the
kindness of God. But one cannot infer from this that the church of God on
earth perished completely. She was hidden in the wilderness where she
had a place prepared for her by God (Rev. 12:6).
(3) The Greek church was purer than the Roman. The churches of the
Hussites were also cleansed of an -Chris an idol-madness. Therefore it is
false to say that the visible church perished completely unless the Roman
church is the true church.
(4) We readily grant that those heresies which Bellarmine lists have
been crushed and overwhelmed so that they no longer have dominion and
rage about within the church. Yet they have not been u erly wiped out,
because he himself acknowledges that remnants of the Arians, Nestorians,
and Eutychians s ll survive. But the nature of an -Chris anity is different,
for the apostles prophesied that the An christ “would sit in the temple of
the Lord,” that is, he would take for himself dominion over against the
church. Therefore one can by no means conclude from the power, might,
dura on, and external splendor of the an -Chris an kingdom that it is the
true church.
(5) Bellarmine has not yet been able to prove that the church should be
visible with an external splendor and in one permanent loca on. Therefore
it is pointless for him to argue against us from the external pomp and
splendor of the Roman church.
(6) He is also unable to prove that that Roman church will endure with
that external splendor un l the end of the world or that ours will be wiped
out in a short me. Since these things are future and are placed in the
hand of God, nothing certain can be affirmed about them. To be sure,
Bellarmine does argue, De Rom. pont., bk. 3, ch. 13: “Rome will not be the
see of the An christ.” However, on this point other Jesuits contradict him.
Ribera, commentary on Revela on 14: “Rome is called Babylon because it
will be the workshop of all idolatry at the end of the age.” The Englishmen
of Rheims, on Revela on, p. 175: “Rome will be the see of the An christ.”
Vega, on Revela on 18: “It seems that we, too, will have to say this on the
basis of Aretas, Primasius, Ansbertus, Haymo, Ambrose, and others on this
point, that the idolatry of the city of Rome is being signified and that Rome
will fall far away from the faith and will even become the dwelling place for
demons and for every unclean spirit because of its shameful acts and
idolatry, which at that me will run unchecked in the city and empire of
Rome.” Yet if Rome will be the workshop of idolatry and the see of the
An christ, how can Bellarmine be sure about the long and perpetual
dura on of the Roman church?

Whether our church can boast of dura on

§ 176. The third sec on. The perpetual screaming of the Jesuits is that
we cannot show where the church was before Luther. Bellarmine writes in
this place: “The Lutherans had hardly been born when they began to dry
out. Luther’s reign began in 1517, but he reigned peacefully for barely
seven years.” Pistorius (Hodeg., ch. 4, de eccles.) jokes that our church
“came out of thin air.” Lessius declares confidently (Consult., p. 61): “The
Lutheran religion did not exist in the world before 1517.”
 We respond. We are prepared to prove ar cle by ar cle that our
confession is truly apostolic, that is, that it agrees with the doctrine of the
apostles, which is contained in their wri ngs. Therefore, because our
church is joined to the early apostolic church by a kinship of doctrine, it
cannot be burdened with the charge of novelty. But if their complaint is
about the con nua on of that doctrine century by century from the me
of the apostles un l Luther, we respond as follows. In order to reject the
charge of novelty of our religion and church, it is not precisely and
absolutely necessary for us to seek out scrupulously and show point by
point how it has been preserved and propagated in each century. Rather,
because we can prove from the Holy Scriptures that it is true, orthodox,
catholic, and apostolic, therefore we conclude a posteriori that it has
always existed by virtue of God’s promises about the perpetual dura on
and preserva on of the church, though a priori we cannot demonstrate
how it has been preserved and in what places it has existed year by year.
We prove this asser on of ours: (I) By the example of the church of
Israel at the me of Elijah. When the idolatrous worship of Baal had taken
over the public ministry of the en re visible church, Elijah judged that no
true worshiper of God survived anymore and that he alone was le .
However, a divine oracle told him that there were “seven thousand who
had not bent their knee to Baal” (1 Kings 19:18). From the fact that Elijah
could not point out a visible assembly that was confessing publicly the true
and pure doctrine of the prophets, one could and should by no means infer
that no true worshiper of God remained on earth. In the same way and
with equal logic, even if we cannot demonstrate any visible and
conspicuous assembly that has publicly confessed the true and genuine
doctrine of the apostles at the me when the papacy held dominion far
and wide, yet one could not and should not infer from this that there no
longer remained any true church surviving on earth.
(II) By the example of the same church at the me of Christ and the
apostles. The priests and Pharisees, likewise, could have demanded of
Christ and the apostles that they point out as with an index finger the
con nua on of that doctrine which they were teaching through each
century of earlier ages. They could have argued in the same way as our
Jesuits. Before Christ, John the Bap st, and the apostles began to teach
their new Gospel, there was no other religion in the world except Judaism
and paganism. Paganism clearly is of the devil. If Judaism was corrupted
and depraved in many ways, the consequence will be either that the true
faith and church have perished or someone ought to point out the place
where they have been preserved. Whatever the Papists bring out in this
argument, all of that could have been pressed by the priests and Pharisees
against Christ and the apostles. Whatever is answered on behalf of Christ
and the apostles can be answered to the Papists as well.
(III) Therefore just as sons and daughters of God were bego en through
a corrupt public ministry in the Israelite church (Ezek. 16:20), though one
could not know individually who they were, so also under the papacy the
true church was preserved, though one could not know individually which
people were its true members. You see, one cannot draw a legi mate and
effectual conclusion from our ignorance to a nega on of the thing nor from
a nega on of the external appearance to a nega on of the essence. The
wheat is preserved in the chaff, though it is not outwardly visible. The seed
lies in the field, though no one can reveal in what part of the field it lies
hidden. The garden that seems to have dried out completely and is covered
with briars and thorns can maintain green and wholesome herbs in some
small beds. So also God has preserved for Himself a “holy seed and some
remnants” under the thickest darkness of the papacy, though we cannot
show in what land or place that holy seed was hiding (Isa. 1:8; 6:13; Zeph.
3:12; etc.).
(IV) Rev. 12:6 foretells that, when the An christ rules, the church will
flee into the wilderness where she “has a place prepared by God.”
Therefore it is unjust to demand that we show an evident, conspicuous
assembly which, while the papacy has been domina ng, has had the
ministry of the Word pure and uncorrupted in all respects and with its
external splendor has made itself known before the eyes of men. A er all,
that which hides in the desert and has a place prepared for it by God
cannot be known publicly nor be evident.
(V) 2 Thess. 2:4 foretells that the An christ will “sit in the temple of
God”; that is, he will exercise dominion in the church. Therefore the
An christ and the temple of God, that is, the papacy and the church,
remained together. The papacy took over the church; the church was
under the papacy. If the true church had ceased to exist, the An christ
would never have sat in the temple of God. Therefore, though one could
not point out how the true church could have been and was preserved
while the An christ was domina ng and raging almost everywhere,
nevertheless having firm faith in the divine oracle, we ought to declare
with certainty that the temple of God, that is, the true church, was
preserved also at that me. Just as the founda on of a building is
preserved in its rubble, though its splendor no longer stands forth, so also
the true church has con nued under the papacy though its external
splendor perished.
(VI) That the church is being preserved perpetually is a ma er of divine
truth. Where and among whom it is being preserved is a ma er of
historical observa on. Therefore even if it cannot be shown where and
among whom the church was preserved at the me of the papacy, this
would prove only a failure of historical observa on but would in no respect
be injurious to the truth of the divine oracles.

How the church was preserved under the papacy

§ 177. However, lest our adversaries should have anything about which
to complain, we shall show how and among whom the true religion and,
consequently, also the true church could have been and was preserved
under the deep darkness of the papacy.
It is certain that amid the darkness of the papacy, by the singular
kindness of God, the most holy codex of the Bible was preserved, some
pericopes of it were read publicly and expounded to the people, and some
en re books were explained in the schools. Therefore whenever the text of
the Bible was read and expounded, the confession of the true church
sounded forth publicly. This is because the true church embraces the
teaching set forth in the wri ngs of the prophets and apostles, and no one
can doubt in any way that God was effectual in the hearts of some people
through this means according to His infallible promise (Isa. 55:10–11),
since “the Word of God never returns to Him void” without producing
some fruit. Although false explana ons and explana ons contrary to the
wri en Word of God were mingled with it by preachers, yet the text itself,
by the unique providence of God, remained unharmed. The elect people of
God listened to it and acknowledged it as the norm of faith and life. On the
other hand, they turned away from distor ons and corrup ons so that
“the ears of the hearers were purer than the lips of the teachers.”
This can be explained with the example of the Jewish church. In Ma .
23:2[–3], Christ orders them to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who sit
on Moses’ seat and to keep and do whatever they said. But on the
contrary, in Ma . 16:11 He orders them to “beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees,” that is, of their teaching, as He explains in the same place (v.
12). There is no doubt that some people followed Christ’s command and
did both, so that they listened to the priests and Pharisees who sat on
Moses’ seat and also avoided their leaven. Of course, these seem to
conflict with each other, but by the best reckoning they agree. The scribes
and Pharisees had been established in the public office of teaching, for that
is what is understood by “si ng on Moses’ seat.” On that seat they would
read to the people the wri ngs of Moses and the prophets. Acts 15:21:
“From ancient mes Moses has had in every city those who preach him in
the synagogues and read him every Sabbath.” Therefore the truly devout
were bound to obey what was being read from Moses and the prophets,
and indeed they were obedient. However, when they began to mix the
leaven of their tradi ons, supers ons, and corrup ons with this pure
lump of heavenly teaching, then, mindful of Christ’s command, they
rejected those corrupt tradi ons, having kept the purer lump of the
heavenly teaching. That is how things were under the papacy. The wri ngs
of the prophets and apostles were read publicly. From them, many were
equipped and instructed for eternal life, and it was in those that the true
church was preserved. Now, if the Jesuits press us with their ques ons:
“Where did the true doctrine sound forth before Luther? Where was the
church preserved?” we respond that the true teaching was preserved in
the codex of the Bible, and it sounded forth in the public reading of the
codex of the Bible.
Our churches accept no dogma outside of Scripture; they contend for
no ar cle that does not have clear and perspicuous tes mony in Scripture.
Therefore when Scripture was read publicly, the public preaching of our
religion was heard. In our churches we do not use any other text of the
Bible than what the prophets and apostles wrote and which has been
preserved in the midst of the papacy by God’s benefac on un l our me.
From that very text we demonstrate the immovable truth of our
confession. We introduce nothing foreign or alien to it; we look for nothing
outside it; we confine ourselves to the limits of Scripture. Therefore just as
Christ and the apostles were convic ng the scribes and Pharisees from the
wri ngs of Moses and the prophets, which had been preserved in the
corrupt state of the Jewish church, so also, from the prophe c and
apostolic wri ngs, which have been preserved in the corrupt state of the
Chris an church, we can prove to the Papists that our doctrine is true and
orthodox.
Besides the codex of the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed has also con nued to
exist under the papacy. It is a summary of the chief and fundamental
ar cles of the Chris an faith. Also, the Decalogue con nued to remain
uncorrupted, as well as the Lord’s Prayer, the account of the Lord’s Passion,
Bap sm (the sacrament of regenera on), and some parts of heavenly
teaching. Who could possibly doubt that through these means the Holy
Spirit was effectual in the hearts of some people for regenera on and
salva on? But if some truly devout and believing people survived, surely
the church survived, too, which must be evaluated on the basis of faith
rather than of number.
§ 178. Because the Papists s ll have not quieted down but demand that
we show them in par cular who under the papacy embraced the true
teaching and who were members of our church, come, let us yield to their
demand. First, we produce the prophe c predic on of Dan. [11]:41:
“These only shall be delivered out of his hand: Edom and Moab and the
firs ruits of the children of Ammon.” Here, according to Luther’s
interpreta on, three kinds of people are listed who were preserved for
salva on under the tyranny of the An christ. First are the martyrs, who are
signified by “Edom,” so-called from “redness.” Second are the simple
Chris ans, who, established outside the din of papis c idol-madness, have
permi ed the rudiments of the Chris an faith that they had received from
their parents in childhood to become for them the rule of simplicity and
blameless faith, or, at least, at the end of life they have renounced trust in
their own merits and have placed all their hope of salva on in the merit of
Christ alone. They are signified by “Moab,” which is “from the father.” Third
are infants who were reborn by Bap sm and who died before the idol-
madness of the Papists contaminated their souls. These are denoted by
“the firs ruits of the children of Ammon,” which means “my own people.”
 In his Praelect. in Dan., Dr. Gesner interprets this a bit differently.
Because the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites were to the Israelites
despised and even abominable peoples (Deut. 23:1), therefore he claims
that they generally, in the mys cal sense, signify the rejected and despised
assembly of the faithful, which the miraculous providence and protec on
of God preserved amid the papacy. They called them “here cs” in the
same way that the Jews called Christ and His disciples “Samaritans.”
To explain that brevity in greater detail, we say explicitly that both
outside the Roman church and within it, though oppressed by papal
tyranny, a holy seed and faithful people was preserved for God. We
demonstrate this by lis ng the people who belong to the true church. (1)
Bap zed children are a not insignificant part of the church. But now, with
respect to its substan al parts, the sacrament of Bap sm remained
unharmed under the papacy. Thus infants were truly reborn by it and were
children of God, established as members of the true church and heirs of
eternal life. Yet myriads of them perished while they were yet infants,
before they understood the depths of Satan.
** Through the Sacrament of ini a on, infants are reborn even by an
impure ministry, not otherwise than as an adulterous woman who has not
yet been divorced bears children to her husband. Thus as long as an
impure church obtains her marriage cer ficates [tabulae]—as Augus ne
calls them (De symb. ad catech., bk. 4, ch. 2), that is, the Word with its
seals, the Sacraments—from Christ her Bridegroom, so long will she give
rebirth to His sons and daughters, as Ezek. 16:20 says about the church of
Israel, though it was u erly addicted to idolatry (Ezek. 23:37). Jerome
applies this example also to here cal churches in the New Testament (bk.
1, on Ezekiel 16). **
(2) Some simple Chris ans have rejected the corrup ons of papal errors
and have clung solely to the teaching that they have learned from hearing
the Gospel pericopes, from the Apostles’ Creed, from medita on on the
Passion history, etc. Although these have not opposed the public errors
because of the pope’s tyranny, s ll they have kept true faith in their heart.
So also today there are some hidden in the midst of the papacy who are
displeased in their heart by papal errors about the merits of works, the
primacy of the pope, and by that mass of tradi ons, ceremonies, and
supers ons but who are afraid to argue against and renounce them
publicly because of their fear of the Inquisi on. In previous centuries there
were such secret disciples of Christ. This is shown by mu erings about the
tyranny of the pope, about indulgences, etc.; by the complaints about the
corrupt condi on of the Roman church; and by their immediate approval
of the doctrine that Luther cleansed of its papal filth.
(3) There are some who, when the agony of death was near, were
convicted by their own conscience of the insufficiency and imperfec on of
works, were reminded inwardly by the Holy Spirit of the Gospel’s
consola ons, and, having rejected confidence in their own merits, took
refuge by true faith in the merit of Christ alone. Even if they s ll embraced
some papal errors, nevertheless, grasping the founda on of faith, they
were saved as through fire; that is, the chaff of errors being burned up by
the fire of trials and cross.
Here we should men on the forms of those devout prayers that are
found in the Hortulus animae, Anselm, Bernard, etc., which were read to
those who were dying, as the history of the church tes fies. Casparus
Ulenbergius, in the book that he published in 1589 under the tle Vigin
duae causae, cur ad Catholicos sit redeundum relic s Evangelicorum
erroribus, causa 14, writes as follows:
I find in the parish sacristy of our church (in Cologne) a book wri en in AD 1475 that we
have always used from that me on—for a hundred years and more—in visi ng the sick and
preparing them for death. In it some ques ons are found translated into the German
language as it was at that me. These, they say, are ques ons that Dr. Anselm caused to be
set forth to those people, to prepare them to die happily. Those ques ons include the whole
plan of man’s salva on and thus the treasure and kernel of Chris anity as if in a small
handful. We may insert some of those ques ons here. The last ques on among them is this:
“Do you believe that you cannot be saved except through the death of Christ? The ill person
responds: Yes. Then say to him: Good! While your soul s ll remains in you, place your
confidence in this death alone. Have confidence in nothing else. Commit yourself completely
to that death. Cover yourself completely with it alone. Join yourself wholly with this death.
Wrap yourself completely in this death. If the Lord God wants to judge you, say: O Lord, I
place the death of our Lord Jesus Christ between me and Your judgment. Otherwise I do not
contend with You,” etc.

(See those ques ons as they are set forth completely in Dr. Chemnitz,
Exam., vol. 1, de jus f., § veterum tes mon., fol. 143.)
(4) In addi on to these, God has aroused in every century some public
and constant confessors of the true faith who publicly opposed the papacy.
Some of them resisted to the point of bloodshed and won the martyr’s
crown. Many such people are listed by the authors of the Historia
ecclesias ca Magdeburgensis, by Flacius (Catalogus tes um verita s), by
Wolf (Lec on. memorabil.), by Ludovicus Rabus (De martyribus), etc. But,
no doubt, there were far more than these have listed, because their books
either did not reach our hands but were burned along with those
confessors so that every memory of them in the hearts of men might be
ex nguished and the papal realm stabilized, or those books were
corrupted by fla erers of the Roman pon ff.
§ 179. Those confessors who spoke out against the pope’s tyranny and
papal errors can be divided into three classes. The first includes en re
churches. Let us pass by the African church (which strongly resisted
Celes ne, who was imposing on it a counterfeit canon of the Council of
Nicaea to establish his primacy) and the church of Liège (which in a
response given to Paschal II calls Rome “Babylon” and claims that Peter
gave it that name by the prophe c Spirit). In this place we bring forth two
more eminent churches that have always resisted papal tyranny. The first is
the church of the Waldensians, and the other is the Eastern or Greek
church.

The Waldensians
** Regarding the Waldensians, see especially Mornaeus (Hist. papatus,
p. 765), Dorscheus (Tract. de dicto Augus ni etc., consid. 6), and also see
what the authors of the Magdeburg. hist. eccles. (vol. 12) list about the
Waldensians from the old manuscript book and from Aeneas Sylvius, the
Chronic. Hirsaugiens., Nauclerus, and Robertus Gaguinus. There was not
just an insignificant handful of Waldensians, but there was a very
numerous assembly sca ered through many areas. At first they held a
place in France in the dioceses of Narbonne, Albi, Rodez, Cahors, and Agen,
as Jacobus de Rebiria noted in his De Tolosa urbe collectaneis.
Petrus Waldus le his own country and came to Belgium, where he
gathered many adherents in Picardy. Then he traveled to Germany and
sojourned for quite a while in the ci es of the Giant Mountains, as Thuanus
writes (Histor., bk. 6). Guido Perpinianus (De haeresibus) also lists England,
where the Waldensians taught in the year 1174. Guilelmus Neubrigensis
bears the same witness, Rerum Anglicarum, bk. 2, ch. 13, where he also
adds Spain and Italy. He writes: “In the widest provinces of France, Spain,
Italy, and Germany, many of them followed a doctrine” (which he,
according to the thinking of the Roman church, calls a “bane”) “so that,
according to the prophet, they would seem to have mul plied and become
more than the sands of the sea.” Similarly, the Chronicon Hirsaugiense
tells: “Some of them were captured in the city of Strasbourg and publicly
confessed before the whole crowd of people that there was so great a
number of them that, if any of them wished to travel from Cologne to
Milan, they would find a host from their sect every night.” Finally, Ma hew
of Paris tells us that they eventually swept into Bulgaria, Croa a, and
Dalma a.
In addi on, they were renowned: (1) For their wonderful skill in
teaching. Jacobus de Rebiria tes fies: “They were very dis nguished in
their erudi on and teaching, and they debated about religion more keenly
than did the others. The priests of the Roman church were not their
equals.”
(2) For their authority, about which F. Rainerus writes: “In all the ci es
of Lombardy and in Provence and in other realms and lands they had their
hearers. They would debate in public and would summon people to
religious mee ngs in the market and on the field and would preach in
houses. There was no one who would dare to hinder them because of the
power and number of their supporters.” In the same place, this author
declares that he was present at their inquisi on and that they had ten
schools in the parish of Cambrai alone. Not only did people of the common
crowd join with them but also many noblemen: Raymond, count of
Toulouse and cousin of St. Aegidius, king of France; Raymond Roger, count
of Béziers and Carcassone; Petrus Rogerius, prince of Gabarret; Raimundus
Fuxensis, rela ve of the king of Aragon; and many other counts and
innumerable nobles. Likewise, Nauclerus tells us that their followers in Italy
were from both the common people and the rank of knights.
(3) For their diligence, to which corresponds an enthusiasm in teaching
on the part of the hearers, which Rainerus also has. He says: “Men and
women, large and small, would not stop learning and teaching day and
night. I heard from the mouth of one teacher that a certain here c” (he
means with this word the Waldensians, because of the prejudice and mind
of the Roman church) “whom I know swam to him across the river called
Ybbs [Ibis] at night, in winter me, for this reason alone: that he might turn
him away from our faith, pervert him, and bring him around to his. Let the
negligence of faithful teachers blush” (he takes these to mean those
devoted to the Roman church), “who do not show such a zeal for the truth
of the catholic faith, as the Lyonists show zeal for the error of infidelity.”
Also: “They have translated the Old and New Testaments into common
language, and in this way they teach and learn them. I have seen and heard
an uneducated peasant who recited Job word for word, and many other
people as well who knew the en re New Testament perfectly.”
(4) For their steadfastness. Although they were beaten down
everywhere with extreme punishments because of their confession (as the
Chron. Hirsaug. says) and were judged with a sentence, yet they did not
cease openly teaching against the pope, declaring the heavenly truth, and
censuring the idolatry of the Roman church in the Mass and in the religious
invoca on of dead saints, censuring supers on in the choice of foods and
days, censuring the primacy of the pope and other corrup ons. **
In his Summa, completed three hundred years ago, Raynerius writes as
follows about the Waldensians:
Among all the sects that are or have been, none is more destruc ve to the (aposta zing
Roman) church than the Poor Men of Lyons for three reasons. First, it has lasted so long, for
some say that it has endured since the me of Sylvester, and others take it back to the me
of the apostles. Second, it has been so general, for there is hardly any land into which this
sect does not creep. Third, all others induce a horror because of their cruelty against God.
Only these Waldensians or Lyonists have a great show of piety because they live uprightly
before all people and believe well all things about God and all the ar cles that are contained
in the Creed. They blaspheme and hate only the Roman church, saying that it is “the church
of evildoers” and of the whore who sits upon the beast in Revela on. They also say that it
fell away under Sylvester when the poison of temporali es was infused into the church.
They also say that the pope is the head of all errors. They call the prelates “blind” and the
religious, “Pharisees.” They say that these are full of pride and greed, etc.

In his Catalogus tes um verita s, Flacius reports these points from

Raynerius. He also quotes the following tes mony about them from
Jacobus de Rebiria:
The Waldensians, or Lyonists, for a long me have held first place in France, in the dioceses
of Narbonne, Albi, Rodez, Cahors, and Agen. They enjoy a great renown. At that me those
were of li le value who wished to be called priests, bishops, and ministers of the church.
Because all people were unworthy and almost completely ignorant of all things, it was easy
for them to claim the chief places among the people, excelling as they did in erudi on and
 doctrine. Thus because the Waldensians debated about religion more keenly than did the
rest, the priests would o en allow them to teach publicly, not because they approved of
their opinions but because the Waldensians had no equals in talent, etc.

In the same place, he proves from fragments of the inquisitorial books that
“the doctrine of the Waldensians spread far and wide through Lombardy,
Alsace, the en re Rhineland, Belgium, Saxony, Pomerania, Prussia, Poland,
Livonia, Swabia, Silesia, Bohemia, Moravia, Calabria, and Sicily.” In
contempt, the Papists called them Waldensians, Albigensians, Albigrisei,
Poor Men of Lyon, and Insabbata . In Bohemia they were called Taborites.
Flacius writes that he saw their confession put in wri ng in 1431 and
tes fies that it agrees completely with the confession of the Protestants.
Those who were living in Merindolis, Agria, Costa, and in the neighboring
ci es published their confession and showed it to King Franciscus. In it the
following ar cles were included:
(1) Only Holy Writ, no other man or wri ng, is to be believed in those things that have to do
with salva on. (2) Holy Writ contains all things that are necessary for salva on, and for that
reason nothing at all is to be accepted and admi ed in religion except that alone which God
commands us in Holy Writ. (3) There is only one Mediator, and the saints are in no way to be
invoked. (4) There is no purgatory. Rather, all men are either jus fied through Christ and go
on to eternal life, or they do not believe and go off to eternal destruc on. (5) There are only
two sacraments: Bap sm and Communion. (6) All Masses, and especially those that are
sung on behalf of the dead, are wicked and thus should be completely abolished. (7) All
human tradi ons should be rejected or at least not at all considered as necessary for
salva on. For this reason one should abolish the chan ng and recita on of the Office; fasts
bound to certain days; superfluous feast days; the dis nc on of foods; so many different
ranks and orders of priests, monks, and nuns; various benedic ons or consecra ons of
creatures; vows; pilgrimages; and all other rites and ceremonies that people have come up
with and invented. All of these should be repealed. (8) The primacy of the pope over all
churches and especially his power over all states, or his two swords, is to be denied, and no
other priestly ranks in the church should be retained except priests, deacons, and bishops.
(9) Communion under both kinds is both devout and necessary because that is what Christ
ordained and commanded. (10) The Roman church is the Babylon about which Revela on
speaks. The pope is the source of all errors and is the true An christ. (11) Indulgences must
be rejected. (12) The marriage of priests is devout and necessary in the church. (13) Those
who hear the Word of God and believe correctly are His church, and to that church Christ
has given the Keys. For this reason they can and should flee the wolves and call true and
good shepherds of Christ, and listen to their voice and receive the Sacraments from them.

Thuanus (Histor., bk. 5) explains: “They received this faith from their
forefathers and taught it for several centuries.” He also adds from Cardinal
Sadoletus: “All the other things that are imputed to the Waldensians are
imputed because of envy.” He even observes that this is the real reason
why so many people in various, widely sca ered places throughout Europe
joined themselves to Luther as he was se ng forth the reformed teaching.
(See Wesenbecius, Orat. de eccles. Waldens.)

The Greek church

The Greek church has always rejected the arrogance and domina on of
the pope, and it s ll excommunicates him annually on the First Sunday in
Lent. John Mandeville (bk. 1, ch. 17) reports that John XXII, the Roman
pon ff, wrote to the Greeks at length: “There is only one church of Christ,
and Christ is the universal Head of it, and there is only one vicar of Christ
on earth, whom even they must acknowledge.” They wrote back to him:
“We believe firmly that you have supreme power over your subjects. We
cannot tolerate your supreme pride. We are incapable of sa a ng your
greed. The devil be with you, for God is with us!” Envoys who had been
sent from Greece to the Lateran Council had, at the cost of their religion,
purchased the fellowship of the Western church and had agreed in some
ar cles of the Roman faith. When they returned home, the Eastern church
forced them to pay the penalty for that agreement partly with voluntary
exile and partly with the thunderbolt of excommunica on hurled against
them. Consequently, even if there had been no church of Christ under the
papacy (the contrary of which we have shown earlier [§§ 177–78]), we s ll
would not have to say that the church of Christ had died or ceased to exist
in the world. The an -Chris an realm of the pope seized only the West but
never penetrated the East, not even in the mes when the Eastern empire
of the Chris ans began to crumble. In fact, if we had to fight about the
large size of provinces and kingdoms or about the number of people, we
would not lack trustworthy witnesses who would declare that the Eastern
church was two or three mes bigger than the Western, even when the
papacy was in its prime. Although the Greek church is not completely free
of all errors, yet it is not submerged in such a whirlpool of idol-madness
and errors as has sucked the Roman church down. As is evident from the
Acta Tubingensium cum Jeremia patriarcha Constan nopolitano, the
modern Greek church condemns the primacy of the Roman pon ff (which
is unques onably the primary founda on of papal errors); it acknowledges
that divine majesty was given to Christ according to the flesh; it denies
purgatory; it receives Communion under both kinds, etc.; it rejects private
Masses and sacrifices for the dead; it uses the vernacular in its sacred rites;
it approves of the marriage of priests; etc.

Emperors and kings who resist papal tyranny

The second class includes emperors and kings, the anointed of the Lord,
very many of whom have opposed the tyranny of the pope. In the Council
of Frankfurt, Charlemagne refuted the idolatrous use of images and other
papal supers ons in four books published around the year 800. His son
Louis, and later O o, brought back to the emperor the right to select the
pope. He deposed John XII and subs tuted Leo VIII for him. When three
popes were contending bi erly, like vultures over carrion, Henry III
marched into Italy with an armed force, unseated them all, and created
another, the bishop of Mainz, around the year 1047. Henry IV opposed
Gregory VII, whom they call Hildebrand. Benno (Vita Gregorii) and the
anonymous author who described the life of Henry [Vita Henrici] discuss
this ma er in detail. Frederick II, in a le er to Duke O o of Bavaria (in
Aven nus, bk. 7), complains:
The Roman popes on their own have increased their wealth and posi on and have become
rivals to the other emperors. They are the most stubborn of all kings and princes. They can
no longer endure peace. With hands and feet, night and day, they try to have the head, the
Holy Roman Empire (not themselves), be oppressed, so that they may easily impose slavery
on all the other members. They strive a er domina on and divinity so that all people may
fear them no differently than—in fact, more than—God. There are many An christs among
the Romanists, etc.

Louis IV wrote about John XXII: “He falsely calls me a supporter of here cs.
I am a Chris an. He is a heresiarch. Although he may not be the An christ,
yet he must be his forerunner and precursor.” King Philip the Fair of France
wrote to Boniface VIII a le er of this form: “Philip, king of the Franks by the
grace of God, wishes modest or no health to Boniface, who acts as though
he is the supreme pon ff. May your very great folly know that we are
subject to no one in temporal ma ers and that the bestowal of the
churches and prebends belongs to us by royal right. We consider those
who believe otherwise to be foolish and mad.” In the footsteps of these
stood Emperors Henry V, Frederick Barbarossa (who a acked Rome in AD
1166), O o IV, Henry VII, etc.; Kings Childeric III, Charlemagne, and Louis
XII of France; Kings John and Edward III of England; and many other brave
heroes, about whom one must see the wri ngs of Melchior Goldastus
Heimingsfeldius. Here we should also men on those hundred grievances
[gravamina] that the nobility of the Roman Empire brought together in the
Diet of Nuremberg in the year 1523 and ordered to be transmi ed to
Adrian VI, the Roman pon ff. These are extant in the wri ng of Flacius,
Contra invec vas cujusdam Bruni, as well as in Wolf, Centen. 16, pp. 202ff.

Confessors and martyrs

The third class is occupied by doctors and martyrs who have censured
the errors and abuses brought into the church. Some of these are
men oned in the Catalogus tes um verita s, the Centenarii of Wolf, by the
authors of the Historia ecclesias ca Magdeb., etc. However, we could cite
many more, if the injury of the pope and carelessness of men had not
destroyed their wri ngs.
§ 180. Therefore as o en as the Papists reproach us with the charge of
novelty, heresy, schism, and secession from the church, we offer the
immediate response: We have departed from neither the catholic faith nor
the church catholic; rather, we have retained the catholic faith and have
renounced the errors, idol-madness, and supers ons that have been
brought into the church. In fact, instead of having departed from the faith
of the catholic church, much rather we have not even departed from the
faith of the Roman church to the extent that it agrees with the old catholic
and apostolic faith. We admit that we have departed from not a few
ar cles of the modern Roman faith. But this is not a defec on from the old
catholic faith, but rather a return to the original catholic faith that has been
deformed in many ways in the Roman church with new inven ons,
supers ons, and addi ons, and it is a turning back to Christ as the only
teacher of the faith. We have obeyed the divine mandate and “have gone
out of Babylon” (Rev. 18:4); however, we have by no means separated
ourselves from the church catholic. The people of God are commanded to
go out of Babylon, that is, out of the Roman church. Therefore the people
of God (that is, the true church) have been hiding for a long me in the
Roman church itself, just as the wheat hides in the chaff and the gold in the
dross.
Although Papism has taken over the public ministry of the Roman
church and corrupted it horribly, nevertheless God has preserved for
Himself a people who have known Him from His Word, who have called
upon His name, and who have worshiped Him correctly. This is just as it
happened at the me of Elijah, Jeremiah, Christ, and the apostles, where
those who were in the ordinary succession and were boas ng proudly of
the tle “church” were not the true church but the synagogue of evildoers
and perverters of the Law of God. Yet amid their filth, some truly faithful
people were hiding, known only to God, who also “knows those who are
His” (2 Tim. 2:19).
Although the An christ has dominion far and wide in the church, by the
grace of God Bap sm has been preserved uncorrupted, as well as the
codex of the Bible, the Apostles’ Creed, and some ar cles of doctrine.
Through these means God has given new birth to some and has preserved
them unto eternal life. In the same way, even today amid the realm of the
An christ, God preserves for Himself some remnants of “those who
observe the commandments and keep the tes mony of Jesus Christ.” As a
result, the assembly of Chris ans does not cease being called and being
the church because of that tyrannical domina on of the pope and because
of the corrup ons brought upon the public ministry. Rather, it was and was
called “the beloved city and the camp of the saints” (Rev. 20:9) and “the
holy people” (Dan. 7:21). This clearly is a synecdochic tle given because of
the faithful elect s ll residing in it. In the same way, the Jewish people,
even in the most corrupt state of the church, were called “the people of
God,” a naming made not from the greater part but from the be er. Also,
Jerusalem is called “the holy city” (Ma . 4:5) because of the elect s ll le
in it.
What we are saying about the Roman church cannot be said about the
Turks, Jews, and heathen, namely, that in their midst has been and s ll is
being preserved a hiding and hidden church, because there are none
among them who are going to be saved. In the Roman church, however,
the Holy Scriptures survive, as well as Bap sm, the Decalogue, the
Apostles’ Creed, the history of the Lord’s Passion, etc., and through these
means the Holy Spirit is effectual for the regenera on and salva on of
some people. Of course, no one can deny that these sound ar cles of
doctrine had been corrupted in the papacy with perverse interpreta ons,
erroneous addi ons, and supers ous observa ons.
Nonetheless the Holy Spirit could s ll work effectually in people’s hearts
through that which was sound and divine for the conversion of some of
them, so that the weeds and dross would be rejected and the wheat and
gold would be accepted, having obeyed the divine command on this point:
“If you separate the precious from the vile, you will be as My mouth” (Jer.
15:19). This separa on finally and solemnly occurred by the ministry of Dr.
Luther. In the papacy, there was something precious, namely, Holy
Scripture, Bap sm, the Apostles’ Creed, etc. In it there was also something
vile, for instance, the corrupt interpreta on of Scripture, human tradi ons,
supers ons, errors, idolatry, etc. The former was of God; the la er, of the
pope. The former belonged to Christ, but the la er to the An christ.
Therefore Luther separated the precious from the vile, the divine from the
human, the Chris an from the an -Chris an, the true from the false, the
genuine from the counterfeit. The former he retained; the la er he
rejected. Hence he did not depart from the church catholic nor from the
ancient catholic faith; instead, he cleansed the church and the faith from
the corrup ons, errors, and supers ons that had been brought upon and
added to it.
We depart not from Christ but from the pope who has changed into the
An christ, not from the Word of God but from human glosses and
tradi ons, not from the church catholic but from those who were
exercising a tyrannical dominion over the church. We have uprooted not
the wheat but the weeds from the Lord’s field. Therefore why should we
have to hear the accusa ons: “Innovators! Schisma cs! Fac ous! and
Here cs!”?
** When a church renounces a par al apostasy through a conversion to
the purity of religion and deserts the fellowship of a kindred church that
perseveres in that defec on, as far as corrup on of the faith is concerned,
it does not become another [ἄλλη] church, but other [ἑτέρα]—it is not
new, but renewed—because it is merely separa ng the dross from the gold
and keeping what is precious. It is fleeing from the bane of the apostate
church, not from the church. **
 Vergerius (Contra Cardin. Hosium, dial. 4, in Opera, vol. 1, f. 237)
explains this with the following comparison:
Imagine if some senators of Venice seized perpetual dictatorship there, trampled on the
laws, and took supreme power for themselves, and, ruling as they wished, drove everyone
else into shameful slavery; and a er they had exercised that tyranny for several months,
God sent an opportunity by which the republic would throw out the tyrants and recover its
original freedom and glory. Would we not have to drive out and hiss out the tyrants, even if
they complain in this way about the ci zens who are trying to restore freedom to the
republic and call the honorable laws back into use: “Why do you cut yourselves off from our
dominion? Why are you depar ng from the bosom of the republic?” So also, we do not
depart from the church of Christ. In fact, we desire to free it and restore its liberty because
for a long me whose who have been anointed and tonsured have oppressed and nearly
destroyed it. Rather, we are depar ng from those who had oppressed the church.
Section IV: On the Fourth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Large Size, or the
Multitude and Variety of Believers: Whether
large size is a mark of the church
§ 181. The first sec on. Is large size [amplitudo], or the mul tude of
believers, a genuine and proper mark of the church? Large size either has
truth of doctrine connected with it or is separate from it. Large size apart
from true doctrine cannot be a mark of the church because the mul tude
of those who confess the true catholic faith, not just any mul tude of
people, cons tutes the church catholic. Bellarmine himself (De eccles. mil.,
bk. 3, ch. 2) defines the church in this way: “It is the assembly of people
that is bound together by the confession of the same Chris an faith.”
Therefore with large size the true catholic faith must necessarily be joined,
for without it even the greatest mul tude does not cons tute the church.
However, if catholic faith and doctrine make known the large size of the
church, then all the more are the catholic faith and doctrine the mark of
the church. And this is our posi on, a posi on of unshakable truth.

Arguments of the nega ve opinion

We argue against this mark as follows. (I) Whatever mark does not
perpetually and always befit something, that is not its genuine and proper
mark. The reason is obvious from the defini on of “proper.” Yet large size
does not always and perpetually befit the true church. Therefore it is not a
proper and genuine mark of it. The minor premise is evident from the
history of both the Old and New Testament church, which we went
through earlier (§ 94). In the beginning, the church was very small; our
adversaries cannot deny this. If we speak about the church of the Old
Testament, it began in Adam and Eve, two human beings. If we speak
about the church of the New Testament, it was enclosed within the narrow
limits of the city of Jerusalem before it was spread throughout the whole
world. At the end of the world, the assembly of the church will also be very
small. Ma . 24:11: “Many false prophets will rise up and lead many astray.”
Luke 18:8: “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on earth?” 2
Pet. 2:1–2: “There will be false teachers among you who will secretly bring
in sects of destruc on … and many will follow their licen ousness”
(ἐξακολουθήσουσιν αὐτῶν ταῖς ἀσελγείαις) or, as other manuscripts
read, “their destruc ve doctrines” (ἀπωλείαις).
(II) Whatever mark does not befit only one thing, that is not a genuine
and proper mark of it. The reason, likewise, depends on the defini on of
“proper.” Yet large size does not befit the true church alone. Therefore it is
not a genuine and proper mark of the church. The minor premise is evident
from the history of the church. The church of Cain before the flood
surpassed the true church of the patriarchs in size and number of those
who professed it. The defenders and approvers of the idolatrous worship
of Baal were more numerous than the true believers, the adherents to the
teaching of Elijah and the other prophets. The synagogue of the Jews was
incomparably larger than the assembly of those who adhered to Christ
when He was teaching. Arianism li ed its head above the protectors of
catholic teaching.
And what shall we say about the doctrine and kingdom of the
An christ? 2 Thess. 2:9–11: “His coming is by the ac vity of Satan with
every kind of power and with signs and lying wonders and with every kind
of decep on of iniquity in those who are perishing, because they did not
receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God will
send upon them a power of error” (ἐνέργειαν τῆς πλάνης, or “powerful
errors”) “to make them believe the lie.” Rev. 13:8: “All the earth admired
the beast and all who dwelt on earth worshiped it, everyone whose name
has not been wri en in the book of life.” Rev. 13:14: “It leads astray those
who dwell on earth because of the signs that it was given to do.” Rev. 17:1–
2: “The great harlot is seated upon many waters. With her the kings of the
earth have commi ed fornica on, and with the wine of her pros tu on
those who dwell on earth have become drunk.” Rev. 17:15: “The waters
that you saw where the harlot was seated are peoples and na ons and
tongues.” Rev. 19:2: “The great harlot corrupted the earth with her
pros tu on.”
From this it is quite clear that what Bellarmine adds in the very same
chapter (§ denique) is false: “Here cal sects have never taken over the
en re world nor even half of it.” Also: “The sect of Muhammad—along
with the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches, which s ll flourish in the East
—never crossed over to the West.” Yet he seems to have forgo en
Arianism, which dominated far and wide in both West and East. The Goths
who laid waste to Italy were Arians. Theodoricus de Berna, who ruled in
the west, was an Arian. In fact, Liberius, himself a Roman pope, subscribed
to Arianism. He seems to have forgo en the kingdom of the An christ,
under which, as he elsewhere admits, the public sacred rites of religion will
cease everywhere. The sect of Muhammadanism is greater than the
church of Chris ans in all parts of the world. Judaism spreads out into the
West and the East, etc.
(III) If the contrary of something is predicated about the true church,
that something cannot be a mark of the church. Yet the contrary of large
size is predicated about the true church. Therefore large size cannot be a
mark of the true church. I prove the minor premise. Isa. 1:8–9: “What
remains of the daughter of Zion is like a co age in a vineyard, like a li le
hut in which they spend the night in cucumber fields, and like a devastated
city. If the Lord of hosts had not le us a seed, we would have been like
Sodom and would be like Gomorrah.” Isa. 6:13: “It will be like a terebinth
or an oak whose trunk remains standing, though they cast away the leaves
and branches. The holy seed will be that trunk.” Zeph. 3:12: “I shall leave in
the midst of you a people poor and needy, and they will hope in the name
of the Lord.” Luke 12:32: “Fear not, li le flock, for it is your Father’s good
pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
(IV) Whatever belongs to the church as an accident and is in the church
changeably cannot be a genuine and proper mark of it. “True marks are
inseparable from the true church,” writes Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch.
2, § 10). Yet large size only belongs to the church as an accident and is in it
changeably, for the true church is some mes large and some mes small.
Ambrose, Hexaëm., bk. 4, ch. 8: “The church, like the moon, has frequent
wanings and waxings, but by its wanings it has increased, and by these it
has deserved to be enlarged.” Therefore large size is not a genuine and
proper mark of the church.
** You would be senseless to despise a light that does not spread its
rays because it is confined by force within the limits of walls or to say that
such a light is like the darkness itself. You are that kind of person if you
despise the purity and light of the Gospel, which many people have thrown
out by force and by closing the doors, in a way, and which sheds light on
the hearts of only a few. **
(V) The sayings of the fathers belong here. Jus n (QQ. et resp. ad
orthod., q. 1), in response to the ques on “Why are the orthodox, the right
believers, who alone are pleasing to God, not only unequal numerically but
even fewer than the Greeks, Jews, and all here cs?” says: “It was once said
about the scarcity of the orthodox that ‘many are called but few are
chosen’ [Ma . 22:14]; at another me, that ‘straight and narrow is the
path that leads to life, and there are few who find it’ [cf. Ma . 7:14].”
Tertullian, De pudicit., ch. 1: “… as if it were not easier to err with the
many when truth is loved with a few.”
Nazianzen, Sermon de se ipso contra Arianos, at the beginning:
Where are those who define the church by mul tude and despise the li le flock? Who
measure divinity and weigh the people? Who consider grains of sand valuable and insult the
very lights of the world? Finally, who have gathered the shells but have held the pearls in
contempt, etc.? They have houses; we have a dwelling. They have temples; we have God.
And, in addi on, because we are temples of the living God, we are living sacrifices, spiritual
burnt offerings. They have the crowd; we have the angels. They have rash boldness; we have
faith. They have threats; we have prayers and pe ons. They have gold and silver; we have
the cleansed doctrine of faith.

Basil, De Spiritu sancto, ch. 30: “The children in Babylon have taught us
to do by ourselves what pertains to us even if there is no one to support
us. Indeed, they praised God highly from the midst of the flame, not
considering the mul tude of those who rejected the truth but being
content with themselves, though they were three.”
Athanasius writes in his Discept. against those who are carried along by
the judgment of the mul tude alone when they must judge the truth (vol.
2, p. 247): “Shall we not listen when the Lord says, ‘Many are called, but
few are chosen’ [Ma . 22:14]? And again: ‘The gate is narrow and the way
is strait that leads to life, and those who find it are few’ [Ma . 7:13–14]?
Who, then, endowed with a sound mind, would not prefer to be in the
number of those few entering through the narrow gate to salva on than to
be associated with those many who are rushing to destruc on through the
broad gate?”
Chrysostom, Ad popul. An och., homily 40: “Please tell me, how useful
would much straw be rather than a few precious stones? ‘Mul tude’
consists not in mul tude of number but in the uprightness of virtue. Elijah
was one man, but the whole world was not worthy to be equated with
him.” See more in the same place, as well as the preceding homily 26.
Jerome, Advers. Pelagian., bk. 3, p. 310, under the name “A cus,” to
Cristobulus the Pelagian: “A mul tude of companions will not prove that
you are catholic, but that you are a here c.”
Augus ne, on Psalm 39:
If you are just, do not count. Weigh! Bring a fair scale, not a decei ul one, because you are
called just. “The just will see and be afraid” has been said about you. Therefore do not count
the crowds of people walking along the broad avenues, filling the circus tomorrow,
celebra ng the city’s birthday with their shouts and disturbing the city with their bad
behavior. Pay no a en on to them. They are many, and who counts them? There are few
who walk along the narrow way. Bring the scale, I say. Weigh! On the other hand, see the
few grains, regardless of how much chaff you may take away.

(See also his exposi on of Psalm 128.)

Arnobius, Advers. gent., bk. 3, p. 122: “The Chris an religion cannot
stand without its defenders, or it will be proved true if it has many
adherents and has received its authority from men. It is content with its
own strength and rests upon the founda on of its own truth. It is not
stripped of its power even if it has no protector, in fact, even if all tongues
speak and argue against it and conspire to take away its confidence with
the hos lity of a united consensus.”
When the Arian emperor Constan ne asked Liberius, a disciple of
Athanasius: “How great a part of the world are you?” Liberius responded:
“The word of truth is not diminished by my solitude, for once only three
were found who resisted the edict” (Theodoret, Histor. eccles., bk. 2, ch.
16).
** Caecilianus (in Arnobius, Contra gentes, bk. 8) makes the objec on:
“The assembly of Chris ans was gathered from the final dregs of the
ignorant and of women. It is a hiding, light-shunning people, mute in public
but talka ve in a corner.” In works published under the name of
Athanasius, vol. 2, Theodoret notes that the Eutychians were “claiming the
strength of the argument by mul tude alone,” and he makes the objec on
that “the strength of truth is always immense, even though it may be
found among few.” **
(VI) We add the confession of the adversaries themselves. Nicholas I, in
a Le er ad Michaelem imperatorem: “An insignificant number does no
harm where piety abounds. Great numbers are no blessing where
wickedness abounds. Do not boast, then, in great numbers, because the
case, not the number, brings damna on or jus fica on.”
Franciscus Sonnius, bishop of Antwerp, Demonstrat. relig. Chris an.,
trea se 8, ch. 3: “Tell me, please, how broadly does the church catholic
now stretch throughout the habitable world? Scarcely three yards long in
comparison with that vastness which the synagogue of Satan occupies.”
Franciscus Ribera, commentary on Revela on 13: “With these words”
(“All who inhabit the earth worshiped the beast”) “the apostle signifies the
infinite mul tude of those who will follow the An christ.”
Gregorius de Valen a, Anal. de eccles., p. 13, acknowledges that an
argument drawn from a mul tude and consensus of people “is, from its
genus, not absolutely infallible.”
** He also admits, Anal., p. 134: “The true church of Christ can at mes
be reduced to a few people.” Page 143: “At mes one must look for Christ’s
church in prisons and caves.” **
Pistorius (Causae mutatae religionis a Marchione Badensi)
acknowledges: “When Arianism was flourishing, the church endured only
in confession and conscience, and there was a greater number of Arians
than of those who believed correctly.”
Alphonsus Salmeron, Comment. in evang. histor. et Acta, tome 12,
trea se 9, on the words of Acts 1, “The company of persons was in all
about 120,” p. 46:
You see that the church at that me existed in such a small number, which s ll was going to
spread into all parts and na ons of the world. The truth of God’s church does not consist in
mul tude, as the early [church] teaches; nor again in its paucity, in which the Dona sts
would boast against the church that filled the en re world at the me of Augus ne; nor in
the wealth, pomp, and power of the world. Rather, it consists in the Word of God and in the
truth of the doctrine that is received from Christ and in His legi mate ministers who
succeeded each other in turn, whether they are many or few, rich or poor.

All this is from Salmeron.

Bellarmine himself writes, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 5, § in omni: “In the
beginning, Christ’s church was a very small assembly from which it
gradually began to grow as others were added to it.” Later: “In the
beginning, when the separa on occurred, there were far fewer Chris ans
than there were Jews.” But if at the beginning Christ’s church was very
small and if there were fewer Chris ans than there were Jews, then large
size is certainly not a mark of the church.
Very recently Becanus [has wri en] in his Disputa o de voca one
ministrorum held at Vienna in the year 1616, thesis 57: “In the Old
Testament, almost an infinite number of people followed false prophets.
Yet from that, one could not conclude that either God had sent those
prophets or that their prophecies were divinely inspired” (and, as a
consequence, that the assembly which they gathered was the true church).

The arguments of Bellarmine in favor of large size: First, the

church is catholic
§ 182. How does Bellarmine prove that large size is a mark of the
church? He says: (I) “The truly catholic church ought to include not merely
all mes but also all places, all na ons, all kinds of people, for that is how
Vincent of Lérins defines what is ‘catholic’ in his Commonitorium. There he
says that those are properly catholic who hold what has been believed
always, everywhere, by all.”
** Jacob Reihingius, Mur. Babyl., fund. 11, p. 298: “The number of
teachers is fewer than the faithful. Yet we must listen to those whose
hearers are much more numerous. The mul tude of the faithful shows us
who the be er teachers are.” **
We respond. (1) If we must ul mately acknowledge as catholic that
which, simply and absolutely speaking, all people of all mes and places
hold, then nothing will be catholic, because such a consensus of all people
in any one religion cannot be found. Bellarmine himself admits this and,
therefore, adds these observa ons: “For the church to be catholic, it is not
necessary that it be in all people of the whole world, but only that it
become known in every province and bear fruit in every province so that in
every province there are some who belong to the church.” Also: “It is not
required that this occur simultaneously in such a way that there necessarily
must be some faithful people in every province at one me. It is enough if
this takes place successively. From this it follows,” he says, “that if only one
province were to retain the true faith” (Note carefully!) “it s ll would be
properly and truly called ‘catholic,’ provided that it be clearly shown that it
is one and the same with that which has been in the whole world at some
 me or at various mes.” That is what Bellarmine says. This shows clearly
that for the catholicity of the church it is by no means necessary that it
actually be found in every place and that all na ons and provinces be
added to it at one and the same me. Rather, “the church nonetheless is
and remains catholic if only one province retains the true, catholic faith.”
This is something that Georgius Schererus also acknowledges in Epit.
pos ll. de temp., p. 175. We beg you to note this carefully, for from this it is
clear that we must evaluate that large size on the basis of the catholic faith
rather than on the basis of places and provinces. Becanus (trea se De
ecclesia, q. 1, concl. 4, p. 59) sees this and, therefore, openly contradicts
Bellarmine as he writes: “Both prophecies were made in Scripture, namely,
that Christ’s church would be spread throughout the world and would
endure forever in all the world and that it never would be bound to one
par cular part or na on. Augus ne urges this meaning against the
Dona sts.” Page 73: “It will never happen that the church will be in this or
that place. Rather, it will endure forever in all the world un l the end of the
world.”
(2) If we must call “catholic” what most people accept, what the
majority of mankind living in different places and mes approves, no
religion will be more catholic than atheism, Epicureanism, Lucianism, and
the belly worship of profligate people. The false opinions, idolatries,
deceits, etc., will be the most catholic, for these are overrunning the world
in every land and na on. In this sense, the Muslims, too, could make a
claim of being catholics, for Muhammadanism has taken hold of vast
provinces, realms, and regions in the East. In Ma . 7:13[–14] and Luke
13:24, Christ says: “Strive to enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide
and the way is spacious that leads to destruc on, and there are many who
enter by it. But the gate is narrow and the way is strait that leads to life,
and there are few who find it.” Therefore if we must judge solely on the
basis of size and number, the way to destruc on and those who enter it
must be called “more catholic.” At the me of the apostles, the pagans
could truly boast that they were holding onto that which was believed by
most people of all places and mes. Should they, then, have been called
“catholics”?
(3) From this it is very clear that the defini on of Vincent of Lérins must
be taken in this way: “That is catholic which is held always, everywhere, by
all,” that is, by all who believe correctly, follow Scripture, and adhere to the
true faith. If the church catholic is to be evaluated on the sole basis of
mul tude of people, the consequence will be that it is not always catholic
because at mes it is diminished to very few. However, the church always is
and remains catholic, even when the synagogue of Satan surpasses it in the
mul tude of its followers. It remained catholic at the me of the flood,
though it was enclosed as by the walls of Noah’s private home. It remained
catholic under the patriarchs, when heathen idolatry was raging far and
wide. It remained catholic when it was confined within the borders of
Pales ne. It remained catholic under Elijah, who complained that he was
the only survivor le of the true worshipers of God. It remained catholic
when Christ was born, when the faithful were very few. It remained
catholic at the me when Arianism was prevailing, when far more were
rejec ng “consubstan al” than were accep ng it. Therefore it is called
“catholic” because the doctrine and faith that it embraces and confesses
are catholic and, in fact, were approved by the unanimous consensus of
the prophets and apostles. Whatever assembly preserves that consensus is
truly catholic. Meanwhile, we do not deny the difference between the
church of the Old Testament and that of the New. To the former ordinarily
belonged the Israelites because the other na ons were kept apart from the
republic of Israel and from the testaments of the promises, except for a
few people who joined themselves with the people of Israel. The la er, on
the other hand, is made up indiscriminately of Jews and of Gen les equally
and includes all the faithful of all mes and places. In this sense we are no
longer dealing with the internal catholicity of faith and doctrine, which is
common to both the Old and New Testament churches and through which
both churches are dis nguished from the sects of here cs and the
assemblies of unbelievers, but instead are dealing with the external
catholicity of places and mes, which is proper to the New Testament
church and dis nguishes it from the church of the Old Testament.
(4) According to the defini on of Vincent of Lérins, the dogmas of the
Roman church cannot be called “catholic,” because they have not been
believed “by all” nor “everywhere” nor “always,” as we shall prove later in
greater detail [§§ 184–86].
Second, in the Old Testament the spread of the church into all
na ons was foretold
§ 183. (II) Bellarmine brings forth the prophecies of the Old Testament
“in which the spread of the church into all na ons through the universal
preaching of the Gospel was foretold. In Ps. 2:8 God the Father says to
Christ, His Son, ‘Ask of Me, and I will give You the na ons as Your heritage
and the ends of the earth as Your possession.’ In Ps. 72:8 a prophecy is
made about the kingdom of Christ: ‘He will rule from sea to sea and from
the River to the ends of the earth.’ ” To these prophecies he connects
Christ’s statement in Luke 24:47 and Acts 1:8, where He foretells that the
Gospel will be preached among all na ons, beginning from Jerusalem.
We respond. There are many more prophecies of this sort in the
prophets, but from them it surely cannot be proved that large size is a
proper and perpetual mark of the church. This is because: (1) These
prophecies aim most especially to say that the church of the New
Testament would no longer be enclosed within the narrow borders of
Judea but would be spread throughout the en re world. None of us,
however, denies this; rather, we willingly acknowledge the dis nc on
between the church of the Old Testament and that of the New.
(2) These prophecies describe the state of the New Testament church
not as it would be forever but as it would be at the me of the apostles,
namely, that through the preaching of the Gospel all na ons would be
called to Christ’s kingdom and to the fellowship of the church. That calling
and coming of all na ons to Christ’s kingdom was completed at the me of
the apostles, when “their sound went out into all the earth” (Ps. 19:[4];
Rom. 10:18), and “the Gospel was preached to every creature” (Mark
16:15) and “has borne fruit in all the world” (Col. 1:6). By no means,
however, can one infer from this that the church should actually endure
always and at all mes and ages among all na ons and peoples throughout
all the world. Consequently, one also cannot infer from this that large size
is a perpetual and proper mark of the church.
(3) For the fulfillment of those prophecies, it is not necessary for all
na ons to embrace the Gospel. Instead, it is enough if some na ons
receive it. It is not necessary for the Gospel to be preached at one me in
all na ons and provinces. It is enough if the preaching of the Gospel and
the propaga on of the church occur successively. Therefore Bellarmine is
correct when he writes here: “For the church to be catholic, it is not
necessary that there be some who belong to the church at one and the
same me in all provinces. Rather, it is enough if this happens
successively.” From this he very correctly infers: “If only one province
retained the faith, the church would s ll be truly and properly called
‘catholic,’ as long as it is shown clearly that it is one and the same as that
which was at some me or at various mes in all the world.” But if these
things are true—and they are very true—then it is not large size but the
true, catholic faith that must be the proper and immediate cause because
of which the church is called “catholic,” and hence not large size but faith
must be a mark of the church catholic.
(4) Just as the Holy Spirit foretold that at the me of the apostles and
the years close to them the church of the New Testament would be very
large and flourishing, so also the same Holy Spirit prophesied that at the
me when the An christ would rule, the church would “flee into the
wilderness” (Rev. 12:6) and that there would be an “almost universal”
apostasy from the true faith (Ma . 24:11; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:8; etc.).
How, then, can anyone claim that large size is a true and proper mark of
the church, seeing as it does not belong to it perpetually?
(5) The large size of the Chris an church in the New Testament depends
on the universal preaching of the Gospel to all na ons. Therefore the
church of the New Testament is very large because the exercise of divine
worship is no longer bound to one place as it was in the Old Testament.
Instead, all na ons are called to its fellowship through the Gospel. But if
the Gospel is the very thing that makes the church large, then it surely is
more of a mark of the church than large size is. The Gospel is the spiritual
and incorrup ble seed from which the church is generated in diverse
places. Therefore the Gospel is the cause that makes the church to exist
and to be large. Therefore the Gospel is also a proper and scien fic mark.
Large size is merely an accident of the church that is neither proper nor
perpetual but changeable and separable; hence it is also not a proper and
perpetual mark.

Whether the Roman church is the largest

 § 184. The second sec on. Is the Roman church the largest? We admit
that the Roman church has taken over many regions and provinces and is
quite large. Yet it does not enjoy the large size because of which it would
deserve to be and to be called truly and properly “catholic.” You see, it
lacks the catholic faith, which is the internal cause and the “soul” of the
church catholic, so to speak, without which the external catholicity of
places is of no importance. Vincent of Lérins provides the defini on: “that
is catholic which has been believed by all, everywhere, always” (Add these
words as understood:) “according to the norm and rule of the Word,
according to the catholic consensus of the truly faithful, according to the
catholic documents of divine truth.” We showed earlier that one must of
necessity add this limita on [§ 182]. Yet the dogmas of the Roman church
that we reject do not agree with the norm of the Word, do not enjoy the
catholic consensus of the truly faithful, and are not contained in the
catholic Scriptures, which explain the doctrine of the prophets and
apostles. Therefore they are also not catholic, and consequently the
modern Roman church, which embraces them, is, to this extent and in this
respect, not catholic. Consider the primacy of the pope, such as he claims
for himself today. Has that been accepted by all, everywhere, and always in
the Chris an church? Or the invoca on of the saints, indulgences,
Communion under one kind, the merits of works, etc.? Have these been
accepted by all Chris ans, everywhere, and always? I do not think that
anyone would be so shameless and presumptuous as to wish to say, “Yes.”
And if he tries to affirm this, how will he prove it? Therefore the Papists
should stop their boas ng about local size before they prove the truth of
their doctrine from the documents of the Holy Scriptures, which alone
contain the catholic faith. Local size that lacks the catholic faith can befit
not only the false church of here cs but also unholy assemblies that are
completely outside the church. “The worse an evil is, the more widespread
it becomes and the more broadly it diffuses its poison, as a plague through
the air or as gangrene through the body.” Heresy is rightly compared to this
kind of evil (2 Tim. 2:17; 3:13; Eusebius, Hist. eccl., bk. 1, ch. 1).

On the local size of the Roman church

 § 185. Besides the fact that the Roman church lacks catholicity of faith,
not even regarding local size does it have anything in which it can boast too
much. Bellarmine defines the Roman church by the dominion of the
Roman pope so that the limits and boundaries of the Roman church and of
papal domina on are the same. He writes, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 2, § nostra:
“The church is the assembly of people bound together by the confession of
the same Chris an faith and by the communion of the same sacraments
under the rule of legi mate pastors and especially of Christ’s one vicar on
earth, the Roman pon ff.” Canisius (Cateches.) defines it in almost the
same way, for he explicitly adds in the defini on: “The church is ruled and
preserved in unity under the one Roman pon ff, who acts in the stead of
Christ on earth.” In his decrees the pope even goes so far as to “claim that
every creature is under him concerning the necessity of salva on.”
Therefore no one can doubt that this clause of the defini on—“under the
rule of the Roman pon ff”—is essen al and necessary to the Roman
church in such a way that any Chris ans who do not acknowledge the
sovereignty of the Roman pon ff are not to be considered members of the
Roman church.
But now, four classes of Chris an churches can be given that do not
acknowledge the authority of the Roman pope; thus they cannot be
claimed as the Roman church’s daughters or members, and the Roman
church does not reach their size. The first class consists of churches that
have heard nothing about the pope, or, if they have heard of him, it makes
li le difference to them whether he is a man or monster. To this class
belong many churches in Asia, Cilicia, Armenia, Pales ne, Tartary, the
Eastern islands, Persia, etc., which are men oned by Paulus Venetus,
Aloisus, Cadamaster, and, from these, Philippus Marnixius, Discrim. falso
dictae cathol. et evangel. relig., part 3, ch. 11. You will also find churches of
this sort in the Crimea, Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, etc., which are discussed by
Franciscus Alvarezius, Damianus a Goës, Paulus Jovius, and, from these,
Chytraeus (Orat. de eccles. Graec.), Neander (De relig. Tartar.), Dresserus
(Orat. de statu ecclesiarum in Aethiop.), etc. The second class is made up of
churches that bravely resist the Roman pon ff and his tyranny. To this class
belong the Greek churches located partly in Asia, partly in Africa, which
Chytraeus men ons (in the aforemen oned Orat.; Doctr. Jesuit., vol. 5;
Resp. ad. crim. Possev.). The third class consists of the churches that,
though oppressed by papal tyranny, yet have not been able to be
persuaded to submit to his yoke nor to approve of papal errors. To this
class belong the Waldensians who once lived in France, England, Germany,
and Poland. We spoke of these earlier [§ 179]. The fourth class consists of
the churches that in the last century have thrown off the yoke of papal
tyranny. We shall speak later about the size of these churches [§ 189].

The condi on of the Chris an church in all parts of the world

§ 186. Furthermore, that it may appear very clearly what should be
thought about the Papists’ boas ng of their large size, which is always in
their mouth and which especially strikes the eyes of the simple, come, let
us consider how broadly Chris anity spreads today and how much of it
Papism has taken over. What the condi on of the church is in Germany and
the neighboring kingdoms and provinces, such as France, Hungary, Poland,
Bohemia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Scotland, and England, everyone
knows well. In fact, in them the Papist religion is breathing its last. As the
fire of the Gospel burns ho er, more and more of its dross is being driven
away. It s ll holds almost all of Italy and Spain, but even there the Spanish
Inquisi on and the pyres of the martyrs smoking every day tes fy that they
are finding confessors of the true faith. We shall say more about this later
[§ 188].
Therefore we shall go off to more remote places, following the
leadership of Dr. Philipp Nicolai (De regn. Chris , bk. 1, ch. 1), who
discusses this ma er at length. We shall include a brief summary of those
places using his words. In the more remote northern regions beyond
Scotland, we find the Orkney Islands, inhabited by Goths. The largest of
these is called “Mainland” today. There the cathedral church and episcopal
see are in the li le town of Kirkwall, to which the churches of the other
islands are subject, cleansed as they are of the papacy. S ll farther is
Shetland, which the ancients called “Thule.” It, too, enjoys its own
bishopric, as does also Faroe Island, reaching s ll farther north, where the
Chris an dynasty of the Orcadians dwells.
Iceland, lying more closely to the North Pole, has Chris an inhabitants.
Olaus Magnus describes Iceland and men ons its cathedral churches at
“Schal aldensis, Holensis, Bergensis, Cakerfierensis,” etc. Chytraeus
tes fies in his Chronicon Saxoniae that the Icelanders received the
ministers and bishops of their churches from the University of Copenhagen
in Denmark and that King Frederick III of Denmark placed a Lutheran
bishop over the Icelandic churches, had the Holy Bible translated into the
Icelandic language, and sent orthodox proclaimers of the Word to the
farthest shores near to the North Pole, along with translated copies of the
Bible. Greenland, more remote than the Islands, also submits to the
Chris an religion, according to Olaus Magnus.
Above Sweden is Lapland, a very large peninsula that Laplanders, or
Pilapii, idolatrous heathen, inhabit. By the efforts of the archbishop of
Uppsala, however, the light of the Gospel began to shine on them.
Toward the east from the kingdom of the Swedes, the Muscovites come
next, with a vast empire extending far and wide to the four corners of the
world. According to Paul Oderborn, they have Scripture translated into
their own vernacular language and agree with the Greek churches in the
ar cles of faith. In this Muscovite kingdom on the banks of the Moskva
River is the town of Neleuki, where many Germans live by concession of
the Muscovite emperor. Those Germans have an Evangelical pastor,
according to Oderborn. Sigismundus ab Herberstein, De reb. Muscovi cis,
writes: “Moscow is more hos le to no man than to the Roman pon ff,
whom it does not even dignify with the tle ‘Doctor.’ ” He also writes that
when the prince of Muscovy had to listen to speakers of the Roman faith,
he kept before him a basin with two pitchers and a towel next to it and
covering it. In that way he could immediately wash the outstretched hand
of the speaker, whom he considered an unclean and impure person
because of his Roman faith. When the Jesuit Possevinus wished to
persuade the great Duke John Basilides of Muscovy to reject the faith of
the Greeks and to devote himself to the Roman pon ffs, the Muscovite
(according to Possevinus himself in his Moscovia) responded in a great
assembly of his nobles: “I believe not in the Greeks but in Christ. All of the
apostles preached the Gospel, but none of them was greater than another.
Peter and the other pon ffs acknowledge that they are holy. However, I do
not see how those who followed them could have succeeded Peter or
could have sat on Peter’s throne with the same authority as Peter, because
they lived unrighteously.” When Possevinus had responded somewhat
harshly to this, the angry Muscovite said: “You should know that the faith
of seventy is in the Roman faith, but the Roman pope is not a pastor, for he
shaves his beard, places Christ’s cross beneath his feet, allows himself to
be carried on his throne and to be worshiped as God.” Because Possevinus
defended this more freely and stubbornly, the Muscovite burned with
anger and said: “Were there peasants in the forum who taught you to
speak with me as with a peasant?” Next to the kingdom of the Muscovites
are the Circassi, who inhabit Astrakhan and the Black Sea. They, too,
confess Chris anity and use the Greek rituals. Stretching from the east to
the borders of the Muscovite kingdom, Great Tartary opens up. It follows
Muhammadanism, but Wilhelm Postel tes fies that, even now, there are
Chris ans le in Tartary, in fact, more than are found in our Europe.
In the east we first come upon the very broad empire of the Turks.
Although it embraces Muhammadanism, yet people of Chris an confession
abound there: Greeks, La ns, Armenians, Jacobites, Nestorians, Cadurci,
Syrians, Maronites, Ethiopians, and others of other rites. These are so
mingled that there is the constant rumor that, if there had to be a contest
for the number of people, the Chris ans would surpass the Muhammadans
and one Muslim could barely be placed against three Chris ans.
We explained earlier what the religion of the Greeks is (§ 179). In the
year 1550, under the auspices of the Duke of Wirtenberg, Truberus
Carniolanus translated some books of Holy Scripture as well as the
Augsburg Confession and the Pos lla of Luther into the language of the
Vene ans, which is the most common in the realms of the Turks. He did
this so that the light of the teaching of the Gospel might shed its rays into
the East also. When Gerlach lived in Constan nople, he used the
opportunity of a friendly rela onship with the patriarch to leave among
the Greeks seeds of the purer doctrine, which they should not despise. At
the same me, Baron Ungnadius gave the prince of the Georgians a Greek
copy of the Augsburg Confession, which he himself had brought along into
the country translated into the Iberian language, that in this way the
Chris an bishops throughout Georgia and Albania, all the way to the
Caspian Sea, might begin to know the purity of the Gospel.
Neighbors of the Georgians to the south are the Armenians, who accept
the confession and rituals of the Greek churches but reject the hierarchy of
the Roman pon ff. In 1582 when Gregory XIII sent an ambassador and
tried to foist his new calendar and impose the papal yoke upon them, the
Armenians shared their plans with the Eastern patriarchs and responded to
Gregory by le er, saying: “We are not without a head, since we have
always had a Catholicos, an archbishop, from the me of Constan ne the
Great and King Tiridates. Nor can we find any fault with our old calendar,”
etc. To this le er the patriarchs signed their names: Jeremias of
Constan nople, Sylvester of Alexandria, Joachim of An och, and Gabriel of
Jus niana Prima Archidarum.
Although Persia, the neighbor of the Turkish Empire, is devoted to
Muhammadanism, yet a place was given to the Chris an religion on the
occasion of a treaty made between the Persians and Ethiopians in 1562.
Close to the Persians, India abounds in worshipers of Christ who say
that they received their religion from the apostle Thomas but who abhor
the domina on of the Roman pon ff. In 1567, in Cocimus, a city of the
Indians not far from Calecu us, a certain Armenian bishop zealously
warned the Thomas Chris ans to beware of the new bribes of the Papist
religion. While he was warning them, the Jesuit Melchior Carnerius, taking
pride in his mask of being bishop of Nicaea, resisted him. The Indians
favored the Armenian and aimed at the Jesuit with their arrows. In fact,
had he not fled, they surely would have killed him.
Neighboring India in the east is the region of the Sinae, which the
inhabitants call “China.” Here, during the last century, the Jesuits sowed
the seeds of Chris an doctrine. We shall speak later about what should be
thought about that conversion [§ 188].
In the western regions we come to Arabia, which was once divided into
“rocky,” “desert,” and “fer le.” Indeed, it is filled with Muhammadan
supers ons, yet on its seacoasts it allows Spanish rule and, along with
that, the profession of the Chris an faith. Next to Arabia lies the island of
Zacotora, whose inhabitants are Chris ans who claim that they received
their religion from the apostle Thomas.
On the west, Arabia is closed off by Pales ne or old Judea, which is
inhabited by many Chris ans, notwithstanding the ferocity of the followers
of Muhammad. In the city of Jerusalem, ten churches of Chris ans are
listed.
The churches in Syria are under the patriarch of An och, who cul vates
a brotherly friendship with the patriarchs of Constan nople and Alexandria
but who is not friendly to the Roman pon ff.
 Before the Turks took the island of Cyprus away from the Vene ans in
1572, the en re island was bound to the Chris an religion. Today, however,
Muhammadanism dominates it, and the inhabitants are oppressed by the
yoke of slavery. A er the custom of other Chris ans who live under the
Turks, they confess the Chris an religion only in the most sca ered
assemblies. In his Loci communes, Manlius reports that on the island there
were those who embraced the pure and uncorrupted doctrine of the
Gospel because an erudite monk of that region who was Manlius’s friend
translated many books of our theologians into the Cypriot language.
In the southern region we come to Africa, which includes Egypt, Libya,
Cyrene, Africa Minor, Numidia, and Mauritania, whose interior Prete
Johanne, or Pre osus Johannes, possesses far and wide.
Egypt abounds with Chris an Jacobites, who boast that they received
the faith of Christ from the apostle Ma hew. Nicolaus Hemmingius
(Cateches.) describes the ritual of the Mass that is used by the Chris ans in
Egypt, describing it from the account of a Thessalonian named Demetrius.
In their liturgies, prayers and songs to the Holy Trinity come first. To these
is added a reading from the wri ngs of the apostles in Greco-Arabic, and
then another reading from the Gospel. Later, a er the sermon is finished,
the Lord’s Supper is distributed to both priests and laity under both kinds,
and the service is finished with thanksgiving.
Above Egypt there stretches the vast empire of Pre osus Johannes, the
Chris an ruler of the Ethiopians. He is said to rule over forty kingdoms,
more or less. They boast that they received the first rudiments of the
Chris an religion from the eunuch who was the prefect of Queen Candace.
A er Philip had bap zed him and taught him about Christ, the eunuch
returned to Ethiopia and bap zed the queen and a large part of the royal
household and of the people. A teacher called Lycaon followed him; he was
sent by Philip and he arranged the en re worship of the Chris an religion
among them. Franciscus Alvarezius describes their confession in detail.
They embrace the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments; they accept
the Apostles’ Creed; they believe in the Holy Trinity; they assent to the
decrees of the four ecumenical councils; they acknowledge that no man
can sa sfy the Law; they believe that Christ alone has fulfilled it for us and
has made sa sfac on for our sins. They bap ze baby boys and girls in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. A er confession and Absolu on
they give the Eucharist under both kinds to both priests and laity. They
allow their priests to marry. They want rites that Christ has neither
commanded nor forbidden to be free. They reject the trafficking of Masses
and sacrifices for the dead; they do not accept the enclosing of the
consecrated bread, indulgences, and the invoca on of the saints. They do
not acknowledge confirma on and unc on as sacraments, etc. Yet they do
have their own faults and errors. They repeat bap sm every year; they
circumcise infant males and females on their eighth day; they abstain from
the foods that Moses forbade; they do not deny the fire of purgatory; etc.
What they claim about the domina on of the Roman pon ff is clear from
the following account. In the year 1556, the Roman pope, Paul IV, sent into
Ethiopia as his legate the Jesuit Andreas Oviedus so that, subs tuted for
the patriarch of Ethiopia, he might subject the churches of that empire to
the Roman see. Pre osus Johannes, called “Adam,” threw that appari on
of a patriarch into chains and threatened his companions with the
punishment of fire as here cs. In fact, he even led them out into ba le
against the Turks. As a result, Emanuel Acosta calls that Adam, the emperor
of Ethiopia, “a most bi er foe of the apostolic see.”
Part of Africa is Mauritania, which includes four kingdoms: Morocco,
Fez, Tlemcen [Tremissanum], and Tunisia. Although these are filled with
Muhammadan supers ons, yet they are hospitable to some Chris an
churches. In the kingdoms of Morocco and Fez, one comes across faithful
Chris ans in many places who speak out not only against
Muhammadanism but also Papism because of the tyranny of the Spanish,
and who support the truth of the Gospel.
We shall speak later about the churches in the Americas [§ 188].
Therefore if anyone wishes to count these up and make a comparison
between churches subject to the Roman pon ff and the rest that are free
of the yoke of papal tyranny, he will discover that not even half the
Chris an world is subject to papal power.

Bellarmine’s boasts about the large size of the Roman church

§ 187. Let us listen, however, to Bellarmine’s thrasonical boasts about
the large size of the Roman church. (I) He says:
 At the me of the apostles, our church began to bear fruit in all the world (Col. 1:6). At the
me of Irenaeus it had been sca ered throughout the world, that is, through all the
provinces known at that me. (He himself reports this in bk. 1, ch. 3.) Later, Tertullian
reports the same thing about his own me (Contra Judaeos, ch. 3). Cyprian reports the same
thing later (De unit. eccl.), as does Athanasius (De human. verbi), Chrysostom and Jerome
(on Ma hew 24), and Augus ne (Le ers 78 and 80 ad Hesych.), etc. At the me of Gregory
and Bernard, the church was the largest, etc.

We respond. (1) Our church professes the same faith and doctrine that
the church confessed at the me of the apostles and of the first fathers.
Therefore ours is related to it by a kinship of doctrine. As a consequence,
whatever outstanding, significant, and honorable affirma on is made
about the ancient church applies to our church.
(2) The Roman church of today has gone far away from the integrity of
the apostolic and early church, for it embraces new and foreign dogmas
unknown at the me of the apostles and of the first fathers. The
supremacy of the Roman pon ff, monas c vows, the celibacy of priests,
papal indulgences, the invoca on of the saints, the trafficking of Masses,
etc., occur in the wri ngs of neither the apostles nor of the first fathers.
Therefore the Roman church of today falsely claims the praise of large size,
in which the apostolic and early church excelled, because the doctrine,
which is the soul of the church, is completely different between the early
church and today’s Roman church.
(3) Although the apostolic and early church spread far and wide as me
passed, yet it started from very small beginnings. From this we draw the
unshakable conclusion that large size is not a perpetual and, thus, not a
genuine and proper mark of the true church.
(4) At that very me when the Chris an church had been spread most
widely over all the earth, the synagogue of Satan was embracing in its clasp
heathen, Jews, here cs, Epicureans, hypocrites, etc., and was larger.
Therefore large size alone cannot be established as a proper mark of the
true church.
(5) Bellarmine contradicts himself. Here he writes: “At the me of the
apostles, the Gospel had borne fruit throughout the world; at the me of
Irenaeus, the church had spread into every land.” But in De pon f. Rom.,
bk. 3, ch. 4, he argues: “The An christ had not yet come because the
Gospel had not yet been preached in all the world.”
 (6) At the me of the apostles and first fathers, the Roman church did
not yet hold that primacy of power which it exercises today over the other
churches. Marcion was excommunicated by his father and fled to Rome,
where he asked the bishop of Rome to receive him into the fellowship. The
bishop refused to allow this without the consent of Marcion’s father, who
had originally excommunicated him, according to Epiphanius, Haeres.
Marcion., ch. 24. The Asian churches resisted Victor, who was trying to
exercise jurisdic on over external churches (Eusebius, Hist. eccles., bk. 5,
ch. 24). In the Council of Nicaea “the care of the suburban churches” was
given over to the bishop of Rome. In many later councils it was decreed
that no one should be called “first bishop.” But now, Bellarmine is claiming
that subjec on to the Roman pon ff is an essen al of his church. Therefore
because that subjec on did not yet take place in the apostolic and
primi ve church, he should cease claiming that large size belongs to his
church.
(7) Gregory, who exchanged le ers with the Eastern and Western
bishops, declared that the tle “universal,” in which the Roman pon ff
takes pride today, is against the ancient canons, against all the churches,
against God’s Word, and against God Himself, as is evident from his le ers.
(8) In the me of Bernard, which came much later than that of Gregory,
a great change of doctrine occurred. Even in those days, however, God
saved “a holy seed,” as we have shown earlier [§§ 177–78].
§ 188. (II) Bellarmine advances and, as he gets nearer to his target, he
boasts about today’s size of the Roman church, that “besides all of Italy
and Spain; besides almost all of France; besides England, Germany, Poland,
Bohemia, Hungary, Greece, Syria, Ethiopia, Egypt, in which Catholics are
found—it has churches in the New World without a mingling of here cs in
all four corners of the earth: toward the east in the Indies, toward the west
in America, to the north in Japan, and to the south in Brazil and the outer
part of Africa.”
We respond. (1) Although Papism s ll does occupy all of Italy and Spain,
yet we do not doubt that a church is gathered for God even in those realms
and provinces. First, we bring forth the bap zed infants who are gra ed
into Christ through the sacrament of Bap sm, which is administered in its
integrity as far as the substan als are concerned, and become members of
the church catholic. These do not belong to the Roman church—that is, to
that church which embraces Roman dogmas and is a ached to the Roman
pon ff—but to the church catholic, whose own proper possession is the
sacrament of Bap sm. Second, we bring forth those simple Chris ans who
neither understand nor care about “the deep things of Satan” (Rev. 2:24)
and “the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess. 2:7), but who do embrace sincerely
the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, the history of the Lord’s Passion, and
the Gospel pericopes, and who submit simply to the Chris an faith, etc.
Third, we bring forth those who in the throes of death throw away empty
confidence in their own merits and rest upon Christ alone in true faith. It is
their actual experience that human tradi ons and doctrines have no
strength to comfort, and if any straw of error clings to them, those are
burned in the fire of the cross and of trial. Fourth, we bring forth those
confessors and martyrs, by whose pyres a public tes mony is given to the
purer doctrine. We have no doubt that many more would come to a
knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, if the people would not be hindered
by the tyranny of the Inquisi on and so zealously kept from reading the
Holy Scriptures, because of which sacrilege those who are its ins gators
and enforcers will one day give an account. The common crowd in the
papacy follows an implicit faith and declares that they believe what the
Roman church believes. However, this “collier’s faith” does not yet make
one a member of the church. Rather, a specific and dis nct confession of
the ar cles of faith is required.
(2) In Germany, France, England, Poland, Bohemia, Hungary, etc., the
free public exercise of Evangelical religion flourishes, and, perhaps, there
are more in those kingdoms who execrate the Roman pon ff than there
are those who acknowledge him as the head of the catholic church. It is
not enough for there to be many followers of the Roman faith in those
provinces. Rather, all or most would have to be such if he would prove
from that the large size of the Roman church. In England and Scotland the
Romanists do not possess the public exercise of their religion, according to
Whitaker, De eccl., q. 5, ch. 5, p. 341. Papism was ordered to go into exile
from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Saxony, Holstein, Pomerania, Hesse,
Meissen, Thuringia, Holland, Zeeland, and a great part of Germany,
Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, and Switzerland. The fact that it s ll holds
something in those places is due to the very large revenues of the
episcopates, abbeys, and colleges of canons.
 (3) We have spoken earlier about the state of the churches in Greece,
Syria, Ethiopia, and Egypt [§§ 179, 186].

The churches in the New World

(4) We must comment here on certain points concerning the churches
in the New World because of the vaun ng and constant boasts of the
Jesuits. First, a dis nc on must be made between the thing itself, namely,
the conversion of those islanders, and the manner of the thing, or of the
conversion. Surely, one cannot deny that the mode of the conversion was
tyrannical, cruel, and u erly different from that of the apostles. This can be
proved from our adversaries’ own tes monies. Ludovicus Granatensis
complains:
Because of the cruelty of the Spanish, the situa on has been brought down so far that
among the barbarian tribes the name “Chris ans” has become so accursed that, whenever
monks are sent to them, one must say, so that they will not be detested, that those are not
Chris ans but fathers, who have come to care for their salva on. The Spanish had used that
monstrous cruelty against them so that the most holy name “Chris an” has not been
considered a name of piety and religion but one of monstrous cruelty.

The Spanish bishop Bartholomaeus de las Casas men ons: “Peru and the
neighboring regions were so devastated that the Spaniards destroyed
200,000 people with unheard-of ferocity in the space of a few years.”
Lipsius, De constant., bk. 2, ch. 22:
Eighty years ago a small number of Spaniards went across into those vast new lands. Good
God, what deaths they caused! What slaughter! I am not speaking about the causes or the
justness of that warfare but only about the results. I see that immense expanse of territory
(to have seen it is great, not to men on having conquered it) invaded by twenty or thirty
soldiers, and I see everywhere those unarmed crowds cut down like grain before the scythe.
O Cuba, greatest of the islands, where are you? Where are you, Hai ? And you, Bahamas?
You islands that once held fi y or sixty thousand people now have kept barely fi een
[thousand] of them as seed. O coasts of Peru and Mexico, show how li le you are! O what a
strange and miserable sight! That immense expanse and truly other world appears
devastated and wasted, just as if a heavenly fire had consumed it.

Historians report that, though the Americans otherwise would eat human
flesh, especially that of their enemies, nevertheless they refused to touch
the flesh of Spaniards, lest they become infected with their cruelty.
A man of great authority among the Indians was about to die and was
asking a Spanish brother: “Where do the Spaniards go a er death?” The
monk replied, “The good will live in heaven; the bad, in hell.” The other
asked, “But where will the greater part live?” The brother replied, “In
heaven, undoubtedly, because most are good.” He said, “Then I shall live
elsewhere in a place as far from them as possible, for I know that things
will be bad for them because of their savage cruelty.” Franciscus de
Victoria, Relect. 5: “Because we hear that so many people among the
Indians were slaughtered, that so many otherwise harmless people were
plundered, so many lords deprived of their possessions and authority, one
can deservedly wonder whether this was all done justly or unjustly.
However, I fear that the situa on has gone beyond what right and jus ce
would allow.”
** Wilhelmus, prince of Auray, writes in his apology against King Philip II
of Spain:
In the Indies, the Spaniards very cruelly killed more than twenty hundred thousand people.
They did this with such ominous cruelty that all cruel es and tyrannies of all mes about
which we have either heard or read are games and jokes compared with their monstrous
behavior against the Indians, just as their very own bishops and doctors have le witness in
their books published on this subject. Lest the king s ll have some opportunity to make an
excuse before God and men, one of his subjects dedicated the history to him. **

Acosta, De procur. Indorum salut., bk. 2, ch. 4:

Who does not see what implacable hatred of the name “Chris an,” what a serious and
incurable scandal, is being s rred up among the barbarians! That en re situa on is heading
toward an obs nate animosity and hatred of the faith and toward the certain destruc on of
men. Christ paid the tax that He did not owe, lest He cause offense. If we despoil, pillage,
and plunder lands that are in no way due to us, shall we not fear a just scandal? The
situa on cries out loudly by itself that what Gregory writes is u erly true: “Those who want
the faith to be propagated through harshness are proved to be concerned with their own
causes and not God’s cause.”

Arnaldus (Ac o. contra Jesuitas Parisiis) taught that “the Jesuits alone are
the authors of that tyranny against the Indians.” Did the apostles use that
manner of conversion when they preached the Gospel throughout the
world? Did the fathers of the early church approve of this? Certainly not.
** The conversion of the Indians that the Jesuits accomplished: (1) Was
not as complete and numerous as they boast, but was “merely moderate,
weak, and slight,” according to Acosta, De proc. Indor. salut., bk. 4, ch. 4.
(2) “Also, those very few Indians who were converted and did become
Chris ans are for the most part not Chris ans at all and received the
Gospel only for the sake of appearances” (Acosta, ibid.). Acosta again, ch.
3: “Scarcely any Chris an is found among them only forty years a er the
coming of the Gospel who understands two ar cles of the Creed, what
Christ is, what the Eucharist is; or he stupidly acknowledges that ca le
should be valued more highly than people.” (3) The manner that the Jesuits
used to convert the Indians is clearly frivolous, preposterous, inept,
inappropriate, lazy, weak, savage, violent, ridiculous, puerile, and, finally,
simoniacal. (See Acosta, bk. 5, ch. 2; bk. 6, chs. 2 and 3; Epist. Indic., pp.
299, 300, 350, 351, 313, 99, 369, and 374; Jacobus Lauren us, De prodiga
Jesuit. liberalit., pp. 33ff.). **
Those who undertook voyages to those new islands seem to have been
led by a greater zeal for taking possession of more territory and by the
accursed hunger for gold than by a desire to propagate the Chris an
religion. This insa able greed drove many away from the Chris an religion.
Consequently, the historians also men on that “the Indians poured molten
gold into the mouths of some Spaniards who had fallen into their hands”
(Acosta, De procur. Indor. salute, bk. 3, ch. 18).
Merchants are doing business, judges are holding court, most priests are evangelizing for no
other cause than for the hope of gold and silver. If gold and silver are hidden from their
sight, the civil and priestly coopera on of all vanishes quickly. Although a love for souls did
not invite them there, at least the lust for gold en ced them there. Just as the unbelief of
Israel once was the salva on of the Gen les, so now the greed of Chris ans has become the
calling of the Indians.

So much for the manner of conversion. As far as the means of

conversion, or teaching, is concerned, in that teaching there is a mixture of
the precious and the vile, of the Chris an and the an -Chris an, of the
apostolic and the pseudoapostolic. Precious, Chris an, and apostolic are
the pure and uncorrupted chief parts of doctrine regarding Holy Scripture,
the mystery of the Trinity, Christ the Mediator, Bap sm, eternal life, etc.
Vile, an -Chris an, and pseudoapostolic are the papal dogmas regarding
human tradi ons, the invoca on of the saints, the merits of works,
purgatory, the primacy of the pope, etc. Both of these have their own
effect because through what is precious and Chris an the Holy Spirit is
effectual for the conversion of some. This must not be ascribed to the vile
and an -Chris an teaching that is mixed in with it. Through what is
worthless and an -Chris an, conversion and salva on are hindered,
especially if it is abundant and defended stubbornly.
Just as anyone can sow the seeds of grain and weeds with one and the
same hand, so also Chris an doctrine and an -Chris an corrup ons were
sown in that New World by one and the same ministry. Just as the seeds of
grain grow and bring forth wholesome fruit, despite the mixture of weeds,
so also the Holy Spirit has been effectual for conversion in the hearts of
some people through that preaching of the Word, though it was mixed
with the leaven, dust, and filth of an -Chris an supers ons, tradi ons,
and errors. On the other hand, just as the weeds in some fields kill off the
crop completely, so also an -Chris an corrup ons destroy the crop of
heavenly doctrine in some hearts, namely, if those corrup ons are
defended too stubbornly and if they undermine the founda on of faith.
Christ ordered us to listen to the scribes and Pharisees who were si ng
on Moses’ seat, that is, se ng forth the teaching of Moses and reci ng the
wri ngs of Moses and the prophets (Ma . 23:3). Yet in the same chapter
(v. 15), He says that they “go round about the sea and land to make one
proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, they make him twice as
much a child of hell as themselves.” How should we reconcile this? To the
extent that they set forth to the proselytes the teaching of Moses and the
prophets from their wri ngs, people had to listen to them, and they were
conver ng the Gen les to salva on. However, to the extent that they were
se ng before the proselytes their pharisaical corrup ons, tradi ons, and
supers ons, people were not to listen to them, since the proselytes
would become children of hell by avidly receiving and stubbornly
defending those corrup ons. Just as God was effectual through the
ministry of the scribes and Pharisees for the conversion and salva on of
some people, and just as God fathered sons and daughters for Himself
through the ministry of the Levites who had been corrupted by idolatry
and errors (Ezek. 16:20), so also God has been effectual for the conversion
and salva on of some people through the ministry of those who brought
to those new islands the light of the Gospel obscured by papal smoke, the
dough of heavenly doctrine mixed with the leaven of human tradi ons, the
gold of the Word contaminated with the dross of supers ons, the
precious pearl of Chris anity covered with the mud of human opinions.
God was effectual not to the extent that they preached papal tradi ons
and corrup ons, but to the extent that they set forth the Word of God
from the canonical Scriptures. When distributed, the text of Scripture, the
Decalogue, the Lord’s Prayer, the sacraments of Bap sm and the Lord’s
Supper are the means by which the church is established and grows. They
neither cease being what they are nor do they cease being effectual when
impure teachers, stained with the mud of heresies and supers ons,
administer them. Rather, they remain the instruments of salva on [organa
salu s] through which some people are converted and saved, the efficacy
of the Holy Spirit being amid the corrupt state of the church.
All these things will become clearer if you note the program of
cateche cal instruc on that the Jesuits prac ce in conver ng those
heathen islanders. When they intend to convince them of the Chris an
religion, they do not begin with the authority of the Roman church, not
with human tradi ons, not with Masses, not with purgatory, not with the
merits of works and the rewards of Roman indulgences. Instead, they omit
those in the first instruc on and speak simply about the fall of our first
parents and the condemna on that was brought in by it against the whole
human race, and about our free redemp on accomplished by Christ, the
Mediator, the Son of God and of the Virgin Mary, to whom we must cling
by faith and in whose name we must receive Bap sm. In regard to this we
shall cite the words of a Jesuit named Johannes Bap sta Mon us, who
wrote as follows in a le er wri en in AD 1564 from Bungo, a Japanese city,
to Michael Turrensis:
The Gospel has spread far and wide and, indeed, is being proved to the common people. By
the benefac on of God there are almost always some being led to Bap sm. Our program of
dealing with them is as follows. We first ask what sect they follow. Then we refute not only
that sect which they confess but all the rest of the Japanese sects with many ra onal
arguments in such a way that they understand that they can never obtain eternal salva on
with the help and protec on of those sects. When they see this, we teach them that there is
one Creator of all things, who created all things out of nothing; that all these things serve
their func on except the fallen angels and man, who by his own fault fell away from that
first state, in which God the Father had placed him; and that man is opposed to the laws of
nature and to correct reason. Finally, they learn that God is three and one, whose rule the
first man neglected. And because He was making the infinite sa sfac on for the wrong done
to the infinite Majesty and Power, the Second Person of the Trinity voluntarily assumed and
put on our humanity—because humankind could not be saved by any other created nature
—in order that this most innocent One, both God and man, might pay the penalty due
because of our sins with His precious life and bi er death and might restore us to the favor
of God Almighty. We explain all these things to them carefully and in detail. Then we give
 honest answers to their ques ons, and all doubt is removed from their minds, to the extent
that such is possible. A er we have taught them certain forms for praying and the
commandments of the Decalogue, they promise that they will give up their barbaric rites
and supers ons. Finally, the power and mystery of Holy Bap sm is explained to them, and
thus they give their names to Christ and are bap zed.

From this it is apparent that the Jesuits restrain themselves from Papist
tradi ons and supers ons in teaching the first rudiments of the Chris an
religion and that they bap ze those who have been instructed in the
fundamental ar cles of the Chris an faith—those who have had some
teaching about the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer.
Consequently, we have no doubt that very many people have been gained
for Christ in this way, who either do not know papal dogmas or who have
cast them away on the fire of trials.
However, we must note that not all teachers everywhere use the same
care and that manner of instruc on in catechizing the Indians or other
peoples of the New World. Thus the work of some of them is very barren,
for the Jesuit Acosta writes as follows, De procurand. Indorum salute, bk. 4,
ch. 3:
Our people blame the slowness of the Indians in grasping the mysteries of faith and charge
that they are mainly was ng me in teaching them. They say that finally, a er forty years
from the me the Gospel came, scarcely anyone is found in so great a crowd who
understands the two ar cles of the Creed, what Christ is, what eternal life is, what the
Eucharist is, or who stupidly acknowledges that ca le must be considered more valuable
than people. But let those who u er these things tell me with what diligence they are being
taught. Two or three mes a week they recite to them the Creed and their prayers, and they
do it in the Spanish language. Finally, they are ordered to learn these things in Spanish, of
which they understand not so much as a syllable and which they pronounce ridiculously. Yet
that is the common, ordinary manner of teaching doctrine. When a ma er is discussed
more carefully, the priest recites some things in the form of a catechism in the Indian
language, though he himself is an infant in that language. Even if he were skilled, which is
rare, yet he does not explain the mysteries of faith nor does he know them very well. But
what catechist ever required payment from his hearers? Finally, doctrine is handed down to
the Indians in the same way as when beggars sing some supplica ons or verses for the sake
of collec ng dona ons and have as their only goal that by reci ng they may get to the end
of their song, but once they have received their money, they no longer care whether their
listeners pay a en on or are pleased. Therefore that en re program of catechiza on is lazy
and like playing games.

Those are Acosta’s words. He adds, ibid., ch. 8: “Indeed, a certain father of
our order wrote that it did not seem to him that the Gospel had
penetrated the hearts of these Indians but had been accepted only in
pretense. It cannot be denied that, if it had placed its roots in their deepest
senses, we would see plenty of obvious fruits, for what is more powerful
than the Word of God? What is more effectual for changing people?” He
concludes, bk. 5, ch. 2: “Indeed, to me it has always seemed like an evil
omen that among so many Indians endowed with the tle ‘Chris an,’ one
who acknowledges Christ is so rare that what the Ephesians once
responded to Paul concerning the Holy Spirit could be used be er by these
concerning Christ: ‘We have not heard if there is a Christ.’ ” Vega makes the
same complaint about the teachers of the Indians in his Opusc. de fid. et
operib., ch. 3. He says:
In this, our me, there are some who have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.
They indiscriminately admit Indians who come for Bap sm without any inves ga on of their
life and behavior. In fact, they give them no or almost no doctrine about life or behavior that
one must necessarily observe. Rather, they are content with this alone: that, a er they have
set forth the ar cles of faith, the Indians respond that they believe and wish to be bap zed.
That statement of Christ, “Do not give what is holy to the dogs,” should have called them
back from that error.

Those are Vega’s words. But is this a saving conversion to the true worship
of God? Is this manner of conversion apostolic?
Finally, since the Jesuits are always boas ng that Christ’s name had
never before been heard on those islands, one must note what Johannes
Goropius (Origin.), Marinus Siculus (Hist. Hispan., bk. 15), as well as
Neander (Cosmograph., pp. 7ff.) show from Plato (Timaeus), Strabo, Pliny,
etc. Namely, they show that America was not unknown to the ancients but
was known by the name “Atlan s,” and though it had been hidden for a
long me, it has been discovered again in our mes; and that the sailing of
the ancients to the New World was interrupted either by the prohibi ons
of kings and ci es or because of the inclina on of the Roman emperor
when our en re world was aflame with the wars, plundering, and
destruc on of the Goths, Vandals, Huns, Lombards, and foreign peoples,
and when the growth of the Turkish empire was turning all the power and
awareness of Europe toward itself. Therefore it is quite likely that the
apostolic preaching of the Gospel had already reached those places earlier.
Paul tes fies (Col. 1:23; Rom. 10:18) that “the Gospel had borne fruit in all
the world”; and in the earliest mes of the Chris an church there was no
na on known to which the sound of the preaching of the Gospel had not
yet come. Jus n, Dial. cum Tryph., p. 270, writes: “There was no people on
earth to whom the name of Christ was not known at that me.” Tertullian,
Adv. Jud., ch. 3, men ons: “Various Gaetulians believed in Christ, as did
many areas of the Moors and places of the Britons inaccessible to the
Romans, as well as the lands of the Sarma ans, Dacians, Germans,
Scythians, many hidden peoples, many provinces and islands unknown to
us and that we cannot number.” Jerome, on Ma hew 24: “I do not think
that any na on remained which did not know the name of Christ.”
Ambrose, on Romans 10: “The preaching of the name of Christ has been
heard everywhere and has reached every place. Wherever the presence of
a preacher has been lacking, yet the sound and report have come.”
Witnesses of the same thing are Irenaeus (bk. 1, chs. 2 and 3), Chrysostom
(on Ma hew, homily 76; on Romans, homily 18; and on Colossians, homily
4), Augus ne (Le ers 78 and 80 ad Hesychium), etc.
Accordingly, the Spanish have found some faint indica ons that
Chris anity had been introduced into the New World earlier. The historian
Peter Martyr reports: “Some American priests in the kingdom of Mexico
above Darien seem to have bap zed year-old boys and girls in the temple
by pouring water on them in a cross with a pitcher.” They connect
circumcision with Bap sm, and that is an indica on that the Ethiopians
once imported the Chris an religion into America, because they, too,
connect the Jewish ceremony with the sacrament of Bap sm. Johannes
Lerius men ons that the Brazilians “agree with the immortality of souls.”
He also reports that at mes he discussed with them the true worship of
God, the crea on of all things, the fall and ruin of mankind, and similar
ar cles of the Chris an religion. A er they had listened to this for two
hours with great a en on and wonder, one of the older men finally
responded, saying that “he had it from a report of his grandparents that
very many years earlier, in ancient mes, a man clothed in our fashion and
bearded had arrived in their lands. He tried with a similar speech to draw
them into obedience to God. Because their rulers did not believe him, soon
another took his place and handed down to them a sword as a symbol of a
curse. From that me constant wars and disturbances have flourished
among them.” Regarding the Peruvians, Hieronymus Benzo (bk. 3, ch. 20)
writes that “they, too, believe in the immortality of souls.” From Spanish
writers he adds: “The Peruvians believe that in very early mes there was a
great flood over all the earth. All mortals were drowned because of it, with
a few excep ons who had hidden in caves on the highest mountains and
escaped the common fate.” Also: “They believe that the world at some
me will be destroyed with a great drought and burning of the air in which
the sun and moon will be drained. They believe in the resurrec on of the
dead.” The Brahman theologians of the Indians wear three cords from the
right shoulder to the le side. They believe that God, concealed in human
form, purified the earth to redeem the human race from eternal
destruc on. They revere Sundays, frequently repea ng this li le prayer: “I
worship You, O God, with Your grace and aid forever.” They know the Ten
Commandments of the Law, etc. All of this reveals clear traces of the
Chris an religion once received from the apostles but lost because of
man’s contempt over the course of me.
The Chinese serve idolatrous cults and express with some of their
images and rituals some shadow of ancient Chris anity. They worship a
three-headed image whose three heads gaze at one another. On it are the
three faces of their deity, which they say belong to the same mind and will.
They also worship the image of a woman carrying a li le boy in her arms.
They call her “the daughter of the great king” and say that her virginity
con nued inviolate in childbirth and a er childbirth. To this is added a
picture of twelve men imperfectly represen ng the twelve apostles. They
say that those men were famous for their wisdom and virtues and were
translated to the angels. They also confess the immortality of souls and the
eternal rewards of the devout a er this life, but the everlas ng torments
of the wicked. Mendoza reports that among the Chinese the books of the
Armenians became very important. In those books it is said about St.
Thomas that he was about to go into India and passed across the region of
the Chinese, taught them the Gospel, and even bap zed some of them.
Stapleton, De auctor. script., bk. 1, ch. 14, § 5: “In eastern India the
Portuguese found remnants of Chris ans.”
** Osorius, Histor., bk. 3: “Several thousand ancient Chris an people
have been found in India.” **
Xavier, bk. 1, Le er 1, and bk. 2, Le er 10: “The island of Socotra,
almost a hundred thousand paces in circumference, is en rely inhabited by
those Chris ans who have been deprived of their Catholic priests for many
years now and have nothing except the name. They boast that they are
Chris an, and they reverently honor the apostle St. Thomas because they
declare that they came from the people whom he bore to Christ in those
places.” Book 2, Le er 3: “There are some who confirm that St. Thomas
the apostle came to China and converted a great number of them to faith
in Christ. You see, before the Portuguese had brought India under their
control, the Greek church kept sending bishops there to protect the
Chris ans who had been propagated there by the work of St. Thomas and
his disciples.” Therefore the Greek church could easily take this boas ng
about conversion away from the Romanists.

Whether large size can be a ributed to the Evangelical churches

§ 189. The third sec on. Can the Evangelical churches boast about large
size? Here Bellarmine taunts us, saying that our doctrine has never crossed
the sea, that it has not seen Asia or Africa, Egypt or Greece. He calls it a
great lie that the preface to the Book of Concord says that the Augsburg
Confession has spread throughout the en re world and has begun to be in
the mouth and speech of all people because, of the three parts of the
world, the two larger ones, Asia and Africa, have not heard even the name
of this confession; because in Europe many provinces, such as Greece, Italy,
and Spain, either do not know of it or curse it; and because France,
Switzerland, and Britain accept it only nominally. Costerus writes:
“Lutherans are found only in Germany, or at least not outside Europe.”
** Adamus Conzen, De pace German., bk. 1, ch. 18, p. 298: “Under so
meager a confession” (the Augsburg Confession), “whose territory is daily
becoming smaller and is almost dying, it would be a ma er of great
rashness—not to men on foolishness!—to wish to defend its immense
ubiquity.”
We respond. (1) Even if we were unable to boast about local large size,
yet our church would not cease being catholic, because it confesses the
catholic faith and thus is connected by an internal kinship to the church
catholic, which embraces all the truly faithful of all mes and places, as we
have shown earlier [§ 151].
(2) The Evangelical churches are larger and be er known than
Bellarmine or the Roman pon ff might wish. The public and pure exercise
of the Evangelical religion flourishes not only in Germany but also in
Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. Also, it can be
well-known from the foregoing digression that the Evangelical church has
spread beyond Europe. The pyres of the martyrs bear witness that in the
midst of the papacy some are found who are devoted to the Evangelical
religion. The secretary of Pope Paul IV (in Ac o, an concilii Triden ni
decreta armis propaganda sint, f. 69) writes to the pope: “I think that you
are aware that in all your ci es there are some who have been infected
with the Lutheran poison and that these do not come only from the lowest
dregs of the people but from the middle class and even from the most
important men.”
(3) When the Augsburg Confession was presented to the most highly
praised Emperor Charles V in both La n and German, it was immediately
translated into Spanish, Italian, French, Belgian, and English and was sent
to the pope and to other kings and princes. In this way, its fame spread
throughout the Chris an world. There were also people of various
provinces with Charles, and the Confession was recited in the assembly of
them and of the en re Roman Empire, so that there is no doubt that the
Augsburg Confession was spread to all who profess Chris an doctrine and
even throughout all the world. Luther was referring to this when he wrote:
So great is the efficacy and power of God’s Word that the more it is persecuted, the more it
flourishes and grows. Consider the Diet of Augsburg, which is truly the final trumpet before
the Last Day: how the whole world was raging against the Word of God, how we had to pray
that Christ Himself would be kept safe in heaven from the Papists! Finally, our doctrine and
faith so came forth into the light through our Confession that in a very short me it was sent
by the command of the emperor to all kings and princes. There, in those courts, there were
many brilliant people who grasped this doctrine like nder.

The electors, princes, and the other nobles of the empire are looking at
this alone when in the preface to the Formula of Concord they speak so
honorably of the Augsburg Confession, whose “illustrious authority”
Bellarmine sha ers when he makes them guilty of “an illustrious lie” with
his unbridled tongue. You see, those faithful confessors, worthy of eternal
remembrance, do not mean that the Augsburg Confession has been
accepted by all the provinces of the Chris an world but that it has spread
everywhere and has begun to be in the mouth and speech of everyone,
just as Ambrose says, on Romans 10: “Where the feet of the apostles did
not reach, there the sound of the preaching of the Gospel came.” But who
is surprised by this shamelessness in a Jesuit?
(4) Bellarmine seems to have forgo en here what he wrote in the Orat.
prefixed to vol. 4 of his works: “Speeding chariots indicate the wondrous
swi ness with which that new” (Lutheran) “sect has spread through
various regions like a pes len al plague. Not content with western and
northern kingdoms, it has dared to sail east and south as well, to the
Greeks, to the Indians, to the New World itself, though the Greeks rejected
it with contempt and among the Indians the Lord did not permit any
footstep to be planted.” He also appears to have forgo en what he writes
in the preface a ached to vol. 1 in his Controversiae: “Who does not know
that the Lutheran plague that developed recently in Saxony soon took over
nearly all of Germany; that it then went north and east and consumed
Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Gotland, Pannonia, and Hungary; that it next
spread with equal speed to the south and west; that in a short me it
spoiled France, England, and Scotland, once very flourishing kingdoms;
that it finally crossed the Alps and penetrated all the way to Italy?”
Section V: On the Fifth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: The Succession of
Bishops: Local and personal succession is not a mark
of the church
§ 190. The first sec on. Is succession a true and proper mark of the
church? There are two kinds of succession: one of places and persons, the
other of doctrine. You could call the former external and the la er internal.
The succession of places and persons is an external, changeable accident
and is not good for anything without succession of doctrine. But succession
of doctrine is proper to the true church. “Some persons taking the place of
others does not cons tute succession. Rather, it is the perpetual consensus
of doctrine, which joins later people to earlier people by the bond of faith,”
as Gelasius writes correctly (Comment. bk. 3 Irenaei, ch. 3). Therefore we
argue against this mark as follows.

First, it does not always befit the church

(I) Whatever does not always and perpetually befit the church cannot
be its true and proper mark. Yet succession does not befit the church
perpetually and always. Therefore it is not its true and proper mark. The
minor premise is obvious because there was a true, apostolic church
before there was such a succession, namely, in the beginning. Nor is “the
church called ‘apostolic’ because of succession from the apostles,” as
Bellarmine suspects. Rather, it is called “apostolic” from its apostolic
doctrine, since in the Apostles’ Creed, which Bellarmine (De jus fica on.,
bk. 1, ch. 9) claims “was composed by the apostles themselves,” the church
is called “apostolic,” though such a succession did not yet exist in it; the
apostles themselves were s ll teaching. The early church in which Christ
and the apostles taught was the flowering of the church, yet it lacked that
local, personal succession. A er all, whom did Christ succeed? Whom did
the apostles succeed? The Epistle to the Hebrews shows that Christ is a
priest a er the order of Melchizedek. Therefore He succeeded
Melchizedek. Therefore the true succession can be interrupted, provided
that it has the succession of doctrine connected with it. Paul says in 2 Tim.
1:3 that he serves God “from his forefathers,” that is, from Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob, etc. Therefore he is proving his faith by an interrupted succession
through his forefathers, who had belonged to the sect of the Pharisees.
When Stephen was accused of false doctrine (Acts 7), he appealed to
Abraham, and beginning from him, he went down to the me of the
Babylonian cap vity, and then to the very mes in which he had lived,
covering about four hundred years.
The apostles were the true successors of the prophets because they
both received and spread the prophets’ pure doctrine. They were the true
successors of Aaron because they followed his faith. Yet they succeeded
neither the prophets nor Aaron immediately with regard to place. In the
same way, those people who sincerely embrace the faith and doctrine of
the apostles, as comprehended in their wri ngs, must be considered the
true successors of the apostles, even though they do not have that
external, local succession.
With reference to the apostles, here cal priests, gravely erring in faith,
most recently preceded them. Yet this does not at all oppose the doctrinal
succession by which the apostles succeeded the prophets, Aaron, and
other devout priests with regard to the ecclesias cal ministry. In the same
way, the doctrinal succession was interrupted by a corrupt ministry. Yet this
does not at all oppose that doctrinal succession by which the devout and
orthodox ministers of the church succeed those who sincerely embrace the
apostolic faith.
The apostles appealed to the internal, doctrinal succession over a local,
external succession, of which Caiaphas could boast, when they bore public
witness that they were teaching “nothing but what the prophets and
Moses predicted would come to pass” (Acts 26:22). They also did not ask
Caiaphas for ordina on. In the same way today, in the Evangelical churches
we correctly appeal to the doctrinal succession over a local and personal
succession. We ask for neither ordina on nor confirma on from the
Roman pon ffs, who boast of a succession from the apostles but are
actually imita ng Caiaphas.
Bellarmine makes the excep on: “The Aaronic priesthood was temporal
and lasted only un l the beginning of the New Testament. Then there
finally began a priesthood a er the order of Melchizedek, which Christ
Himself ins tuted. Because the apostles were the firs ruit of that
priesthood, they were not supposed to have been the successors of
Caiaphas but to be the beginning of a new priesthood.”
We respond. (1) Bellarmine himself admits, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 7, § in
omni: “Christ’s church was not a new church but only a change of the
condi on of the church.” But if only the external condi on of the church is
changed when the succession has been changed, and no new church is
established, then succession is not a true and essen al mark but only an
accidental mark of the church, since it belongs only to the external
condi on of the church and not to its essence.
(2) As Christ was able to be a priest according to the order of
Melchizedek—that is, Melchizedek’s successor—even though that
succession had been interrupted over the course of several centuries, so
also those can be the successors of the apostles who profess the pure and
uncorrupted doctrine of the apostles, even though there may be an
interrup on with regard to me, places, and persons.
(3) It was foretold in the Old Testament that the Aaronic priesthood
would end, for which reason the apostles were ac ng correctly when they
separated themselves from Caiaphas and the Levi cal priesthood. In the
same way, it has been prophesied in the New Testament that “the
An christ will sit in the temple of God” (2 Thess. 2:4); that false teachers
will succeed the apostles and apostolic men and will mislead the church
(Acts 20:29); that there will come a me when people will have to come
out of the mys cal “Babylon” (Rev. 18:4).
(4) He has not yet proved that Christ ins tuted in the Roman church the
same sort of succession on the apostolic throne of Peter, about which the
Papists boast, as God ins tuted in the church of Israel on the throne and
seat of Aaron. Indeed, in Christ’s church we should no longer look for a
carnal, local, and earthly succession but a doctrinal and spiritual
succession, for His “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
(5) One can by no means say that, as the sons and descendants of Aaron
succeeded him in the Levi cal priesthood, so the apostles succeeded Christ
in the priesthood according to Melchizedek because, as the Epistle to the
Hebrews explains (7:24), Christ has an ἀπαράβατον ἱερωσύνην, “a
priesthood that does not pass over to others.” Consequently, Christ did not
admit the apostles into the fellowship of this priesthood of His but placed
them in charge of His church as its teachers.
(6) Bellarmine adds: “Just as there were no true priests from Aaron un l
Christ except those who succeeded Aaron, so also there will not be any
true priests from the apostles un l the end of the world except those who
succeed the apostles.” If this means a doctrinal succession, we concede it.
If it means a local and personal succession, we deny it. The truth of the
apostolic doctrine is not bound to an external throne and a succession on
that throne. Rather, one who holds the doctrine of the apostles must be
judged to be a true successor of the apostles.
(7) In fact, because not even in the Old Testament was the truth and
integrity of Moses’ doctrine bound to the throne of the Aaronic
priesthood, it is even less true in the New Testament to say in regard to the
Roman throne and see that the truth and integrity of apostolic doctrine
depend only on them. The antecedent is obvious because the Levi cal
priests some mes followed idolatry. As a result, God also raised up
prophets, restorers and reformers of divine worship. Although they could
not boast of an external, local succession on the throne of Moses or Aaron,
nevertheless they were true teachers and true successors of Moses and
Aaron in the office of teaching.
(8) Therefore we conclude with the words of Lyra, on Ma hew 16: “The
church does not consist of people with regard to power or office, whether
ecclesias cal or secular, because many princes and chief priests and other
lesser people have been discovered to have fallen away from the faith. For
this reason, the church consists of those persons in whom there is the true
knowledge and the confession of faith and truth.”

Second, it does not befit the church alone

§ 191. (II) Whatever does not befit only the true church cannot be its
proper mark. Succession does not befit the true church alone. Therefore it
is not its proper mark. The minor premise can be proved with various
examples. At the me of Christ, the synagogue of the Jews had a
succession of priests that it could trace back to Aaron himself. Yet purity of
doctrine was not always ed to that succession. Nicephorus, Hist. eccles.,
bk. 2, ch. 4:
 Aaron was anointed the first high priest by his brother, Moses. So Aaron was first. Second
was Eleazar; third, Phinehas; fourth, Eliezer; fi h, Bochchi; sixth, Uzzah; seventh, Eli; eighth,
Achitob; ninth, Abimelech; tenth, Abiathar; eleventh, Zadoc. He was succeeded by
Achimaas. Thirteenth was Azariah. Joram followed him, and then came Jehoiada. In order
there then followed Axiora, Phadaeus, Sudaeus, Iculus. Twen eth was Joatham. He was
followed by Urias, Neri, Joas, Selam, Chelcias. A er these came Sorias, Josedech, and Jesus
the son of Josedech. Joachim succeeded him. Thir eth was Eliaseph. Then there were
Joachaz, John Jadaeus, Onias, Simon, Eleazar, Manasses, Onias, and Simon. For eth was
Onias, then Jesus and another Onias and Alcimus. A er him came Onias the son of Onias.
A er him the forty-fourth was Judas Maccabaeus of the sons of Asamonaeus. He was then
followed in order by his brother Jonathas and his brother Simon and by John, who was also
called Hircanus. Then came Aristobolus, Jannaeus, who also had the name Alexander.
Fi ieth was Hircanus; the fi y-first, An gonus; fi y-second, Anaelus; fi y-third, Aristobolus,
whom Herod subs tuted for Anaelus, who was rejected. He again restored Anaelus when
Aristobolus was slain. Jesus the son of Phabus succeeded Anaelus. Then Herod’s father-in-
law Simon became the priest. A er him came Ma hias, then Joseph, whom Jozar
succeeded. Six eth was Eleazar, who was followed in order by Jesus the son of Sea; Annas,
father-in-law of Caiaphas; Ishmael the son of Phabus; Eleazar the son of Annas; Simon the
son of Camythus. Sixty-seventh was Caiaphas, who was also called Joseph, under whom our
Lord died His saving death for us. He was followed by Jonathas the son of Annas, then his
brother Ma hias, and then Elinaeus, and another Joseph the son of Cama. He was
succeeded by Jesus the son of Gamaliel, and then Ma hias the son of Theophilus. Last of all
was Phinaeus, under whom the city, the temple, and the en re na on were captured by
Titus, and all the things of the temple and of the Law were completely destroyed, and
everything was brought to ruins.

Tell me, please, what can be demonstrated in the succession of the Roman
bishops that cannot be demonstrated in this succession of the Jewish high
priests? In fact, the succession of high priests in the Old Testament was
based upon a divine command and promise, neither of which can be
shown from the Scriptures with regard to the Roman succession. Therefore
just as various corrup ons, supers ons, and errors crept into the public
ministry of the church of Israel, especially in its la er days, despite that
succession of high priests [pon ficum], so also, despite the succession of
pon ffs [pon ficum], the same evils have crept into the Roman church,
especially in these la er days.
And lest Bellarmine be able to make the excep on that “the nature of
the Jewish synagogue is different than that of the Chris an church”
(though elsewhere he himself has been accustomed to argue from the
Israelite to the Chris an church), we point out that the succession in the
New Testament that reached all the way back to the apostles belongs to
other churches, too, besides the Roman church, which they boast is the
only true and catholic church. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, bk. 3, ch. 3, p.
170: “We have to list those whom the apostles established as bishops in
the churches and their successors un l us.” And a li le later: “It is
extremely long to list the successions of all the churches.” Nicephorus (Hist.
eccl., bk. 3, ch. 1), a er lis ng the successors of Peter in the Roman church,
adds:
In the church at Alexandria the first man to hold the episcopacy a er the evangelist Mark
was Anianus, a er whom came Abilius, who le it to his successor Cerdon. Evodius was the
first to govern the church at An och a er Peter and Luke. Igna us was second, and his
successor was Heros. James, the brother of the Lord, held the episcopacy at Jerusalem for
thirty years. Simon, son of Cleophas, succeeded James a er the destruc on of Jerusalem.
Third in order there was Justus. Also at this me Polycarp flourished at Smyrna in Asia Minor
and was made bishop by John himself.

See also Eusebius, Hist. ecclesias ca, bks. 3ff. From all this it is obvious that
the apostolic succession thrived not only in the Roman church but also in
other churches.
If Bellarmine wants to make the excep on that “the succession died out
in the other churches and endured only in the Roman church,” we bring
forth the Greek church, which traces the succession of its bishops to the
mes of the apostles. S ll enduring are those four patriarchates that
church history men ons: Constan nople, An och, Jerusalem, and
Alexandria. Of these, the patriarch of An och has his throne today in
Damascus, and the patriarch of Alexandria has been moved to Cairo, the
chief city of Egypt. The diocese of the patriarch of Constan nople extends
over the broadest territory of all. Nicephorus (Hist. eccles., bk. 8, ch. 6)
begins the list of bishops of Constan nople with “Andrew, the apostle of
Christ.” In more recent years, when Pope Gregory XIII tried to foist his
calendar as well as his domina on upon the Eastern Chris ans of Armenia,
they responded by le er on the advice that they had communicated with
the Eastern patriarchs that “we are not without a head, since we have
always had a Catholicos, an archbishop, from the me of Constan ne the
Great and King Tiridates un l this day.” Those who signed that le er were
Patriarch Jeremias of Constan nople, Sylvester of Alexandria, Joachim of
An och, and Gabriel of Jus niana Prima Archidarum. The le er was dated
November 8, 1582 (Indict. 10). Willetus (De ecclesia, q. 3, not. 3, p. 81)
men ons that authen c le ers of Patriarch Jeremias of Constan nople,
Mele us of Alexandria, Gabriel in the church of Thessalonica, etc., are
extant, wri en to the English churches, in which le ers they trace the
succession of their bishops from the apostles.
Bellarmine makes the excep on: (1) “The fathers did not call the church
of Constan nople ‘apostolic.’ ”
We respond. It is certain that many churches were founded by the
apostles in addi on to the Roman church. Among them was also the
church of Constan nople. Although those churches were not called
“apostolic,” nevertheless they really were apostolic. Baronius (Annal., vol.
1, AD 44, sect. 12) declares: “The apostle Peter was the first to give bishops
to the Byzan nes and to other places of the same province.” Baronius
confirms this from the le ers of Pope Agapetus. Hence one cannot deny
that the church of Constan nople is apostolic. Nicephorus teaches that it
was founded by the apostle Andrew (Hist. eccles., bk. 8, ch. 6). We cannot
prove with any suitable argument that he fabricated that succession, for he
notes carefully the years of each bishop and takes his list all the way to
Alexander, by whose requests Arius was removed. He counts twenty-three
bishops from Andrew to Alexander. Also, all the histories tes fy that that
province in which Byzan um was had been assigned to the apostle
Andrew. Then, too, Nicephorus himself (bk. 1, ch. 1) tes fies that he had
faithfully wri en down the history of the church of Constan nople from
“the trustworthy memorials of the ancients,” for he composed that volume
at Constan nople where there was an excellent library in the Temple of St.
Sophia, to which he had access.
(2) “The fathers of the First Council of Constan nople admit in a le er
to Damasus, the Roman pon ff, that that church is new.”
We respond. They did not at all intend to say that that church had
begun recently. Rather, previously, when it had been oppressed and almost
destroyed by the Macedonian here c, it was restored to its integrity with
the subs tu on of Nectarius. Therefore they call it “new.” The word in
Greek is νεοπαγής, because it was recently restored and renewed. But let
us grant that “the succession of bishops in the church of Constan nople
can be traced only from the me of Constan ne.” We ask whether the
church of Constan nople was true and orthodox. If this is conceded, as it
cannot be denied, the consequence will be that neither is anything
detrimental to our church, which does not have that external succession
from the apostles, but that it is enough that with regard to doctrine it have
fellowship with the catholic and apostolic church.
(3) “The argument from succession is used especially to prove that
there is no church where there is no succession. Yet from this one cannot
necessarily conclude that the church is there where a succession is.”
We respond. Drawing both affirma ve and nega ve conclusions from
something corresponds to a true and proper mark. You see, once what is
proper to something is posited, the thing itself, to which it is proper, is also
posited. So also once what is proper to something is removed, the thing
itself, to which it is proper, is also removed. But if one cannot draw an
affirma ve conclusion from succession to the verity of the church, then
surely succession must not be a proper mark of the church.
Moreover, Bellarmine contradicts Costerus, Lessius, and other Papist
writers who do draw an affirma ve argument from succession. He is
especially contradic ng Baronius (Annal., vol. 1, AD 30, sect. 52), who says
that succession has great strength “because, on the judgment of any
person who has reason, one may consider it certain and sure that a
legi mate temple—I say, the catholic church herself—is in that place
where the succession of pon ffs has been legi mately preserved from its
beginning.” In fact, Bellarmine even contradicts himself, for those
tes monies that he cites from the fathers in favor of succession draw an
affirma ve conclusion.
(4) “That the church is not among the Greeks is proved not from their
lack of succession but from the fact that three councils—of the Lateran, of
Lyon, and of Florence—have said so.”
We respond. Although the Greek church is not without its errors, yet it
is purer than the Roman church, as is clear from what has been said
previously [§ 179]. There is an explana on elsewhere on what should be
thought about those papal councils. Furthermore, if one cannot conclude
anything against the Greek church from its lack of succession, then neither
can anyone conclude anything against our church on the basis of the same
principle. If Bellarmine says that we were condemned in the Council of
Trent, we send him back to that excellent book that explains the reasons
for rejec ng the Council of Trent, the book published in 1584 by the
noblemen of the empire who are devoted to the Augsburg Confession,
against which book even the gates of hell do not prevail.
 (5) “Over long periods of me those patriarchal churches had obvious
here cs and, therefore, the succession of the ancient pastors was
interrupted.”
We respond. We are ready to prove the very same thing about the
Roman popes. Zephyrinus was a Montanist; Marcellinus, an idolater;
Liberius, an Arian; Vigilius, a Eutychian; Honorius, a Monothelite; etc. The
histories tell us, and Hotomanus in his Brutum fulmen reveals in detail,
what sort of people the popes of more recent mes have been.

Third, without doctrinal succession, it is not good for anything

§ 192. (III) Where the doctrinal succession is not present, there the local
succession is of no importance. Yet there can be a local succession such
that there the doctrinal succession is not connected with it. Therefore that
local succession which lacks the doctrinal succession will then be of no
importance and, as a consequence, it is not a mark of the church. We
prove the first of the premises from this founda on: The true church
cannot be one that does not have the true, apostolic doctrine, since it is
what might be called the “soul” of the church. Therefore local succession is
not good for anything unless it has true doctrine connected to it. Some of
our adversaries themselves acknowledge this, as will become clear later [§
193].
The la er of the premises is confirmed: (1) By the predic ons of the
apostles. In Acts 20:29–30 Paul addresses the elders of the church at
Ephesus in this way: “I know that a er my departure fierce wolves will
come in among you, not sparing the flock, and from your own selves will
arise men speaking perverse things to draw away the disciples a er them.”
Here we have a clear prophecy that in the church at Ephesus false prophets
and wicked misleaders would succeed the orthodox bishops, and the
outcome proved this later. 1 Tim. [4]:1–3: “In the last mes some will
depart from the faith by giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of
demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy … who forbid marriage and who abstain
from foods,” etc. Here the word κωλυόντων [“forbid”] shows that those
false teachers will introduce celibacy and the dis nc on of foods into the
church with some degree of power and authority. From this we understand
that their successors will be people who will have authority and power in
the church. 2 Pet. 2:1: “But there were also false prophets among the
people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will bring in
sects of perdi on.” Just as the priests who had the ordinary succession and
sat on the throne of Aaron among the Israelites o en degenerated into
false prophets, so also the apostle foretells that the same thing is to be
feared in the New Testament. The prophecy concerning the An christ (2
Thess. 2:4) especially belongs here: that he will sit “in the temple of God.”
That is, he will usurp for himself the domina on in the church on the
pretext of succession from the apostles.
(2) By the examples of the histories. In the church that Peter planted at
An och, the orthodox bishops were succeeded by the heresiarch Paul of
Samosata; Peter Gnaphaeus, a Eutychian; Macarius, a Monothelite; etc. In
the church at Alexandria planted by the apostles and, as the ancients hand
down to us, by Mark, their successors were Georgius and Lucius, Arians;
Diascorus, a Eutychian; Cyrus, a Monothelite; etc. In the church at
Constan nople, Andrew’s successors were the heresiarchs Macedonius,
Nestorius, and Eutyches. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eustathius, and other
Arian bishops had the succession of places and sees a er the apostles. We
shall show later what sort of bishops succeeded in the church that Peter
and Paul founded at Rome [§ 197]. Vincent of Lérins, Adv. haeres., ch. 34:
“The old stream of foulness has flowed in a constant, secret succession
from Simon Magus to the most recent Priscillian.” Bellarmine himself
acknowledges that “the heresiarchs have almost all been either bishops or
presbyters” (De Rom. pon fic., bk. 1, ch. 8). “But those are not true bishops
unless they have the succession from the apostles,” as he argues in this
chapter. Therefore those who have the succession from the apostles can
become heresiarchs. From all of this it is quite clear that local succession
can be separated from doctrinal succession. Consequently, we can by no
means draw an argument from local succession to the verity of the church,
which cannot exist without doctrinal succession.
§ 193. The devout ancients confirm the same point. They a ribute
nothing to a bare personal and local succession that lacks purity of
doctrine. Irenaeus, Adv. haer., bk. 4, ch. 43, p. 277:
We must obey those presbyters who are in the church; those who have the succession from
the apostles; those who, as we have shown, received along with the succession of
episcopacy the certain gi of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. On the
 other hand, we must consider suspect all the rest, who depart from the principal succession
and are gathered in any place at all. We should hold them either as here cal people of an
evil opinion or as schisma cs, puffed up people who please themselves, or again as
hypocrites, doing this for the sake of profit and vainglory. All these fall away from the truth.
And the here cs, offering a strange fire at the altar of God, that is, strange doctrines, will be
burned with heavenly fire, just like Nadab and Abihu.

(Here Irenaeus acknowledges only those as true successors of the apostles

who have received, along with the succession of the episcopacy, the
certain gi of truth. He also teaches that those people who teach a new
and corrupt doctrine depart from the principal succession, just as Nadab
and Abihu indeed were successors of Aaron, but because they were
offering a strange fire, they were consumed by the fire of God’s wrath.) In
the same book, ch. 44, p. 278: “It is necessary to follow those who guard
the doctrine of the apostles and who, with the order of the presbytery,
provide sound speech and behavior without offense.”
Tertullian, De praescript. adv. haeres.:
Even if here cs fabricate such a succession of bishops, their very doctrine, when compared
with apostolic doctrine, will declare from its diversity and quan ty that it does not belong to
any apostle as its author, nor to any apostolic man. This is because, just as the apostles did
not teach different things among themselves, so also apostolic men did not publish wri ngs
contrary to the apostles, except those people who revolted from the apostles and preached
in a different manner.

Finally, he concludes: “We must consider the adultera on of Scripture and

of its exposi on to be located where a diversity of doctrine is found.” (We
say the same thing about papal dogmas, because a comparison of them
with apostolic doctrine reveals that they do not come from any apostle or
apostolic man.) Page 102: “Those churches are the offshoots of apostolic
churches. They preserve the handing down of faith and the seeds of
doctrine.” Page 107: “Although some churches do not men on an apostle
or apostolic man as their founder, as being much more recent, yet being
unanimous in the same faith, they are considered no less apostolic on
account of kinship of doctrine.” Ibid.: “If a bishop, if a deacon, if a widow, if
a virgin, if a doctor, or even if a martyr has fallen away from the rule, will
heresies, for that reason, seem to have the truth? Do we prove the faith on
the basis of persons, or the persons on the basis of the faith?” (The Papists
try to prove the faith on the basis of persons, namely, on the basis of a
personal succession of bishops, but we say that the persons must be
proved on the basis of their faith.)
Bishop Claudius Taurinensis: “I say that that person is apostolic not who
holds the throne of the apostles, but rather who embraces the office and
doctrine of the apostles. A er all, Pharisees, scribes, and all kinds of
wicked hypocrites occupied the throne of Moses, the best prophet, though
they did not at all teach the true commandments of Moses from that
place.”
Epiphanius, Haeres. 55: “The succession of doctrine is to be sought, not
the succession of persons.”
Nazianzen, Orat. de laud. Athanasii, vol. 2, p. 502, writes: “Athanasius
succeeded Mark and was selected by the approval of all the people.” Then
he adds: “He had a greater succession of piety and faith than of place and
dignity because he was not the immediate successor of Mark, if we
consider place, but came a er a long interval of me. If we consider faith,
however, he was his immediate successor, and this, only, is the true
succession.” These are his words:
οὐχ ἧττον τῆς εὐσεβείας ἢ προεδρίας αὐτοῦ διάδοχος· τῇ μὲν γὰρ πολλοστὸς ἀπʼ
ἐκείνου, τῇ δὲ εὐθὺς μετʼ ἐκείνου εὑρίσκεται, ἣν δὴ καὶ κυρίως ὑποληπτέον διαδοχὴν,
τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὁμόγνωμον καὶ ὁμόθρονον, τὸ δὲ ἀντίδοξον καὶ ἀντίθρονον, καὶ ἡ μὲν
προσηγορίαν, ἡ δὲ ἀλήθειαν ἔχει διαδοχῆς. [That is,] he was a successor no less of piety
than of the primary chair. If you consider the la er, he will be very far away from him. If you
have regard to the former, he will be found right next to him. This is what must properly be
considered the succession, for the man who professes the same doctrine of faith is also a
sharer of the same throne. The man who embraces a contrary faith ought to be considered
an adversary on the throne. Yet the la er has the tle of succession, while the former has
the reality and truth of succession, etc.

“We should not consider him a successor who breaks in by force, but him
who has endured such force; nor should we consider him a successor who
defends a contrary opinion, but him who is of the same opinion, unless
perhaps he is called a ‘successor’ in the same way as we say that illness
succeeds health, darkness succeeds light, storms succeed tranquility, and
madness succeeds wisdom.”
Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 5, ch. 6) lists the succession of the bishops of
Rome but adds clearly: “They kept the form of apostolic preaching and
protected unharmed and uninjured the same preaching of the divine faith
that the apostles handed down.”
 Ambrose, De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 6, vol. 1, p. 156: “Those who do not have
the faith of Peter do not have the inheritance of Peter.”
Jerome, Le er 1 ad Heliodor.: “It is not easy to stand in the place of
Peter and Paul and to hold the throne of those who rule with Christ,
because it is said concerning this: ‘The sons of the saints are not those who
hold the places of the saints, but those who do their works.’ ”
Chrysostom, or the author of the Opus imperf., homily 43 on Ma hew
23: “The throne does not make the priest, but the priest makes the throne.
The place does not sanc fy the man; but the man, the place. He who sits
well upon his throne will receive honor from it. He who sits badly does
harm to the throne. A bad priest gets accusa on, not dignity, from his
priesthood.”
Augus ne, De unit. ecclesiae, ch. 4: “Those who disagree with the Holy
Scriptures, even though they be found in all places where the church is
designated, are not of the church.” Chapter 16: “We do not wish to prove
our church from the succession of bishops nor from the authority of
councils nor from the frequency of miracles nor from dreams and visions.
All such things that happen in the catholic church must be proved for this
reason, because they happen in her; they do not, therefore, prove her. The
Lord Jesus Himself, when He rose from the dead, sent His disciples back to
the Scriptures of the Law and the prophets.” On John, tractate 46: “You
must listen to those who are seated upon the throne, for by si ng upon
the throne they are teaching the Law of God. Therefore God teaches
through them. But if they are teaching their own things, do not listen, do
not do.”

The confession of our adversaries

In the last place, the tes monies of our adversaries themselves are
added. In [Ius canonicum,] dist. 40, c. mul , the passage of Chrysostom is
cited: “There are many priests, and there are few priests; many in name,
few in work. Therefore take note how you sit upon the throne, because the
throne does not make the priest; but the priest, the throne.” In the same
dist., c. non est facile, Jerome’s passage is quoted: “The sons of the saints
are not those who hold the places of the saints, but those who do their
works.”
 Stapleton, Relect. princ. fid., contr. 1, de eccles., q. 4, art. 2,
acknowledges: “There is no true succession without true doctrine.”
Bellarmine, De no s eccl., bk. 4, ch. 8: “I say, the argument from
succession is used by us especially to prove that there is no church where
this succession is lacking, which, indeed, is evident. Yet from this one
cannot necessarily conclude that the church is there where a succession
is.” (If succession does not prove the true church, then it cannot be a
proper mark of the church, because it is correct to draw conclusions from a
mark to the thing marked.)
** Reihingius, Exc. cont. Meisnerum, p. 16: “The Greek church has a
succession, if you consider the power of order; we do not deny it. But it
certainly does not have a preaching of the same doctrine in common with
its forefathers and drawn from them. Yet this succession is of the greatest
importance for demonstra ng the true church.” (Therefore he is admi ng
that an external and local succession without a succession of doctrine
common with its forefathers proves nothing.) **

Bellarmine’s arguments for succession from statements of the

ancients
§ 194. How does Bellarmine prove that succession is a mark of the
church? He appeals “to the authority of the fathers who used succession as
a very clear argument to show the true church.”
We respond. (1) In ar cles of faith, necessary conclusions are drawn
only from the canonical Scriptures. From the fathers, only probable
conclusions are drawn, as Thomas Aquinas states correctly ([ST,] part 1, q.
1, art. 8).
(2) The fathers connect the succession of faith and doctrine with local
and personal succession. They teach that the la er without the former is of
no importance, as we have shown earlier [§ 193].
(3) When they men on succession, they cite it not as a firm and
conclusive argument but as an illustra on for the argument, not as proof
but as an accidental ornament, not in the ba le nor in the war but a er
the ba le, as in triumph. First, they refute the here cs and strengthen
their own case with firm and solid arguments taken from Scripture; only
then do they cite the succession of bishops, because the bishops received
this faith from the apostles and spread it with an unbroken series of
successors.
(4) The condi on of those churches, to whose succession the fathers
appeal, is far different today from what it once was. At that me they were
s ll preserving unharmed “the transmission of the faith and the deposit of
doctrine” (as Jerome writes to Bishop Damasus of Rome: “You hold both
the faith and throne of Peter,” as reported in Decr., part 2, causa 24, q. 1, c.
14). Today, however, those churches have gone far away from the integrity
and purity of apostolic doctrine, as the comparison of their doctrine with
the apostolic wri ngs shows.
(5) The fathers use this argument against those here cs who either
were denying or corrup ng the Scriptures, or who were saying that the
apostles privately and separately taught just as they themselves were
teaching, or who were pawning off the apocryphal wri ngs as canonical.
Therefore they had to have recourse to the succession of bishops in the
churches that the apostles planted and to demonstrate against the here cs
what Scripture the apostles handed down to the churches, what faith and
doctrine they commended to their successors, etc.
(6) The ancients appeal especially to the succession of bishops in the
Roman church, but they did not do this with this inten on and purpose: as
if they were acknowledging only that church as having been established by
the apostles, or as if they were claiming that the apostolic doctrine had
been preserved in it alone, or as if they were a ribu ng to it a monarchic
dominion over all the other churches. Rather, they did it: because in the
first centuries that church was best known, most renowned, and most
highly regarded; because of the dignity and preeminence of that city in
which was, to be sure, the throne of the empire; because of the presence
of Peter and Paul, who, they believed, taught and suffered punishment
there; because of the great number of its martyrs; because of the virtue
and steadfastness of its first bishops. When heresies began to be powerful
in many places of the East and were upse ng the flourishing churches of
Alexandria, Constan nople, An och, etc., the Roman church was less
disturbed and was more steadfast in protec ng orthodoxy. Irenaeus says,
Adv. Haeres., bk. 3, ch. 3: “It would be too long to enumerate the
successions of all the churches. For this reason I will make known the faith
of the Roman church—which is greatest, oldest, and known to all—a faith
that they have from the apostles and that comes down through the
succession of bishops.” Rhenanus, in the preface to Tertullian’s De
praescript.:
To be sure, in this book (De praescript.) Tertullian teaches that there is some one church
from which the rest come, but he a aches to it no place. Although he adorns the Roman
church with an honorable u erance of praise, yet he does not make as much of it as we see
being made today, for he lists it among the apostolic churches without making it alone
apostolic. That is, he does this summarily and does not make it the highest, as we see from
[bk.] 4 of his Adv. Marcion. He says, “Let us see what milk the Corinthians have drunk from
Paul.”

(7) From these it is readily apparent what we must respond to this

argument of Bellarmine: “If the ancients made the con nua on of ten,
twenty, forty popes to be of such importance for revealing the true church,
how important must we make the con nua on of two hundred popes and
more?” We respond. The fathers are not at all drawing their argument
from the bare local and personal succession, but rather connect with it the
succession of faith, doctrine, and religion. Let the Romanists prove that
they confess the same doctrine as the apostles, just as those early bishops
of the Roman church remained in it. Only then will an argument drawn
from succession be of some strength and weight.

First, Irenaeus
§ 195. All of this will become clearer from a specific examina on of the
tes monies that Bellarmine has cited. (I) “Irenaeus (bk. 2, ch. 3) lists the
Roman bishops from Peter to Eleutherius, who was the bishop at his me,
and says that through this succession all the here cs were confounded.”
We respond. There he is refu ng some here cs who were saying that
Christ handed down to His apostles some secret tradi ons, that the
apostles did not teach all things to all people but reserved some of the
more secret mysteries for perfect and worthy men, just as today the
Papists fight for apostolic tradi ons outside of Scripture. Against those
here cs Irenaeus urges this: that if the apostles had handed down some
secret mysteries, they undoubtedly would have handed them down to
those men to whom they handed down their churches. But now, he proves
that the apostles by no means handed down any such thing to their
successors from the fact that none of this corresponds to the bishops of
the Roman church. For this reason he lists the bishops from Peter to
Eleutherius. What sort of succession Irenaeus recommends can be
understood from his statements cited above [§ 193]. Actually, he is praising
not a local and external succession but a doctrinal and internal one.
Consequently, he adds at that very place: “We are declaring the faith that
the apostles announced and that reaches us through the succession of
bishops. Thereby we confound all those who in any way conclude beyond
what they should, either through evil self-sa sfac on, or vainglory, or
through blindness and a wicked opinion.” Later he adds: “By this ordina on
and succession, the tradi on that is from the apostles in the church and
the preaching of the truth has come down to us.”

Second, Tertullian
(II) Tertullian, De praescript. adv. haeres.: “Let the here cs give up the
origin of their churches. Let them unroll the order of their bishops in such a
way that, through a succession that starts at the beginning, that first
bishop had as his author and successor one of the apostles or apostolic
men. For this is how the church of the Romans reports that Clement was
ordained by Peter.”
We respond. It is obvious from his statements, cited earlier [§ 193], that
Tertullian connects truth of doctrine with succession and recommends not
so much a succession of place as a succession of faith. There he introduces
the church, who speaks as follows: “I am the heir of the apostles. Just as
they were careful about their testament, just as they commi ed it to faith,
just as they swore, so do I hold.” In the same place he says, “When the
doctrine of here cs is compared with apostolic doctrine, it declares by
virtue of its difference and contrariness that its author is not an apostle or
apostolic man.” He does not plant his foot on a local succession alone, but
he has recourse to the doctrine that Christ handed down to the apostles.
He says, “One must walk according to that rule which the church handed
down from the apostles, which the apostles handed down from Christ,
which Christ handed down from God.” For this reason he also says, “One
must have recourse to the churches that echo the voice of the apostles.”
Ibid.: “We have fellowship with the apostolic churches because none of the
doctrine, that is, the tes mony of the truth, is different.” As for personal
and local succession, with regard to it he makes no dis nc on between the
Roman church and the one at Smyrna. He says: “The apostolic churches
present their lists in the same way as the church of the Smyrnaeans, which
reports that Polycarp was placed in office by John, just as the church of the
Romans declares that Clement was ordained by Peter.” In the same book
he teaches that “the faith is not to be proved on the basis of persons, but
the person on the basis of the faith.” All of these points are opposed to
Bellarmine as greatly as possible.

Third, Epiphanius
(III) In Haeres. 27, Epiphanius lists all the bishops of Rome up to
Anicetus and adds: “One should not be surprised that we list each point so
carefully, for through these is clarity always revealed.”
We respond. He is speaking there about the here cal woman
Marcellina, who had propagated the heresy of Carpocrates at Rome. He is
explaining at what me she came to Rome, on which occasion he lists all
the bishops of that church who were from the beginning all the way to
Anicetus, so that the clarity of history might shine forth. Nowhere,
however, does he declare that a bare local and external succession is the
guardian of true doctrine and a mark of the true church. In the same place
he adds: “Paul was a bishop of the Roman church no less than Peter.” This
is something of which our adversaries do not approve.

Fourth, Optatus of Milevis

(IV) In Contra Parmenianum, bk. 2, Optatus of Milevis lists all the
bishops of Rome from Peter to Siricius and shows that the church was not
among the Dona sts, who were unable to go back to the apostles through
a similar succession. He adds: “Show the origin of your episcopal throne,
you who want to claim the holy church for yourselves.”
We respond. It was the opinion of the Dona sts that the church had
perished in all the world and that it survived nowhere except among them.
Therefore Optatus is correct in requiring them to reveal the origin of their
bishop’s throne. Furthermore, the Dona sts were not a acking the
doctrine but only the behavior of the catholics. Our case is much different,
however, from the opinion of the Dona sts, for we do not say that the
church has perished from all the earth nor that ours is a new church.
Furthermore, we are not censuring the corrup ons of life and behavior in
the Roman popes as much as the corrup on of doctrine.

Fi h, Augus ne
(V) In Le er 165, Augus ne lists for the same purpose the Roman popes
from Peter to Anastasius.
We respond. He is drawing his argument not from a bare local and
external succession but joins to it the succession of faith that was s ll
uninjured in the Roman church. In the same le er he writes: “Even if any
traitor had crept in through those mes, it would not do away with the
church and innocent Chris ans, to whom the Lord, foreseeing, says in
regard to wicked leaders: ‘Do what they say. Do not do what they do. For
they speak but do not do.’ In this way the believer’s hope remains certain,
for it is placed not in man but in God and is never lost in me of a
sacrilegious schism.” He also adds clearly: “… though we are confident not
so much about those documents as about the Scriptures.” Therefore he is
acknowledging that an argument from succession is secondary and has no
strength unless the truth of faith is demonstrated from the Scriptures.
The second tes mony that Bellarmine takes from Augus ne is found in
his Psalmus contra partem Dona : “Count the priests from the very seat of
Peter, and in that list of fathers see who succeeded whom. For that is the
rock against which the proud gates of hell do not prevail.”
We respond. The rock about which Christ is speaking is not a local and
personal succession, but the true succession of faith and doctrine that
those bishops s ll retained. The gates of hell can prevail against an
external, local succession and already have done so quite o en, but they
cannot prevail against the succession of faith and doctrine. Augus ne
explained his inten on very clearly in Sermon 13 de verb. Domini and in
Retractat., bk. 1, ch. 21:
Petra [“rock”] is the principal noun. Therefore Peter comes from petra, not petra from Peter,
as Christ is not named from the Chris an but the Chris an from Christ. He says, therefore:
“You are Peter, and upon this rock that you have confessed, upon this rock that you
recognized when you said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ upon this rock I will
build My church. I will build you upon Me; I will not build Myself upon you.” When people
 wanted to build upon men, they said, “I belong to Paul,” “I belong to Cephas,” etc. And the
others who were unwilling to be built upon Peter but upon the rock were saying, “I belong
to Christ.”

The third tes mony that Bellarmine cites from Augus ne has been
taken from his book Contra epist. Fundamen , ch. 4: “A succession of
priests keeps me in the church—from the very throne of the apostle Peter,
to whom the Lord entrusted His sheep, to feed them, up to the present
episcopate.”
We respond. Augus ne cites that succession not as a firm and
conclusive argument or as a primary founda on of faith but as a
persuasion to prepare and a ract the minds of the Dona sts. You see, he
adds explicitly: “If our adversaries can demonstrate that the truth of
doctrine is with them, then I am willing to reject all those things and go
over to their side.” Thus as he argues against them (De unit. eccles., ch. 16),
he writes that he is willing to prove the church not on the basis of either a
succession of bishops or the authority of councils, but on the basis of the
canonical Scriptures. Let our adversaries do the same thing, and we will
venerate that succession in humility.

Whether apostolic succession thrives in the Roman church

§ 196. The second sec on. Does apostolic succession thrive in the
Roman church? “There is no true succession without true doctrine,” writes
Stapleton in the work we recently quoted [§ 193]. So also we say that there
is no truly apostolic succession without apostolic doctrine, which, indeed,
is what might be called the “soul” of succession. But now, the Roman
popes have made a secession from apostolic doctrine, as we are ready to
prove clearly from the wri ngs of the apostles. Therefore they do not have
the truly apostolic succession. Hence, even if they demonstrate a local and
personal succession from the apostles, they s ll are not true successors of
the apostles, because they reject their doctrine and fight with all their
might for new dogmas that were totally unknown to the apostles, such as
equa ng human tradi ons with the wri en Word of God, the merits of
works, one’s own sa sfac ons, indulgences, purgatory, the Mass for the
dead, and many others.
Bellarmine makes the excep on:
 Admi edly, it is doub ul where true faith is, yet we are very sure that it is among us.
Nonetheless, Catholic bishops who have held their posi ons peacefully for so many
centuries cannot be deprived of them unless they are lawfully judged and condemned. You
see, in every controversy the posi on of the possessor is be er. But it is evident that
Catholic bishops have been condemned in no lawful judgment. For who else besides
Lutherans have accused them? But Lutherans are accusers, not judges, for who has
established them as our judges?

We respond. Caiaphas and his company could have made precisely the
same objec on to Christ and the apostles. “For so many centuries we have
possessed peacefully the throne of Moses. Therefore we cannot be
deprived of it unless we are legi mately judged and condemned, for in
every controversy the condi on of the possessor is be er. But it is evident
that we have been condemned in no legi mate court, for who has
condemned us except Christ and the apostles? But they are accusers, not
judges, for who has established them as our judges?” However, just as
Christ and the apostles, having ignored that empty and decep ve evasion,
reproved the errors of the Pharisees, scribes, and priests from the Word of
God and proved that they did not have that true succession which includes
the purity of Mosaic and prophe c doctrine, so also we, disregarding
Bellarmine’s a empt to escape, reprove the errors of the Papists from the
Word of God and prove that they do not have the true succession which
refers to the integrity of the apostles’ doctrine. In divine ma ers
prescrip on is not valid, and “space of me, the support of persons, or the
privilege of regions cannot raise a prior objec on [praescribere] against the
truth,” as Tertullian says (beginning of De veland. virg.). By divine right he
who supports here cal doctrines ceases to be a true bishop, though he
may actually s ll be occupying the episcopal throne. Hosea 4:6: “Because
you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to Me.”
In fact, as far as ecclesias cal and poli cal law is concerned,
Wesenbecius teaches (Parat., C. de haeret.) that “first a denuncia on has
to be made against whoever will have to suffer the punishments that are
rightly imposed on here cs.” (See Gazoros, Vers. ad mandat. eccl., C. de
haeret., c. qui dignior, 24, q. 3; c. qualiter; c. super his de accusat.; c. ut
commissi, § 1; De haeret., in 6). Next is required the accusa on (C. de
haeret., bk. 4) or inquisi on (Cons t. de haeret., can. 8–17). Also, in these
ma ers, he says, one must observe the substan al parts of lawful
examina on. Those substan al parts include the cita on of the party (c.
ult. eod. in 6, bk. 4, C. de apost.), a suitable examina on of the case (Clem.
pastor de re judic.), the declaratory sentence (c. ut commissi, 12, De
haeret., in 6), etc. However, all of these things point only to the fact that
whoever is declared a here c in the poli cal and ecclesias cal courts is
subject to the civil and ecclesias cal punishments appointed for these
banes of men. But in the divine court, they do not judge anything
beforehand. This is because before God he is a here c who embraces and
propagates false doctrine against the founda on of faith, even if the en re
world not only does not consider him a here c but even venerates him as
Peter’s successor. Consequently, even some Papist writers correctly argue
that “if the Roman pope falls into heresy, he ceases being pope by the law
itself” (Turrecremata, bk. 4, part 2, ch. 20; Cajetan, De auctor. pap., ch. 20;
Bellarmine, De pont. Rom., bk. 2, ch. 30, opin. 5).
Furthermore, if we cannot and should not pass judgment on the
doctrine of Papist bishops because we are their accusers, the consequence
will be that the Papist bishops at the Council of Trent should not have
passed judgment on our doctrine also, because they, too, are accusers. But
far be it from us to refuse to let a lawful judgment be passed about our
doctrine on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. When the Papist bishops
evade such a judgment, they reveal that they have doubts about their
cause and also establish themselves as guilty, not at all bearing the scorn of
anyone in the church. Christ, whose “vicar” the Roman pon ff wishes to be
called, not only permi ed but even commanded judgment to be passed
over His doctrine on the basis of the Scriptures (John 5:39; 7:17). Peter,
whose “successor” the Roman pon ff wishes to be called, allowed the
faithful to require an explana on of his ac on (Acts 11:2ff.) and allowed
Paul to rebuke him (Gal. 2:14). When Paul writes to the Corinthians, he
allows them to pass judgment about his doctrine. 1 Cor. 10:15: “I speak as
to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say.” 1 Cor. 11:13: “Judge for
yourselves whether it is proper for a woman to pray with her head
uncovered.” With the complete approval of the apostles, the Bereans
judged their doctrine and “examined the Scriptures daily to see if these
things were so” (Acts 17:11). In fact, the apostle declares in general: “The
spiritual man judges all things” (1 Cor. 2:15). Hence we shall by no means
allow the judgment of the doctrine of Papist bishops, which has not only
been allowed but even commanded to all the faithful by divine right, to be
taken away from us by the prescrip on of a long dura on of me, by the
use of domina on long exercised over the church, and by the opposi on of
contrary custom.
Emperors and other devout confessors have quite o en spoken against
pon fical domina on. Therefore the popes do not have a quiet and
peaceful succession. Papal primacy conflicts with divine law; therefore the
popes are not possessors in good faith [bonae fidei possessores]. Whatever
there may be, therefore, about a local and personal succession, since we
perceive from the Holy Scriptures that the Roman pon ffs made a
secession from apostolic doctrine in many chief parts of heavenly doctrine,
we s ll deny that they are true successors of the apostles. As a result,
Christophorus Agricola writes, Contra Pistorium, p. 8: “As o en as you
name it ‘succession,’ so o en do I declare with sanc ty that you are saying
‘secession.’ ” Also Nicolaus Vignierius, Apol. pro Vene s contra papam,
applies to this the fact that today’s Roman pon ffs may be rightly
compared with Vibius Rufus, about whom Xiphilinus reports in Vita Dionis:
“As he sat on the throne of Julius Caesar, he boasted that he was Caesar
because of that throne.” We may also compare them with Emperor Julian,
who imagined that by a succession the soul of Alexander the Great had
migrated into him. Such a comparison is possible because those popes
suffer from the same madness, boast that because of Peter’s throne they
are the monarchs of the church, and have convinced themselves that by
some law of “succession” the soul of Peter lives within them.

Whether there is local succession in the Roman church

§ 197. Not even local and personal succession in the Roman church
holds its ground: (I) because it is doub ul and uncertain both with regard
to its origin as well as with regard to its con nua on. They trace the origin
of that greatly proclaimed succession back to the apostle Peter, who, they
claim, set up the papal throne at Rome and who presided on it for twenty-
five years. However, that is vigorously denied and refuted with various
arguments by Ulricus Velenus (who gives eighteen a empts to persuade
people to reject this topic, whose book you should see in Flacius, Refut.
invect. Bruni, p. 98), Aven nus (who refutes that lie with seven arguments,
Annal., bk. 2, f. 179), Sebas an Franck (who a acks it in great detail,
Chron., f. 258), Carolus Molinaeus (Orat. Tubing. habita), Georg Nigrinus
(Vit. pon ficum)—not to men on Johannes Celander Mantuanus, Michael
Cesenas, Marsilius Patavinus, and others who go on to deny this.
As to the me when Peter arrived at Rome, the notes of the ancients
and of more recent writers are completely confused. Origen (vol. 3, on
Genesis) and Eusebius (bk. 3, ch. 1) teach: “Peter came to Rome toward
the end of his life.” This seems to fit most easily with the account of Acts
but very strongly conflicts with an episcopate of twenty-five years.
Bellarmine says, De pon fic., bk. 2, ch. 6: “Peter did not depart from Judea
earlier than five years a er the resurrec on.” He adds: “He set out for
An och a er that five-year period had elapsed.” However, Onuphrius
claims: “He did not leave Judea earlier than nine years a er the
resurrec on,” and adds: “A er those nine years he went to Rome.”
Bellarmine makes this claim: “Peter remained in Judea for five years and
resided at An och for seven years. Then, twelve years a er Christ’s
resurrec on, he came to Rome.” However, Onuphrius claims: “He came to
Rome at the beginning of the tenth year a er Christ’s resurrec on.” The
Passionale says: “He came to Rome the year a er that of Christ.” Damasus
teaches in the Pon fical.: “Peter entered the city of Rome when Nero was
the Caesar.” How, then, could he have ruled the papal see for twenty-five
years, seeing that Nero, under whom almost all historians claim Peter
suffered martyrdom, ruled for only fourteen years? You will find more
about this en re subject elsewhere, for clear tes monies can be drawn
from Holy Scripture—especially from the account of the Acts and from the
Pauline Epistles—against the fic on of that twenty-five-year Petrine
episcopate.
Just as the origin is uncertain, so also the con nua on of the papal
succession is uncertain. Tertullian (De praescript. adv. haer.) puts Clement
a er Peter. Jerome (on Isaiah 25) does the same thing; and this opinion is
accepted in the decrees of the Ius canonicum. However, Optatus of Milevis
(Adv. Parmenian., bk. 2) places Linus a er Peter and makes Clement third.
Augus ne (Le er 165) makes the same claim. On the other hand, Irenaeus
(bk. 3, ch. 3) puts Linus a er Peter, and then Cletus a er Linus, and makes
Clement fourth. The same thing is done by Eusebius (Chron.), Epiphanius
(Haeres. 27), and Jerome (De viris illustr., on Clement).
 Different people say different things. Bartolomeo de Caranza
consequently writes (Summ. conc., published at Paris in 1564, p. 13): “In so
confused a situa on I surrender judgment to the choice of the reader.”
Bellarmine (De pon fic., bk. 2, ch. 5) cannot deny “the lack of agreement of
witnesses” about the succession of the bishops of Rome. In regard to this
disagreement of the ancient and more recent writers, you should certainly
see Urspergensis (Historia de successione Rom. pon fic., in Flacius, Mend.
Papist., cent. 1, p. 32) and Polanus (Symph. cathol., ch. 18, thesis 63, p.
665).
(II) That succession was quite o en interrupted, first, through a calling of
long dura on. According to Pla na, a er John III, the Roman see was
vacant for ten months and three days; a er Pelagius II, six months and
twenty-eight days; a er Gregory, five months and nineteen days; a er
Fabian, eleven months and twenty-six days; a er Boniface III, six months
and twenty-five days; a er Severinus, four months and twenty-nine days;
a er Mar n I, fourteen months; a er Vitalianus, four months and fi een
days; a er Paul, one year and one month; a er Nicholas I, eight years,
seven months, and nine days; etc. How o en two or three an popes
contended with each other over this throne like hungry vultures over prey!
Second, [that succession was quite o en interrupted] by disagreements
of an popes; from the histories one can list twenty-eight schisms that
occurred in the Roman see. Among these the most serious was the twenty-
seventh schism, which lasted more than thirty years between Urban VI and
Clement VI. (In regard to these, see the Isagoge chronologica of
Reusnerus.) “But now, a doub ul and uncertain pope is considered as no
pope,” Bellarmine himself admits (De pon f., bk. 4, ch. 8). And [Ius
canonicum] also states that schisma cs have no rights in the church (24, c.
didicimus, q. 1). It would take too long to compose the history of these
schisms, so we refer the reader to Onuphrius, Pla na, Robert Barnes,
Balaeus, Szegedinus, Nigrinus, and others who have wri en the history of
the Roman pon ffs. The Council of Basel declared Eugenius a schisma c,
yet he s ll held that throne, and from him the rest of the popes have come
down un l today. They are all successors of that schisma c; according to
their own canons, therefore, they have no rights in the church.
Third, [that succession was quite o en interrupted] by a here cal
departure from the true faith. Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 8) writes
clearly: “In the Greek patriarchal churches, the succession was interrupted
because for a long me they had bishops who were manifest here cs.” Yet
we can prove the same thing with complete truth regarding the pon ffs of
the church at Rome, for in it presided Zephyrinus, a Montanist (according
to Tertullian, Adv. Prax.); Marcellinus, an idolater (according to Damasus,
Pon f.); Liberius, an Arian (according to Athanasius, Le er ad sol. vit.
agent.); Felix, an Acacian (Jerome, Catal., on the word “Aca us”);
Anastasius, a Nestorian (Pla na, on “Anast.”); Vigilius, a Eutychian;
Honorius, a Monothelite; Sylvester, a sorcerer; John XX, who taught that
the souls of the devout that had been released from their bodies would
not see God before Judgment Day; and John XXIII, who “declared,
dogma zed, and taught that there is no eternal life and who stubbornly
believed that a person’s soul is ex nguished with the human body like that
of brute animals,” as the Council of Constance speaks about him. But if
succession ceased to exist in the Greek churches because of bishops who
were here cs, they must also admit that it ceased to exist in the Roman
church for the same reason.
Finally, [that succession was quite o en interrupted] by illegi mate
occupancy. Nicholas II ([Ius canonicum,] dist. 23, c. in nomine) ordered
around the year 1059 that “the pope should be selected by the votes of
cardinals and bishops with the consent of the other clergy and of the
people of Rome and, finally, with the approval of the emperor himself; and
that if anyone should take over the papacy by some other illegi mate
method, he should be excommunicated, anathema zed, and considered as
the An christ.” It is claimed through many canons (c. sicut simonia, c.
insinuatum, c. quanta, Extra, de simoniaca; as also 1, q. 1) that “those are
not legi mate bishops who have prepared a way into the episcopal office
for themselves through simony.” Yet histories bear witness about the
Roman popes that some have intruded upon the papal throne (1) by force,
(2) by deceit, (3) through simony, and (4) through magic arts. Agapetus
(elsewhere “Anacletus”) took the papacy by force and obvious usurpa on.
As a result Bernard (Le er 125) calls him “the apocalyp c beast to whom
was given a mouth that u ers blasphemy.” Carolus Sigonius, De regno
Italiae, bk. 8: “For two hundred years, the Roman popes a ained to this
see only through sedi ons and other means full of offense.” Regarding
Boniface VIII it is said that “he entered like a fox, ruled like a lion, and died
like a dog.” Pla na, on Sylvester II, who was first called Gerbertus: “Driven
by ambi on and the diabolical desire to dominate, Gerbertus a ained by
bribery the archdiocese of Rheims first, then that at Ravenna. Finally, he
achieved the papacy, helped by the great support of the devil, but with this
condi on: that a er his death, he would belong totally to him through
whose deceits he had a ained so high an office.” Before Benedict IX
became pope, he was able to en ce into a love for him whichever women
he wished through the help of sorcery, “and by evil arts he a ained to the
pon fical dignity.” Later, for a thousand Tours pounds he sold the papacy to
his associate in the evil arts, Gra anus, who was later called Gregory VI.
Consequently, Pla na says with regard to Gregory VI that he came in not by
the gate but through the back door, like a robber and a thief. Gregory VII is
said to have supported six popes one a er another through his aide,
Gerhardus Brazutus, in order to be able to ascend to this throne. While
Sylvester was s ll alive, Vigilius took the Roman see by force. John XVII also
took the Roman see by force, and for this reason Pla na denies that he
entered through the door. William of Occam, Opus nonag. dierum, ch. 124:
It is said in the chronicles that about twenty-seven bishops of Rome were called a er the
church had been endowed with great wealth; who were involved in great crimes, public and
well-known, a er they had been taken into the papacy; or who, when being taken into the
papacy, were ensnared in criminal charges such as heresy, idolatry, the introduc on of
patrons, here cal corrup on, blasphemy, fornica on, and many other enormous crimes.

Sarisberiensis, Polycrat.: “No elec on calls the pope today. Rather, an

ambi on repugnant to Christ in His members intrudes—a blind ambi on, a
bloody ambi on not unstained with the blood of brothers. Indeed, it is the
successor to Romulus in the murder of kin, but not to Peter in the
entrusted direc on of the sheep.” Benno reports: “Five popes consecrated
themselves totally to Satan to be elevated to this throne.” These were
Sylvester II, Benedict IX, John XX, John XXI, and Gregory VII. Nauclerus and
Pla na tes fy that all the popes from Sylvester II to Gregory VII, inclusive,
were sorcerers. Many more examples of such illegi mate occupancy could
be cited, but we think that in an obvious ma er there is no need for many
words.
Alexander VI accidentally drank the poison that at his order had been
set before some of his princes. Deathly ill, he sent his servant to his
chamber in Modena to fetch the gilded book in which his sorcery was
wri en so that he could consult the devil about the end of his life. The
servant found Satan si ng on the pon fical throne, clad in papal regalia,
and he heard him say, “I am the pope!” That is a dis nguished ruler for the
papal see!

The female pope

Not only is that papal succession doub ul and interrupted, but it was
also shamefully disfigured by the popess, Joan Anglica. In books that came
from the Officina Pla niana in Antwerp in 1593 (books ascribed to Justus
Lipsius under the tle De u litate legendae historiae), the author of those
books inten onally desires to pass over that Roman child-bearer; also,
Onuphrius and other fla erers of the papal see omit her in the list of
popes. Nevertheless serious and credible authors consistently affirm the
history of that childbearing popess, nor has anyone been found to deny her
before Luther began to bare the shame of the Roman whore. No one could
doubt that by the succession of that pros tute God wanted to show to the
whole world that Babylonian whore in Revela on and make her publicly
known.
Don Piero di Mexia tes fies that he discovered this account in authen c
authors. He wrote about her and some other memorable people in the
Spanish language for Charles V, the most invincible of Roman emperors.
Valen nus Muntzer men ons her in his Chronographia (aetas 3), which
was copied from the library of the monastery at Fulda and dedicated to the
abbot of Fulda. She was also men oned by Cardinal Dominicus Jacoba us
(De concil., bk. 9, art. 9, nos. 6–7) and by Fr. Leander Albertus of Bologna, a
monk who writes that, in pu ng together his Historia, he followed
especially those who seemed to have wri en more accurately and
precisely in a book given special privilege by the emperor and by the kings
of Spain and France. The Liber Roman. indulgent., published at Rome in
1525, declared that an angel appeared to this popess when she was
pregnant and gave her the choice of selec ng temporal or eternal
punishment. She selected temporary disgrace. She is men oned by
Raphael Volaterranus (in his Commentaria, which were dedicated to Pope
Julius II), Stephanus Blanck of Passau (to Alexander VI, about the miracles
of the city of Rome in 1500), Johannes Marcoville (the Frenchman, De
bonitate et mali a sexus feminei), Pla na (De vi s pon ficum), and
Mar nus Polonus.
** Bellarmine (De script. eccles., on Mar nus Polonus, p. 360) writes:
“In the printed books of Marianus and Sigebertus this fable crept in from
the book of Mar nus Polonus. However, it is not found in the ancient
manuscripts.” De R. P., bk. 3, ch. 24, has the same thing. Furthermore, see
here the Asser o verita s historicae de papa Johanne VIII. contra
Bellarminum et Baronium ins tuta by Conrad Decker, published at
Oppenheim in 1612, in octavo format. A statue of that popess giving birth,
carved out of rock, remained un l the me of Pius V, who ordered it to be
thrown into the Tiber to destroy the memory of that event. Hasenmullerus
(Triumph. Papist., p. 419) men ons that this story was known even to the
children of Rome. **
The account is also men oned by Sigebertus Gemblacensis (Annal.),
Marianus Scotus (in his Chronicon collected in 854 from the oldest books of
the monasteries), Ranulphus (Polychron., bk. 5, ch. 32), Werner Rollewinck
(Fasciculus temporum), Hartmann Schedel (Chronicon Norinbergense,
published in 1494), the monk Rudolphus Flaviacensis, the handwri en
Chronicon Campidonense (in which the monks of that abbey are listed), the
handwri en Annales Augustani, the handwri en Chronicon
Argentoratense, O o Frisingensis, Go ridus Viterbiensis, Robertus Gallus,
William of Occam (Opus nonag. dierum, ch. 124), Mar nus Minorita (in his
chronicle en tled Flores temporum), Franciscus Petrarch (Chron.),
Johannes Boccacius (De claris mulier., ch. 99), John Huss (De eccles., ch.
13), Cestrensis (bk. 5, ch. 3), Chronicon Constan ense, Jacobus de
Regiscuria (Chronicon), Antoninus (part 2, tle 16, ch. 1, § 7), the Chronicon
vetus (printed at Ulm in 1486), the Compila o chronologica (wri en in
1470 and published at Frankfurt by Johann Pistorius), the Vetus chronicon
Germanicum (published at Augsburg in 1475), Guilelmus Jacobus (a monk
of Egmond, near Alkmaar, in his Rhythm. de vi s pon ficum), Bap sta
Mantuanus (Tophotesiae tart., bk. 3), Jacobus Philippus Bergomensis
(Supplementum chron.), Trithemius (Chron. Hirsaug.), Johannes Marius
Belga (De schisma bus), Albertus Crantzius, Hermannus Aedituus (part 2,
bk. 2), Johannes Henaldus (De statu ecclesiae ad Carolum V.), Henricus
Cornelius Agrippa (De nobil. et praecell. sexus feminei ac de vanit. scient.,
ch. de monachis), Richardus Wasseburgius of Verdun (Chronicon), the book
en tled Puerperium papae (published in 1530), Bernardus Girardus (the
royal historiographer of France); Paulus Constan nus Phrygio (Chronic.),
Johannes Lucidus (Chronicon), Achilles Gassarus (Chronicon), Ludovicus
Coelius Rhodiginus (An q. lect., vol. 14), Valerius Anselmus (Chron.,
dedicated to the people of Berne), M. Guazus (Chron. Ital.), Jacobus Curio
(Chronolog.), Petrus Flandrus, Johannes Nauclerus (Chron.), M. Antonius
Coccius Sabellicus (Ennead. 9, bk. 1), the Vene an priest Johannes Stella,
the book en tled Onus ecclesiae, Chris anus Mussaeus (Chron.), and very
many others whose tes monies are listed in detail by Johann Wolf (Lect.
memorab., cent. 9, anno 854, pp. 224ff.).
Polonus describes that account as follows:
A er Leo IV, John Anglus, born at Mainz, presided for two years, five months, and four days.
A month a er his papacy ended, he died at Rome. He is said to have been a woman. While
s ll a girl, she was taken to Athens in a man’s clothing by a lover of hers. She advanced so far
in her various studies that no one was found to equal her, and she even lectured at Rome,
having great teachers as her students and hearers. Because she had a lo y reputa on for life
and knowledge in the city, she was chosen to the papacy amicably. However, during her
papacy, she became pregnant by her servant. Not knowing the true me of her delivery, she
was on her way from St. Peter’s to the Lateran when her me became imminent. She
delivered her child on the street between the Colosseum and the church of St. Clement.
A erward she died in the same place, we are told, and was buried there. Because the lord
pope always turns aside from this same street, there are some people who believe that he
does this because of his disgust over what happened there. Therefore she is not placed in
the list of holy popes both because of her female gender as well as because of her
obscenity.

Those are the words of that historian about whose truthfulness there has
been no doubt or debate by anyone in the Papist realm for almost eighty
years. Therefore it is u erly shameless and presumptuous to accuse so
many serious authors—by whose agreeing records the truth is obvious and
clear—of a lie. Oswald Crollius (I nerar. Italic.) men ons that at Siena he
saw the faces of all the Roman popes sculpted in marble at the cathedral
church of St. Catherine; that among these he found in order Pope John,
inscribed with these words: Femina Angla [“English woman”]. Antoninus
men ons that a sign of sculptured marble was placed on the street where
this happened in memory of this event. Felix Malleolus (Dial. de nobil.)
reports that Benedict III, in memory of the event, erected a certain throne
at St. John Lateran with a hole in it, and it can s ll be seen today. It was
built for this purpose, that the newly elected supreme pon ff would be
placed on it; then, two priests worthy of confidence, would touch his
tes cles and offer due tes mony of his male gender. This is something that
Pla na explains as referring to the “manured throne that oversees human
frailty.”
Because that whore brought shameful disgrace upon the papal throne,
more recent writers try to make this account suspect by scraping together
some pe y arguments. For they see that through her the protec on of that
Babylonian construc on regarding the perpetual succession from Peter is
totally demolished. Onuphrius and the author of the books De u litate
legendae historiae press this point in par cular: (1) “Mar nus Polonus in
AD 1320 was the first to men on it.”
We respond. That Mar nus was a monk of the Order of Preachers, the
father confessor of Pope Nicholas III; a erward he became archbishop of
Cosenza. As the pope’s father confessor and close associate, the Va can
Library was open to him. With that reputa on, therefore, he could know
the history of the popes quite well. However, it is false to say that this
Mar nus was the first author of that account, because 234 years earlier
than he, Marianus Scotus with no circumlocu on exposed that monstrous
childbearing of the pope to the public. This Marianus had moved from
Scotland to Germany and lived in three communi es of the Benedic nes:
at Cologne, Fulda, and Mainz. He gathered his history from the oldest
books of those and other monasteries, not to men on Sigebertus
Gemblacensis, Rudolphus Flaviacensis, O o Frisingensis, and many more
who wrote before Mar nus Polonus.
(2) “Anastasius Bibliothecarius in Chronic. pon f., Ado Viennensis,
Adamarius, Regino Prumiensis, Hermannus Contractus, Lambertus
Schaffnaburgensis, Conradus de Lichtenau, Leo Os ensis, and Johannes
Gemonensis do not men on this account of Joan.”
We respond. To proceed nega vely when reasoning from a passage of
tes mony, especially in history, is not approved by sounder logic. In fact,
we cannot even draw nega ve conclusions in the sacred histories.
Ma hew, Mark, and Luke do not describe Christ’s conversa on with the
Samaritan woman nor the raising of Lazarus. Must we, then, reject those
because of that omission? But because those historians wanted to make no
men on of the popess, because of this the rest did not keep silent about it.
“She is not placed in the list of the popes,” says Mar nus Polonus, “both
because of her female gender as well as because of her obscenity.” “Some
writers,” says Ranulphus (Polychron.), “kept the name of John VIII silent
and write that Benedict III was subs tuted for Leo IV a er an interval of
four days, not because that John did not exist but so that no disgrace or
shame might come upon that holy throne. The writers were careful to pass
him over, lest any stain of disgrace be splashed from there onto that seat.”
“Some people,” writes Trithemius, “did not want to place that woman
among the popes, as if abhorring a terrible crime.”
(3) “The Greeks Zonaras, Cedrenus, and others did not men on that
popess in their annals. Because of their hatred for the Roman see, this is
not something they would have neglected to do if any truth seemed to
have been suppor ng it.”
We respond. It is one thing to put together a universal history of the
world; it is something else to note just those things that happened in a
par cular, defined part of the world. Those historians intended to write
about their own country especially, not about Rome. However, it is also
false to say that the Greeks made no men on at all about the ma er.
Laonicus Chalcondylas (De rebus Turcicis, bk. 6, p. 411) writes as follows
about this ma er:
The cardinals order the recently declared pon ff to sit down on a chair that has a hole so
that someone who has been given this task may touch the pope’s tes cles, which hang
down into the opening. In this way it is to become apparent that the pope is a man. For it is
obvious that a woman was once elevated to the papacy because her gender was not known,
for almost all the Italian people of the West shave their beards. A er that woman had
become pregnant and was going to a fes val or sacrifice, she gave birth to a baby during the
sacrifice in view of all the people. Therefore in order that they may not be deceived again
and may know and be sure about the ma er, they touch the male organs of the newly
created pope. The one who does the touching cries out: “This man is our lord.” They
immediately change their names a er the elec on as if they were now of a more divine
nature than before and as if they had been changed completely.

(4) “Some say that the popess was an Englishwoman [Anglica]; others,
that she was from Mainz.”
We respond. All agree that she came from Mainz. There can be two
reasons why she was called “English.” Jacobus Curio explains the first in his
Chronol.: “They say that a priest of Britain, along with his wife, was moving.
On the way they stayed a while at Mainz because his wife was pregnant,
un l the pregnant woman gave birth. It is reported that from that labor
Gilberta was born, a very learned girl. She concealed her gender, followed
a monk, who was her husband, and finally was elected to the papacy.”
Therefore she is called “English” with respect to her parents; with respect
to her na ve soil, she is from Mainz. We draw the second reason from the
Annales Augustani, in which it is reported that that monk who took her
round through both Italy and Gaul, with her gender being counterfeited,
was English. Therefore it could have happened that she received the
nickname “English” from this companion of hers.
(5) “The story was taken from the Greeks and in the me following was
assigned to the apostolic see. This is clear from the example of Leo, who
rebuked the Greeks about this ma er because they elevated both a
woman and eunuchs to the pon fical throne contrary to the first chapter
of the Council of Nicaea. Therefore nothing like this happened to the
Romans.”
We respond. It is vain for them to set those empty guesses against the
tes monies of so many agreeing authors. How could this story have started
with the Greeks, because almost all who men on it are La n writers?
Furthermore, how can these two points be reconciled: that Greek writers
make no men on of this story and that this story began with the Greeks?
(6) “Pla na, Sigebertus, etc., drew that nonsense from an empty rumor
that had been spread, and they put them into their histories. They are not
supported by the tes mony of any proven authority.”
We respond. This is simply pu ng on a bold face. That account of the
pros tute popess was told first by the monk Rudolphus Flaviacensis, a
serious author and trustworthy witness, whom even Trithemius men ons.
He lived in AD 930 and thus during the century immediately following that
tragedy. Marianus Scotus collected his chronicle from the oldest books of
the monasteries. Pla na was the secretary and librarian of the pope.
Mar nus Polonus was the pope’s father confessor. If they deny the
historical trustworthiness of those men, to whom will they finally grant it?
Aeneas Sylvius, himself finally having become pope, wrote this account in
his Sexta mundi aetas (p. 170 of the Opus historicum published at
Nuremberg in 1493 by Koberger). Therefore anyone may judge whether he
should believe the affirma on of so many agreeing historians who
con nue across so many centuries or the denial of a few of the more
recent people who have only a single intent: to prop up the papal see by
any means they can, even if in opposi on to the truth. We are sure that
the papacy of that whore not only interrupted the papal succession but
also shamefully disfigured it. As Antoninus (part 2, tle 16, ch. 1, § 7)
argues, she, being a woman, was not capable of receiving the character of
any order; she was not able to effect the Eucharist nor ordain, nor could
she absolve people from sins. Thus those she ordained would have to be
ordained again, because they had received nothing from her. There is a
very beau ful observa on of Georg Nigrinus (Inquis., bk. 5, ch. 8): From
855, when the English pros tute was elevated to the papal throne, to
1521, when Luther at the Diet of Worms spoke against the pope among
the estates of the Roman Empire before the emperor and publicly
denounced that whore, who was fornica ng with the kings of the earth
and inebria ng them with her cup [cf. Rev. 18:3], there are 666 years,
which are the mark of the apocalyp c beast [cf. Rev. 13:18].

Whether Papist bishops are the successors of the apostles

§ 198. In regard to the rest of the bishops and clergy of the Roman
church besides the pope, we likewise cannot acknowledge them as true
successors of the apostles. This is because: (1) They, too, propagate new
doctrines unknown to the apostolic and early church. Among them, the
authority of the Council of Trent is sacrosanct; however, that council
established false and an -Chris an dogmas, as our people have o en
shown.
(2) They admit that they receive all the power, jurisdic on, and dignity
of their office from the Roman pon ff, whom they acknowledge as the
universal bishop and head of the church (Bellarmine, De pon f., bk. 4, ch.
24). However, the papal primacy that they derive from Peter conflicts
strongly with both the teaching and behavior of Peter. Furthermore, it
cannot be proved with any clear tes mony of Scripture.
(3) They are elected illegi mately without the consent of the people,
and that is contrary to the teaching and prac ce of the apostles (Acts 1:23;
6:1; 14:23; 1 Cor. 16:3).
(4) Quite frequently the uneducated are placed in charge, men who are
unfit for the bishop’s office. Those who pay more money aspire more
quickly to a richer episcopate and prebend. Their examiner solemnly
swears before the altar that he has determined that all those who are
about to be ini ated into Holy Orders are suitable in age, behavior, and
knowledge, despite the fact that, to the witnesses of these things, to
Erasmus (who was well aware of these ma ers), and to experience itself,
they appear for the most part uneducated, u erly corrupt in their
behavior, and o en of an immature age too. In the Gravamina na onis
Germanicae, grav. 7: “The governance of the churches of Rome is
commi ed to the unworthy, who are be er suited to feed and govern
mules than people.” The cardinals do not conceal this in their Consilium de
emendanda ecclesia, which they gave to Pope Paul III and which Vergerius
administered (later published at Strasbourg in 1555). They say:
The first abuse is the ordina on of clergy and especially of presbyters in which no care is
exercised, and no diligence. All over, there are people who are u erly ignorant, who are of
the most disgraceful families, who are adorned with evil behavior, who are adolescents.
Such people are being admi ed to holy orders and especially to the presbyterate. From this
arise countless scandals; from this arises a contempt for the ecclesias cal order; from this
the reverence for divine worship has not only been diminished but also nearly ex nguished.
Another abuse, and it is of the greatest significance in the gran ng of ecclesias cal
benefices, especially of curates and most of all of bishoprics, in which the prac ce flourished
of providing for the persons to whom the benefices are given and not for the flock of Christ
and for the church. Another abuse is in the barter of benefices that takes place with
contracts, all of which involve simony with respect for nothing but profit. Another abuse is
that they have found many ways by which to leave benefices by a will, because the sons of
presbyters have the benefices of their parents. Another abuse is in the expectancies and
reserva ons of benefices, because cardinals have not just one but several episcopates
bestowed upon them, though the offices of cardinal and bishop are incompa ble, etc.

Ludovicus Vives u ers a similar complaint in August. de civ. Dei, bk. 17, ch.
5:
How few there are who seek the priesthood for religious worship rather than for gain. Are
parents and friends encouraging them to an ecclesias cal affair for any reason other than
that they might become rich? Who does not think that he is ac ng with the utmost holiness
when he bestows what they call “the riches of the church” on his sons, if he has them (and
he does have them unless he is sterile), on his brothers, sisters, and other rela ves and close
friends, even though they may be wealthy, and ignores the poor for whom those riches were
prepared?

Ludovicus again, commentary on bk. 19, ch. 19 of De civ. Dei: “In Hosea,
the Lord complains of bishops who had become a snare to those whom
they should have watched over and a net on Mount Tabor, as if He were
speaking about the bishops of our me who set their snares for
priesthoods and their nets for much money, but not with wide mesh, lest a
coin fall through.” Ibid.: “Some people have, with diligence and ingenuity,
brought it about that, apart from legal fraud, an episcopate can be not only
striven a er legally but even bought and sold.”
(5) They administer almost no part of the bishop’s duty. How few of
them there are who teach the people from the pulpit, who administer the
sacraments according to Christ’s ins tu on, who visit the sick, etc.! In the
Council of Trent they were commanded that “henceforth they themselves
must teach,” but how they are doing this is publicly obvious to all. The
elect cardinals said at their council:
This is an abuse and must be corrected so that bishops, first and before all others, and then
curates, may not be absent from their churches and parishes except for a serious reason but
should make their residence there. By God Immortal, what sight can be more wretched for a
Chris an man making a pilgrimage through the Chris an world than this emp ness of the
churches? Almost all the shepherds have le their flocks; almost all of them have entrusted
them to hired hands.

(6) They all are immersed in secular business and poli cal government.
Duarenus, De sacr. eccles. minist., bk. 1, ch. 4: “Most bishops of our day are
far greater strangers to religion and holy things than any secular governors
and princes. They have no other concern than to protect and increase their
jurisdic on and possession justly or unjustly.” Eck, Pos ll., homily 2, de
festo Stephani: “Our prelates are inver ng the apostolic order, for they
believe that spiritual ma ers are more burdensome than what they are
involved with. They employ money in the episcopal acts of their suffragans,
in the trials of their officials, in absolving penitents. They place a monk—I
know not whom—in charge of preaching and have vicars in other spiritual
du es. But if anything is done with regard to tax or temporal business, ‘this
ma er must be referred to our lord bishop.’ ” Consequently, in the wri ngs
of Caesarius Cisterciensis (dist. 2, ch. 28), a cleric of Paris declared: “The
bishops of Germany [Allemania] can scarcely be saved because nearly all of
them have the spiritual and material swords, they pass judgment with
bloodshed, they go to war, and they have a greater concern for paying their
soldiers than for the salva on of the souls entrusted to them.” Erasmus,
Annotat. on 1 Peter 5, p. 533:
This precept of the prince of the apostles ought to be inscribed in golden le ers in all the
courts of all the bishops. “Feed the flock” [1 Pet. 5:2], he says, not “Oppress them,” not “Rob
 them.” And feed them “not under compulsion,” out of duty, but out of a sincere affec on,
like fathers. Do it “not for the sake of filthy lucre,” as if sensing that some disaster for the
church would result from this. Finally, “not domina ng” the way kings do, but feed by
example; overcome with good deeds. Now the mob of bishops hear nothing from their
learned fla erers except dominions, jurisdic ons, swords, keys, powers. As a result, the
arrogance of some is more than royal, the cruelty more than tyrannical.

Yet poli cal domina on was forbidden to the apostles and to their
successors. As a result, Can. apost. 8 orders that “he be removed from
office who wants to administer simultaneously a civil and ecclesias cal
office.” Ambrose, on 2 Timothy 2: “Let a churchman carry out the office
that he has pledged to do. Let him be concerned for the things of God, a
stranger to the business of this world, for it is not proper for one to have
two professions.” In the Fragment. apostolorum, we read that Peter told
Clement, whom he had ordained a bishop: “It is a crime of wickedness to
take secular business upon yourself, having neglected the study of the
Word of God.”
(7) Most of them live wickedly, pursue an impure celibacy, and are
notorious for their public disgraces. A speaker for the duke of Bavaria at
the Council of Trent offers his own tes mony about this subject:
Our clergy indulges its belly and lusts as if they wished to be recognized as being in
contempt of God and man and as covered openly with every kind of vice, rather than to be
corrected in a very insignificant ma er. As for the rest of the clergy’s faults that they have in
common with the people, we pass over them in silence. But surely that excessive lust,
unrestrained and notorious, is judged most alien to the people, because of which they are
considered most infamous by the irritated masses.

According to Sleidanus (Hist., bk. 4), Campegius said to the legates of

Strasbourg, “I know that it is the custom of the bishops to allow their
people to commit fornica on if they give the bishops money.” In fact, Pope
Adrian, in a lega on to the Diet of Nuremberg [Conventus Norinbergensis]
in 1523, freely confessed that “from the sole of the foot to the top of the
head there is nothing healthy in the en re body of the ecclesias cal order.”
Thus Ecbertus seems to have spoken correctly to the bishop of Cologne:
“To be a bishop is to indulge the flesh, to strut about pompously, to strain
toward gain, and to have indulgent leisure.” How, then, can we
acknowledge them as true successors of the apostles? “If we are in the
place of the apostles,” Jerome writes on Micah 2, “let us not only imitate
their speech but also embrace their conduct and abs nence.” Thus we say
with Bernard at the Council of Rheims: “What does it profit if they are
elected canonically but do not live canonically?” Concerning the pope,
John Huss concludes in his book De ecclesia that he is not the vicar of
Christ because he is u erly unlike Christ in behavior and life. On the basis
of the same argument, we can draw the same conclusion about Papist
bishops and clergy, that they are not the successors of the apostles
because they are u erly different from the apostles in life and behavior.
Huss says:
Because a vicar ought to act in the stead of the superior from whom he received his
vicarious power, therefore he ought to be conformed in all that he does to him in whose
stead he is working. Otherwise that power is worthless in him. From this we develop the
following argument: A man is the true vicar of the one in whose stead he acts and from
whom he has legi mately received procuratorial power. However, no one truly acts in the
stead of Christ or of Peter unless he follows him in behavior, since no other following is more
per nent, nor would he otherwise receive procuratorial power from God except under that
condi on. Therefore for this office of vicar, both the conformity of behavior and the
authority of the establisher are required. Thus if the pope is the most humble of men,
despising earthly honors and considering worldly gain as of li le value; if he is a shepherd
[pastor] who takes his name from the pasture [pastus] of God’s Word, about which pasture
the Lord told Peter: “Feed My sheep”; if he feeds them with the Word and by the example of
virtues has become a model for the flock; if he is gentle, pa ent, chaste, working in the
ministry of the church with solicitous concern, coun ng all the temporal things of the world
as dung—then he is undoubtedly the true vicar of Christ, as is obvious to God and men, as
far as external, sensible judgment is concerned. On the other hand, if he lives contrary to
these virtues, because Christ has no concord with Belial (2 Cor. 6[:15]) and because Christ
says, “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Ma . 12[:30]), how is he a true and manifest
vicar of Christ and of Peter and not rather a vicar of the An christ, resis ng Christ in his life
and behavior? This is why Christ called Peter “Satan,” that is “adversary,” when he was
contrary to Christ in will and word (Ma . 16[:23]), a er the promise of the bestowal of the
Keys. He said: “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a scandal to Me because you are not se ng
your mind on the things of God but the things of men.” Therefore if Peter was the first vicar
of Christ, elected by Christ Himself, and was sent spiritually to the church, and if Christ called
him “Satan,” who out of his feeling of love was dissuading Him from undergoing the
punishment of death, why would another, who in this life was more contrary to Christ, not
be truly called “Satan” and, as a consequence, “the An christ” or “the vicar or chief minister
of the An christ”?

We draw the same conclusion about the bishops and priests of the Roman
church, that they are not the successors of the apostles but their
adversaries, because they are u erly different from them in life and
behavior. “The sons of the saints are not those who hold the places of the
saints, but those who prac ce their works” ([Ius canonicum,] dist. 40, c.
non est facile, from Jerome). Also, Master Alofresant, a seer from the
island of Rhodes, correctly wrote around the year 1394: “Whoever le as
his successors and vicars such people who prac ce the works of neither
Christ nor the apostles? Therefore the me of reckoning has already
come.”
(8) Finally, they have been bound to the pope by an unlawful oath to
such an extent that they are not even permi ed to say true things against
the pope. That is why the Protestants have demanded, with every right, a
relaxa on of that oath before they are willing to submit themselves to
their judgment in a case of religion. We find its formula in [Ius canonicum,]
de jurejurando, c. ego: “Without viola on of my order, I will be a helper to
defend and retain the papacy of the Roman church and of the rules of the
holy fathers against all men.” The secretary of Pope Paul IV men ons in the
book An decreta concilii Trident. sint armis imperanda, f. 90, Pfortzheim
edi on, that at Rome they have a longer and stronger formula according to
which they are compelled to bind themselves to the pope before
inves ture is granted. It reads as follows:
I, Bishop N., shall from this hour, as before, be faithful to St. Peter; to the holy, apostolic,
Roman church; to my lord pope and to his successors who enter canonically. I shall neither
plan nor act to destroy his life and limb, nor shall I become involved in a plan with evil intent
that will reveal to me per se or through le ers or a messenger that I published anything to
his harm. I will be a helper to retain and defend the Roman papacy and the rules of St. Peter
against all men. I shall see to the conversa on, defense, increase, and promo on of the
rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the Roman church, of our lord pope, and of his
successors. I will observe the rules of the holy fathers, the decrees, ordinances, sentences,
disposi ons, reserva ons, provisions, and apostolic mandates with all my might. I will see to
it that all men observe them. To the best of my ability, I shall a ack and persecute here cs,
schisma cs, and those who rebel against our lord pope.

Yet the apostles were not bound by such oaths to such blind and unlimited
obedience toward Peter. Rather, they boldly admonished him, in fact, even
scolded him (Acts 11:2; Gal. 2:14). Therefore Papist bishops are not the
true successors of the apostles.

Whether Evangelical ministers are successors of the apostles

§ 199. The third sec on. Are Evangelical ministers true successors of the
apostles? The Papists stubbornly deny this; but before they prove that our
doctrine is different from that of the apostles, they cannot take away from
us our glory of the true and proper apostolic succession that lies in kinship
of doctrine—“for where the voice of the apostles sounds, there they
preside on the throne of the apostle.” Becanus (trea se De eccles., q. 3,
conc. 4) tries to show that the succession of apostolic doctrine is not
present in our church. How useless that a empt is can be seen by anyone
who removes the false accusa ons and is willing to compare the doctrine
of our churches, as it is set forth in the Augsburg Confession, with the Holy
Scriptures.
But if they demand of us a local and personal succession traced back to
the apostles in a con nuous and uninterrupted sequence, we respond that
succession is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary succession takes
place only when ministers of the church succeed their predecessors with
regard to both faith and place.
But because there are mes when wolves teaching perverse things
succeed orthodox pastors (Acts 20:29), God does not always use an
ordinary succession in ruling the church. Instead, He some mes raises up
in extraordinary fashion pure teachers through whom He reforms the
corrupt condi on of the church and reminds those of their duty who, with
regard to place, are in the ordinary succession. Thus when Eli and his sons
shamefully fell away from God, God interrupted that ordinary succession of
the priesthood in Eli’s family and transferred it to another family (1 Sam.
2:30). At the me of Ahaz, when the temple had been defiled and its doors
closed, and when, in addi on, the chief priest Uriah was spreading
idolatrous worship, God raised up prophets through whom He brought the
divine worship back to its pris ne purity and integrity (2 Kings 16:10; 2
Chron. 28:24). This same thing happened quite o en also at other mes
among the people of Israel. For instance, the Levi cal priests, to whom
belonged the ordinary succession, were rebuked by prophets who had
been called and sent extraordinarily, and the heavenly doctrine was
cleansed of the filth of idolatry. In this way Amos, who “hesitated with the
delay of his embarrassment, suddenly was made a prophet” by the divine
call, as Jerome says (Ad Heliod.). Moreover, in Ezek. 44:12 and Hosea 4:6
the Lord threatens the Levi cal priests, saying that He wants to get rid of
them because of their idolatry and to subs tute others in their place.
Lest anyone counter, saying that “in the Old Testament the ordinary
succession could have been interrupted and purity of doctrine was not
connected with it at all mes, but things are different in the New
Testament, in which the promises thrive concerning the perpetual
succession of holy pon ffs on the apostolic throne,” we demand that clear
and obvious tes monies about this ma er be brought forth from the Holy
Scriptures. There are certainly sad prophecies about a nearly universal
apostasy (2 Thess. 2:3), about a great crowd of false prophets (Ma . 24:5),
about wolves who would succeed to the place of the apostles (Acts 20:29),
about how the church would flee into the desert (Rev. 12:6), etc. To allow
all the rest to remain unmen oned, what shall we say about the mes of
the An christ? Our adversaries admit that at that me “all public
ceremonies of religion will cease.” How, then, will that local and external
succession be possible anymore? God will raise up “two witnesses” (Rev.
11:3), that is, a few faithful teachers who will not be in the ordinary
succession but in an extraordinary one. For if they were in the ordinary
succession, they would not suffer persecu on from those who usurp
jurisdic on and power in the church.
God took care of His church in the me of the Old Testament through
prophets whom He sent extraordinarily, because those who were in the
ordinary succession were neglec ng their duty and were permi ng the
spread of the idolatrous worship of Baal. And at the me of the New
Testament He rejected errors and supers ons and called His church back
to the norm of prophe c doctrine through John the Bap st and the
apostles, because the scribes and Pharisees who were si ng on the seat of
Moses were derelict in their duty and divine worship had been polluted
with various corrup ons. In the same way, in these last mes of the world,
through the faithful ministry of Luther and his fellow priests, He again
kindled in the church the light of the Gospel, which emerged from the
hellish darkness of the papacy; He revealed the An christ domina ng in
the church according to his whim; and He called us away from human
tradi ons back to the purity of the Word. The fact that false teachers who
had been completely immersed in papal errors were in charge of the
ministry of the church before Luther and his colleagues takes nothing away
from the doctrine and office of Luther and his colleagues.

Whether extraordinary succession requires miracles

 § 200. Bellarmine responds that extraordinary succession must be
confirmed by miracles. Because our teachers lack these, their succession is
not legi mate.
We respond. (1) There were many prophets, concerning whom it is not
clear that they performed miracles, who were called and sent
extraordinarily. What miracles did Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, and Amos
perform? How o en did devout kings and prophets, of whom many did not
do miracles, reform the religion of Israel a er it collapsed?
(2) Concerning John the Bap st, who also had an extraordinary call “to
turn the hearts of the fathers toward their children” (that is, the
reforma on of divine worship), we are told clearly in John 10:41: “He
performed no sign.” Theophylact comments on those words: “If we
believed him who performed no miracle, namely, John the Bap st, all the
more should we believe Him who did so many great miracles, namely,
Jesus of Nazareth.” Chrysostom makes the same claim (on Ma hew,
homily 47).
(3) Concerning the An christ, it was predicted that “his coming will be
by the working of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders” (2
Thess. 2:9). Concerning the devout teachers who will oppose the
An christ, on the other hand, it was predicted that they would fight
against him with the sword of the Word, not with miracles. Verse 8: “Then
the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord Jesus will slay him with the
spirit of His mouth,” that is, with the word and voice of the Gospel (Isa.
11:4). In regard to the mys cal Babylon, the kingdom of the An christ, it
was predicted that it would collapse at the voice of the Gospel. Rev. 14:6
and 8: “I saw another angel flying through the midst of heaven, having the
eternal Gospel to preach to those who sit upon earth … And another angel
followed, saying, ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great.’ ” Therefore, there is
no reason for the Papists to require other miracles of us. Let them
acknowledge the efficacy of the Gospel teaching, by which the papal realm
has been significantly sha ered, in accordance with the two prophecies
just cited.
(4) Luther and his associates did not advance a new doctrine, but rather
placed that ancient, apostolic doctrine, which was once abundantly
confirmed with miracles and which they rescued from the filth of papal
errors, into the bright light. There was, therefore, no need for new
miracles. Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 22, ch. 8) says: “Wonders were
necessary before the world believed. But whoever s ll requires wonders to
believe is himself a great wonder, who does not believe when the world
believes.” Gregory, Homily 29 in evang.: “Those miracles were necessary
when the church was just beginning, for in order that the mul tude might
grow toward faith, it had to be nourished with miracles. So also it is with us
when we plant orchards. As long as we pour water on them, we see them
take root in the ground. When once they have fixed their roots, the
irriga on will cease.”
(5) On the other hand, are there no miracles connected with the spread
of the Gospel through so many provinces of the world; with the diminu on
of papal power once invincible even to emperors; with the preserva on of
our churches against so many cruel plots and such powerful enemies? Is it
not like a miracle that
A man subdued the immense resources of the whole world
Without the might of sword, with the might of the Word, with an unarmed army.
Rome the world conquered; her the pope o’erawed.
And she prevailed by force, and he by fraud;
How much than both was Luther greater s ll,
Who conquered both with but a single quill!

(6) Luther’s call and sending were not only extraordinary but also at the
same me ordinary. Two things concur in his office, and these must not be
confused with each other: First, the ministry of teaching, and then the
office of reforming and of revealing the An christ. To the ministry of
teaching he was called mediately, legi mately, and in the ordinary manner,
first, while he was s ll in the papacy when he received the power to teach
the Word of God from the bishop in 1507. Here we must consider not the
impurity of the bishop who called and ordained, but the order of the
ministry that could be among the impure and those corrupt in doctrine,
just as the scribes and Pharisees once sat “on Moses’ seat” (Ma . 23:[2]).
Therefore the precious must be dis nguished from the vile, substan als
from faulty accidentals, what is divine from what is human, etc. Then, in his
doctorate on the day of St. Luke in 1512, he again received license “not to
teach vain, foreign doctrines that the church has condemned and that
offend pious ears,” as the formula of the solemn oath had it. This he also
swore he would do, and so he later quite o en appealed to this solemn
call. (See Jena edi on, vol. 2, f. 553; vol. 5, f. 549.) Certainly he appeals
solemnly to his calling and doctorate in his commentary on Psalm 82 in
1530 (German edi on of Jena, vol. 5, f. 157, fac. b). He says: “I must
confess un l the last breath of my life that whatever I began, it was as an
ordinary and legi mately called doctor, out of the power of the pope and
emperor.” In response to an imperial edict in 1531, he writes (German
edi on of Jena, vol. 5, f. 302, fac. b): “When I became a doctor, I swore
upon Holy Scripture that I would teach it faithfully and purely. When I did
this, the papacy began to resist me, and I did not expect that.” In the third
place, there came his legi mate call to academic teaching, to which he
similarly appeals. He witnesses that, because of his doctoral promo on
and legi mate call to that teaching ac vity he was compelled to do what
belonged to that office. (See German edi on of Jena, vol. 1, f. 57b and 339,
fac. b; vol. 5, f. 157, fac. b.)
As far as the office of reforming and of revealing the An christ are
concerned, it is obvious that in it something unique is happening which
does not fit with the ordinary call of all other ministers. It must be
admi ed that God did not call him immediately to this as He called the
prophets and apostles, and he did not speak by the immediate inspira on
of the Holy Spirit as the prophets and apostles did. (In this sense some
people deny that Luther’s call is extraordinary, that is, immediate.) Yet no
one can deny that something extraordinary and unique occurred in this
work of reforma on and of revealing the An christ. Many centuries earlier
this had been prophesied by the prophets and apostles (Jer. 51:48; Dan.
11:44; Mal. 4:5; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 14:6; etc.). He had been equipped for
this duty with unique and extraordinary gi s of the Holy Spirit. This is
something that is clearly proved by his heroic spirit, his happy success, his
unique gi of interpre ng the Scriptures, and many other things.

Bellarmine’s arguments against our succession

§ 201. Now, how does Bellarmine prove that the ministers of our
churches lack the apostolic succession? He sets down four hypotheses on
the basis of which he deduces against us an argument that he calls
“irrefutable.”
 (1) The church cannot exist in any way without pastors and bishops. (2) In the church only
those have always been considered true bishops who were shown to have descended from
the apostles through a legi mate succession and ordina on. (3) For a bishop to be said to
descend legi mately from the apostles, two things are required: first, succession; and,
second, ordina on. Succession demands that the man who wants to be considered a true
bishop succeed either an apostle or another man whom an apostle made a bishop, or that
he be made a bishop by him who has apostolic authority, and that is the Roman pope alone.
Ordina on requires that whoever becomes a bishop be ordained by three bishops who
themselves were ordained by others, and they by s ll others, un l they go back to the
apostles. (4) The ancient here cs used to imitate the church in the ordina on of bishops.
Therefore the fathers did not censure them in these cases unless succession was lacking.

From these he gathers the following argument: “Lutheran bishops do not

have ordina on nor succession from the apostles. Therefore they are not
bishops and, as a consequence, the church is not among them.” He proves
his antecedent because Luther was not ordained by three bishops.
We respond. (1) The church certainly cannot exist without bishops or
pastors to teach it. However, they do not always have that local and
personal succession which Bellarmine requires. Instead, a doctrinal
succession is enough as is clear from previous paragraphs [§§ 190, 199].
You see, the apostolic succession is not bound to one place nor to one
Roman throne, which our foes always presuppose. Rather, all those whom
the church has called legi mately and who hand down the doctrine of the
apostles are the true successors of the apostles, even though they may not
descend from the apostles in a con nuous and uninterrupted sequence.
(2) Power of supreme jurisdic on was not given to Peter over the other
apostles nor to the Roman pon ff over the other bishops so that they
would have to seek confirma on from him. Christ, not Peter, called all the
apostles and sent them to teach the Gospel. Therefore they received their
apostolic authority from Christ, not from Peter. We shall treat this ma er
elsewhere in greater detail [On the Ecclesias cal Ministry (Commonplace
XXVI), § 217].
(3) For a genuine ordina on there is required “that whoever becomes a
bishop be ordained by three bishops who themselves were ordained by
others, and they by s ll others, un l they go back to the apostles.” But on
what basis will Bellarmine prove this? Evagrius was considered bishop of
An och by the ancients: by Socrates (bk. 5, ch. 15), by Jerome (Catal.), and
by others; yet Theodoret (bk. 5, ch. 23) writes about him that “Paulinus
alone,” without using other bishops, made him a bishop. Gregory I wrote
to Augus ne of Canterbury: “Those bishops who were going to be the first
to be ordained in England were to be ordained without bishops” (bk. 12,
Le er 31).
Bellarmine appeals to the first apostolic canon, but those canons are
spurious, as one can conclude with many arguments even from the Ius
canonicum itself (dist. 1, c. 16).
He appeals to Le er 2 of Anacletus. That le er, however, and the rest of
the decretal le ers were composed in more recent centuries, as Erasmus
and many others prove. In the same le er Anacletus says, “Priests must be
anointed with chrism when they are ordained.” Yet the use of chrism had
not yet been ins tuted at that me. He also adds: “The elec on of chief
priests has been granted to good priests and spiritual people.” Yet today
the people have no part in it. He also says, “Patriarchs were established in
those places where there formerly had been archpriests [archiflamines].”
Bellarmine, however, denies this (De pon f., bk. 1, ch. 24). The same
Anacletus asserts that James was consecrated by three: Peter, James, and
John; yet the Decret. (part 2, causa 8, q. 1, c. 2) says that Peter alone
ordained Clement as bishop of Rome. Therefore it is not absolutely
necessary that a bishop be ordained by three bishops. Even some of the
Scholas cs admit this. Petrus de Palude (De potest. apostol.) writes: “In the
church one bishop is enough to consecrate another, nor has the church
discovered that three should work together except for the solemnity of the
occasion.” Similarly, Joannes Major writes, Sentent., 4, dist. 24, q. 4: “Who
ordained Peter? They will not give three ordainers. I say that it is a human
cons tu on that a bishop be ordained by three bishops, for Paul did not
ask for two for the ordina ons of Titus and Timothy.”
Furthermore, Bellarmine appeals to canon 4 of the first Council of
Nicaea and to canon 4 of the fourth Council of Carthage. On the basis of
this, however, one can infer nothing other than that it is an ecclesias cal
cons tu on to be observed in a flourishing state of the church if the
bishops are devout. It is not, however, a necessary apostolic law
permanently in the church. Ambrose, commentary on Ephesians 4: “The
wri ngs of the apostle do not fit in every detail the ordina on that now
exists in the church.” In the Ius canon., part 1, dist. 65, c. 2, Mar n decrees:
“At the ordina on of a bishop all the priests of that province shall be
present.” Thus it is not a universal law.
 Finally, Bellarmine appeals to 1 Tim. 4:14: “Do not neglect the grace that
is in you, which was given you with the imposi on of hands of the
presbytery.” From this he tries to make it an apostolic sanc on. This
passage, however, is most especially opposed to him, for it shows that
hands were laid on Timothy by the presbytery, that is, “by a gathering of
pastors,” as Jerome explains, or “by the priesthood,” as the [Englishmen] of
Rheims translate it. But now, our adversaries think that the power to
ordain belongs only to bishops.
Bellarmine responds: “The word ‘presbytery’ in Paul means an assembly
of bishops who along with the ordainer would place their hands on the
head of the ordinand.” He supports this from Chrysostom, Theophylact,
and Oecumenius. Yet we readily grant this, if the word “bishops” is taken in
the apostolic way of speaking to mean the ministers of the church, but not
in the Papist way of speaking to mean such bishops who have a power and
jurisdic on dis nct from the presbyters. In Acts 20:17 the apostle
summons the presbyters of the church at Ephesus and says that they
“were established as bishops by the Holy Spirit” [v. 28]. But if the word
“bishop” is taken in the Papist way of speaking, the consequence will be
that there were many bishops in one city, which is extremely absurd
according to their hypotheses. In the apostolic way of speaking, however, it
is not absurd because, according to it, bishops and presbyters are the same
people (Phil. 1:1; Titus 1:5; etc.). Michael Medina (De sacrorum hominum
orig. et con n., bk. 1, ch. 5), otherwise a Papist writer, shows in detail that
“not only Jerome but also Augus ne, Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom,
Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact deem that at the me of the
apostles whoever was a bishop, the same one was a presbyter.” This
opinion of Jerome and Medina is approved in the Ius canonicum, part 1,
dist. 95, c. 5. In its own place we shall confirm it from Holy Writ [§ 202; see
also On the Ecclesias cal Ministry (Commonplace XXVI), §§ 27–29].
Finally, however, Bellarmine admits: “Bishops are not simply necessary
in the ordina on of a bishop. Rather, abbots vested with miter can fill the
place of bishops by dispensa on because of the scarcity of bishops.” He
should therefore admit that three bishops are required by the custom of
the church rather than by apostolic sanc on. Now, we argue from that
concession of Bellarmine as follows. If that is a legi mate ordina on which
a bishop performs when abbots vested with the miter are present, surely it
will also be a legi mate ordina on that a bishop performs when presbyters
are present. The logical connec on is obvious, because the office and
power of presbyters depends on divine right, whereas there is deep silence
in the Scriptures concerning abbots vested with miters.
(4) When the fathers make the accusa on that among the here cal
teachers succession is lacking, they are speaking principally and especially
about doctrinal succession, as can be seen clearly from their statements
cited earlier [§ 193]. Many here cs were able to claim for themselves a
local and personal succession; but because their doctrine was not
apostolic, they could not have been acknowledged as successors of the
apostles.
§ 202. On the basis of all this, the weakness of Bellarmine’s argument,
which he patches together from those hypotheses of his, becomes
perfectly clear. (1) Luther was ordained a presbyter and was legi mately
called to the pastorate of Wi enberg. Therefore, using the apostolic ritual
with his colleagues in the ministry, he was able to ordain others through
the imposi on of hands.
(2) Ordina on by three bishops is not simply and absolutely necessary,
because it is not an apostolic sanc on but an ecclesias cal cons tu on. It
is enough that the presbytery lay their hands upon the ordinand who has
been legi mately called to the ecclesias cal ministry, for in this way
presbyters were ordained in the apostolic church (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 4:14).
(3) By divine right any presbyter is also a bishop. Bellarmine writes, De
clericis, bk. 1, ch. 15: “At the me of the apostles the names ‘bishop’ and
‘presbyter’ were common to both the greater and lesser priests, though
their ac vi es and powers were different.” But he says that groundlessly
and without proof. “Names are marks and symbols of reali es.” If, then,
the same people were called “presbyters” and “bishops,” surely their
powers, too, were not different. The facts demonstrate this. The apostle
writes to Titus, 1:5–6: “This is why I le you in Crete, that you might …
establish presbyters in every city … if any be blameless, the husband of one
wife,” etc. He then adds in v. 7: “For a bishop, as God’s steward, must be
blameless.” Imagine that presbyters had one power and bishops another;
their connec on will not agree with the text of the apostle. If bishops had
one power and presbyters another, then surely they would have different
du es of their office, different requirements, and consequently even
different commands in regard to the du es of both. But now, in Titus 1:5 as
well as in 1 Tim. 3:2, the same things are prescribed to bishops and
presbyters. In 1 Tim. 4:14, to Timothy, bishop of the church at Ephesus, he
says, “the grace given,” that is, the office of teaching commi ed to him,
“through the imposi on of the hands of the presbytery.” Therefore a
bishop can be ordained by presbyters, as Jerome concludes correctly from
that passage (Le er ad Evagrium). We do not remove the ranking among
ministers of the church; rather, we retain the dis nc on between bishops,
presbyters, and deacons. By no means do we, however, establish the sort
of difference of power and the sort of dis nc on that the Papists want. But
if a presbyter is by divine right a bishop, and if, on the other hand, Luther
was a presbyter on the basis of the ordina on of the Roman church, then
whatever belongs to a bishop belongs also by divine right to Luther. The
fact that bishops are set above presbyters in the church happens “out of a
human ins tu on a er the mes of the apostles to remove schisms,” as
Jerome teaches (commentary on Titus 1).
(4) Our ministers have been called legi mately by the church according
to the doctrine and prac ce of the apostles. Through the imposi on of
hands and prayers by the presbytery they have been legi mately ordained
as true ministers and true successors of the apostles, even though Papist
bishops did not ordain, anoint, or confirm them. Besides the fact that they
are bishops of the church in name only and actually are a poli cal dynasty,
and besides the fact that they condemn the doctrine of Christ and the
apostles, they never could have been influenced to ordain anyone who did
not swear to the Papist religion. Therefore an ordina on sought from them
would have been useless. Luther writes about this in the Smalcald Ar cles,
art. X, p. 3:
If the bishops would carry out their office correctly and would have concern for the church
and for the Gospel, it could be granted, in the name of charity and peace but not of
necessity, that they would ordain and confirm us and our preachers. Yet we would allow this
only under the condi on that they put aside all deceits, tricks, absurdi es, and appearances
of pagan pomp. But they neither are nor wish to be true bishops, but poli cal rulers and
princes who do not preach, teach, bap ze, administer the Supper nor perform any work or
office of the church. Rather, they persecute and condemn those who have been called to
this duty and perform it. Because of the fault of such people, certainly the church should not
be deserted nor deprived of ministers. Therefore just as the ancient examples of the church
and of the fathers teach us, we ourselves should and will ordain suitable men to this office.
They cannot keep us from doing this even according to the laws, which declare that even
 those whom here cs have ordained are truly ordained and that this ordina on should not
be changed.

(5) We accept what Bellarmine offers, that the call of our ministers is
legi mate. Therefore they also are legi mate ministers and true successors
of the apostles. You see, with regard to ordina on, it is not necessary by
virtue of a divine command, nor does it form part of the essence of the
ministry, nor does it imprint a character, as the Papists dream. (And so
Rufinus writes, Hist., bk. 1, ch. 10, about the king of the Iberians, that
“though not yet ini ated by sacred rites, he had become the apostle of his
people.”) The rite, however, is useful because of the ancient custom of the
church and because of its outstanding reminders. Hence it must by no
means be rejected or carelessly omi ed. For we conclude from Acts and
from the apostolic Epistles as well as from the history of the church that
the apostles themselves and their immediate successors observed this
ritual, that one man who presided [προεστὼς] would, in the name of the
presbytery through the imposi on of hands and public prayers, ordain
those whom the church had legi mately elected as their ministers. Much
less is it absolutely and simply necessary “that three bishops be present at
an ordina on,” for that necessity cannot be proved with any scriptural
tes mony. We shall speak about this in greater detail in our trea se On the
Ministry [Commonplace XXVI, §§ 139–65].
Section VI: On the Sixth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Consensus in
Doctrine with the Ancient Church: Whether
consensus with the ancient church is a mark of the
church
§ 203. The first sec on. Is agreement in doctrine with the ancient
church a true and proper mark of the church? If “ancient doctrine and
church” is taken to mean the apostolic doctrine and church, we readily
admit that kinship with that ancient doctrine—or, what is the same, with
the apostolic doctrine—is a true and proper mark of the church, which we
proved in detail earlier [§§ 126–47]. But we cannot and should not seek
what that apostolic doctrine is, which the ancient apostolic church
embraced, from the wri ngs of the fathers who lived in later centuries.
That would be preposterous. Rather, we should look for it and learn it only
from the actual wri ngs of the evangelists and apostles. Indeed, it was for
this purpose that those wri ngs were given to the church through the
singular benefac on of God and have been preserved un l now.
But if “ancient doctrine and church” is taken to mean that which
flourished a er the mes of the apostles, then we dis nguish the mes of
the church. According to Hegesippus in Eusebius, bk. 4, ch. 22: “The church
a er the me of the apostles did not long remain a virgin.” In fact, the
weeds of human opinions began to sprout immediately in the field of the
church along with the crop of evangelical doctrine. This, however, was not
yet a corrup on of doctrine such as finally ensued in later centuries under
the papacy. Thus there are some who say (which we also men oned earlier
[§ 104]):
There were especially four changes and faces of the New Testament church. At first it was
beau fully decorated at the me of the apostles and martyrs. Because of persecu ons it
was in hiding, but, as far as purity of faith is concerned, it was truly shining. Second, it was
somewhat spo ed at the me of the fathers when it was gradually turning away from its old
simplicity, and human opinions and tradi ons were being mixed in. Third, it was completely
disfigured at the me when the An christ was domina ng, under whose tyranny the whole
body of heavenly doctrine was miserably mu lated and torn apart. Fourth, in these last days
it has finally been reformed and restored to the pris ne splendor of the apostolic faith.
Whoever wishes to occupy himself in the wri ngs of the doctors of the
church will find out that all this is u erly true. Those who are closer to the
mes of the apostles treat Scripture more purely and sincerely than those
who lived in subsequent centuries. And I do not believe that anyone has
such a calloused heart as to wish to make the disputa ons of the
Scholas cs equal to the wri ngs of the most ancient fathers.
Although we indeed are prepared to prove each and every one of our
ar cles of faith that is in controversy with the Papists with the clear and
lucid tes monies of the ancient fathers, and our people have done this
very o en, we nevertheless cannot and should not acknowledge the
wri ngs of the fathers as the norm of doctrine in the church: (1) Because
this dignity and authority is due only to the canonical wri ngs of the
prophets and apostles. (2) Because the fathers themselves order us to
examine their wri ngs according to the norm of the divine canon. (3)
Because the Papists themselves deny that the authority of the fathers is
always authen c. (4) Because the fathers do not agree on every point
either in doctrines or in the interpreta on of Scripture. (5) Because many
wri ngs of the ancients have perished. (6) Those that are s ll extant have
been distorted and corrupted in many places. (7) Because in the wri ngs of
the fathers dross is found joined with gold, straw with jewels, and the
leaven of human opinions with the dough of heavenly doctrine. We can
prove the individual parts of this declara on of ours in great detail, as we
have shown partly in our trea se On the Interpreta on of Scripture [1610
Loci Theologici, locus 2], §§ 84ff. Also, we shall prove them in greater detail
and more fully in the second and third points a bit later [§§ 205–30].

Bellarmine’s arguments in favor of that consensus

§ 204. To prove that agreement in doctrine with the ancient church is a
mark of the church, Bellarmine sets forth two fundamental points:
(I) The true church is called apostolic, according to Tertullian (De praescript.), not only
because of the succession of bishops from the apostles but also because of a kinship of
doctrine, namely, because it retains the doctrine that the apostles handed down. And it is
certain that in its first five hundred years the ancient church was the true church and thus
had held on to the apostolic doctrine. (II) Emperor Theodosius is praised by Sozomen (Hist.,
bk. 7, ch. 12) because he said to the here cs of his me: “Let us examine your doctrine
according to their wri ngs. If it is agrees with them, let it be kept. If not, let it be rejected.”
 We respond. (1) Agreement in doctrine with the church that was at the
me of Tertullian and Theodosius is a mark of the church in no other way
except insofar as that doctrine agrees with apostolic doctrine and that
church with the apostolic church exactly and accurately. You see, there is
only one norm and rule according to which every doctrine must be
examined, namely, the voice of Christ and the apostles sounding forth in
Scripture.
(2) We can learn whether and to what extent the church at the me of
Tertullian and Theodosius retained apostolic doctrine only from the
apostolic documents, because they set forth the doctrine of the apostles
exactly.
(3) Tertullian is correct in asser ng that the church is called apostolic
not so much because of a personal and local succession as because of a
kinship of doctrine. From this, however, one cannot infer that local
succession and kinship of doctrine with the apostolic doctrine always walk
together at equal pace and are inseparably joined together. A er all, there
are many churches in which a local succession once flourished which today
lack the purity of apostolic doctrine. We can even prove this about the
Roman church on the basis of the wri ngs of the apostles.
(4) It is indeed certain that the ancient church in the first five hundred
years was the true church and retained apostolic doctrine. Meanwhile, no
one can deny that the straw of human tradi ons and opinions began to be
mixed with apostolic doctrine, as can be shown from the wri ngs of the
fathers. (About this, see the Centuriae hist. Magdeburgensis, ch. de
inclina one doctrinae.) Hegesippus (as found in Eusebius, bk. 3, ch. 29)
says: “While the apostles were s ll alive, the church was a virgin. A er
their death, however, she was astonishingly corrupted by false and lying
doctrine, and, as for the rest, with a bare head (as they say), dared to set
herself against the pure word of truth.” Chrysostom (on 1 Corinthians,
homily 36) compares the church of his me to a woman who perished a er
the first flowering of her virginity. Jerome (De vita Malchi) speaks as
follows: “I intended to write from the coming of the Savior to our age, that
is, from the apostles to the dregs of our me, how and through whom
Christ’s church was born and grew to adulthood by persecu ons, was
crowned with martyrs, and, a er it reached Chris an princes, became
greater in power and riches but lesser in virtues.” Augus ne (Le er 119 ad
Januar.) complains about the heap of tradi ons and observances. Yet all of
these lived during the first five hundred years. And furthermore, while the
apostles were s ll living, the An christ began to work the mystery of
iniquity [2 Thess. 2:7] and the false prophets began to sow their false
dogmas. Hence one can learn only from the wri ngs of the apostles what
doctrine is truly divine and apostolic. Therefore we must always go back to
the “Ancient of Days” [cf. Dan. 7:9, 22].
(5) Theodosius acted correctly in ordering that here cal doctrine
recently brought into the church be examined according to the wri ngs of
the predecessors, because the ar cle on the Trinity, about which there was
a ques on at that me, was explained correctly in those wri ngs of the
ancients. From this, however, one cannot infer that the wri ngs of the
fathers are per se and simply the norm and rule of doctrine in all things,
because the fathers subject their own wri ngs to the canonical authority of
Scripture. Not only do they allow, but they even order, that everything they
teach be proved and examined on the basis of Scripture. Thus they
acknowledge that Scripture is the universal, primary, and principal norm;
whatever does not agree with it cannot be acknowledged as divine but is a
fic on humanly devised by whomever it is advanced. Therefore, though we
do not disapprove of the counsel of Theodosius (or, rather, of Sisinnius,
who supplied it to Theodosius), yet we prefer the counsel of Constan ne
the Great at the Council of Nicaea, as reported in Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 7:
“Here are the evangelical and apostolic books and the u erances of the
ancient prophets. They teach us clearly what we must think about divine
ma ers. Thus let us get rid of our discord and take the solu on of our
ques ons from divinely inspired statements.”
(6) By no means do we reject the tes monies of those fathers who
wrote during the first five hundred years. Yet we weigh them on the basis
of Scripture and evaluate them all according to that norm alone.
The fathers themselves require this. Against “the argument that some of
the fathers taught that people before the flood did not eat the fruit of
trees nor meats,” Jus n (Quaest. ad orthodox., q. 119, p. 365) sets forth
the fact that the apostle—whom he calls “the father of fathers and teacher
of godliness”—taught something else. Basil, De Sp. s., ch. 19: “What our
fathers said we also say, that the glory is common to the Father and to the
Son. But it is not enough for us that this is a tradi on of the fathers, for
they also followed the authority of Scripture.” Dionysius of Alexandria (in
Eusebius, bk. 7, ch. 23) says about Nepos: “Among many others I esteem
and love Nepos, but actually, we should love and prefer truth more than
everyone. We should praise and approve someone without envy, if
anything is said correctly. We should discuss and discern it, if anything is
said unsoundly.” Jerome, Le er ad Minerium: “It is my intent to read the
ancients, to test everything they wrote, to keep those things that are good,
and not to depart from the faith of the catholic church.” Le er ad Theoph.:
“I know that I regard the apostles differently than all other writers. The
former always speak the truth; the la er, as men, err in some things.” He
writes similar things also in his commentaries on Psalm 86, on Isaiah 19, on
Ezekiel 36, on Micah 2, on Zephaniah 2, etc. When Augus ne (Le er 19 ad
Hieronymum) was being pressed by the authori es of eight ancient fathers
in the controversy on the pretence of Peter, he appeals to the apostle Paul
and says:
From all these writers of literature who believe otherwise I appeal to the apostle himself.
May all those who think differently forgive me, but I believe so great an apostle more, etc. I
have learned to defer this fear and honor to those books of Scripture alone that are now
called canonical; I believe most firmly that no author of them made any mistake in wri ng. I
read others in such a way that, regardless of how much they shine in holiness and doctrine, I
do not think that they are true because they believe that way, but because they could
persuade me either through those canonical writers or by probable reason that it does not
differ from the truth. And I do not think that you, my brother, believe anything different.
Certainly, I say, I do not think that you want your books to be read as those of the prophets
or apostles, about whose wri ngs it is wicked to doubt that they lack all errors.

Le er 48: “Do not be willing to gather false accusa ons against the divine
tes monies from the wri ngs of bishops, because this kind of literature
must be dis nguished from the authority of the canon. For they are not so
read as though tes mony were taken from them in such a way that it
would not be right to believe in any other way—lest perchance they
believed otherwise than the truth demands.” Le er 111: “Nor do we
consider the disputa ons of anyone at all, even of catholic and
praiseworthy men, as we do the canonical Scriptures: that, if the honor
due to those men is to be preserved, we would not be permi ed to
disapprove of and reject anything in their wri ngs, even if we have found
that they believed otherwise than the truth holds.” De bapt. cont. Donat.,
bk. 2, ch. 3:
 Who does not know that the holy, canonical Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments
is contained within its own limits and is placed so far ahead of all the later le ers of bishops
that one can have absolutely no doubt about it, nor can one debate whether what has been
wri en in it is true and correct? But we are allowed to censure bishops’ le ers, which were
wri en a er the canon was confirmed or are being wri en, through the wiser discourse of
someone with greater experience in this subject, and through the graver authority of other
bishops and the prudence of teachers, and through councils, if anything in them has
accidentally deviated from the truth.

Contra Faustum, bk. 11, ch. 5:

In the works of later writers, which are contained in innumerable books but are by no means
the equivalent of the canonical excellence of the Holy Scriptures—even in whichever of
them the same truth is found, yet their authority is far different. Therefore if some things in
them are deemed to differ from what is true because they are not being understood as they
were spoken, nevertheless the reader or listener has free judgment either to approve of
what pleased him or to reject what offended him, etc.

Contra Crescon., bk. 2, ch. 31: “We do no wrong to Cyprian when we

dis nguish any wri ngs of his from the canonical authority of the divine
Scriptures. It is not without cause that the ecclesias cal canon has been
established with such wholesome vigilance. To it belong certain books of
the prophets and apostles, books that we dare not judge at all and
according to which we pass judgment about the other wri ngs of both the
faithful and the faithless.” Elsewhere he says:
Let us use that liberty to which the Lord has called us. Of those men to whose praises we
cannot a ain, to whose many books we do not compare our wri ngs, whose abili es we
love, in whose speech we delight, at whose charity we marvel, whose martyrdom we
venerate—of those men we must not accept as canonical anything that they understood
differently. And we are doing them no wrong when we dis nguish any of their sayings or
wri ngs from the canonical authority of the divine Scriptures.

We could cite many more statements like this from Augus ne.
In fact, the Papists themselves admit that the wri ngs of the fathers are
not the first and immovable norm of heavenly doctrine. The statements of
Augus ne we have just given are cited in [Ius canonicum,] dist. 9, c. noli, c.
neque, c. ego solis, c. quis nesciat, c. negare. Thomas, [ST,] part 1, q. 1, art.
8: “Sacred doctrine uses the authori es of canonical Scripture properly in
arguing from necessity. It uses the authori es of other teachers of the
church not as if arguing from things proper but as with probability. For our
faith relies upon the revela on given to the prophets and apostles who
wrote the canonical books, but not upon the revela on made to other
teachers, if there was any such thing.” Gabriel Biel, Can. missae, lect. 41:
“The authority of the holy fathers compels no one to assent to their
statements unless it is founded on Holy Scripture or is based on divine
revela on.” Roffensis, Confut. prooem. Luth., § et nos: “We, too, do not
deny that the fathers erred at different mes, for they were men even as
we.” Cajetan, preface to his commentary on Genesis: “If ever there has
occurred a suitable sense of the text, even though it be foreign to the flood
of teachers, let the reader show himself as a fair censor. No one should
despise him because he differs from the ancient teachers. God has not
bound the exposi on of Scripture to the minds of the ancient teachers;
otherwise our hope of explaining Scripture would be removed except in
transferring, as they say, from the book into the notebook [de libro in
quinternum].” Erasmus, Annot. N. T., Ma hew 2, p. 13: “Christ alone is
called the truth; He alone was free of every error. The divine Spirit also was
present with Cyprian, as is probable; yet the orthodox must reject some of
what he wrote. He was also with Jerome, but some of what he said is
rejected, and he himself recanted some of his own statements.” On
Ma hew 11, p. 41: “I know that Jerome, Augus ne, and many others along
with them interpret this differently. But one may somewhere dissent from
the most excellent authors, seeing that they were not only men but even
allowed themselves at mes to abuse the tes monies of Scripture in their
figura ve language.” On Luke 22, p. 157: “There are those who instantly
take it as an insult if anyone differs from the accepted authors, though not
even the la er demand so much honor. In fact, it is more insul ng, I
believe, if anyone tries to defend against the truth those who, in the
manner of men, have slipped somewhere.” Villavincencio, De rat. stud.
theol., bk. 4, ch. 6: “It is clear that all the fathers, however outstanding in
innocence of life and in learning they may have been, made mistakes in
speaking and wri ng.” Melchior Canus, Loc. comm., bk. 11, ch. 6: “Not
everything that the great authors wrote is perfect everywhere, for at mes
they slip, as that one says, and fall under the burden. They indulge the
pleasure of their own abili es, and some mes they even indulge the
common crowd.” Ambrosius Catherinus, Contra Cajet.: “That man certainly
does not please Augus ne whom Augus ne pleases so immoderately that
he is unwilling to say that Augus ne ever wandered from the truth.”
Pererius, on Genesis, bk. 3, ch. 1, q. 5: “Irenaeus declares that what he
teaches about paradise he learned from the presbyters of Asia, who were
disciples of the apostles, but what then? Must whatever those presbyters
told him be considered as a certain and undoubted dogma of doctrine? Is it
not certain, according to that same Irenaeus, that those very presbyters
taught some things that were false and contrary to Holy Writ?” The
theologians of the academy at Douai (in their Censura Bertrami that they
put into the Index expurgator.) openly admit that they “in other ancient
catholic writers besides Bertramus endure very many errors, diminish and
excuse them, think up some fic on and deny them, and a ach a
convenient meaning to them when they are set forth against them in
debates.” Baronius, Annal., anno 34, vol. 1, § 213: “In the interpreta on of
Scripture the Catholic church does not always nor in all things follow the
most holy fathers whom we deservedly call ‘doctors of the church’ because
of their lo y erudi on, no ma er how clear it is that they were endowed
with the grace of the Holy Spirit more than all other men.” Gregorius de
Valen a (Annal., p. 18) admits that “the wri ngs of the fathers are, in their
own way, weapons common to both sides.” Salmeron (on the Epistle to the
Romans, disp. 6, shortly before the end) says:
In reading the fathers, it seems to me that we must preserve the judgment of Quin lian,
who writes as follows: “Let not the reader be immediately persuaded that all the things that
the great authors said are surely perfect. At mes they slip and yield to the burden and
indulge the pleasure of their own abili es. They are the greatest, but they are men. And it
occurs to readers that they think that whatever they discover in them is a law of speaking,
so that the worse things should be imitated, for this is easier. Also, they think they are quite
like the great if they achieve the faults of the great.” This he says prudently and acutely.

Bellarmine, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 12: “The wri ngs of the fathers are not
rules, nor do they have the authority to bind.” De verb. Dei, bk. 3, ch. 10:
“Who denies that the fathers were richly endowed with the gi of
interpre ng, and yet even the greatest of them slipped?” And yet if the
fathers some mes slip and err, how will we be able to accept their wri ngs
as a norm of doctrine?

Does the Roman church agree in doctrine with the ancient

church?
§ 205. The second sec on. Does the Roman church of today agree in
doctrine with the ancient church that was nearest to the me of the
apostles? Bellarmine declares that this can be proved in two ways: “(I) If
we cite the statements of the ancients that confirm each dogma of the
Roman church but refute those of our adversaries. (II) If we show from the
confession of our adversaries that the Roman-Papist dogmas are the
teaching of all the ancients but that the dogmas of our adversaries were
considered in the ancient church as ascertained heresies.” He passes over
the first way as too lengthy and liable to many false accusa ons. Intending
to trod the la er way as shorter and more certain, he cites some passages
from Calvin and the Centuriators in which they note some errors of the
ancients that they have in common with the Papists, in the ar cles on free
will, merits, sa sfac on, purgatory, the invoca on of saints, the celibacy of
priests, and some others.
We respond. (1) Although we consider the fathers not as judges of the
truth but as informers and witnesses thereof, and we claim that they, as
men, erred at mes, yet we are prepared to prove each ar cle of our faith
that is in controversy with the Papists on the basis of the clear and explicit
tes monies of the fathers. We do not disapprove of that first way, that
tes monies in each ar cle be gathered from the wri ngs of the fathers
who lived during the first five hundred years.
(2) Neither Calvin nor the Centuriators declare what Bellarmine
a ributes to them as if they were admi ng that their doctrine is opposed
to all of an quity and completely lacks the support of all the ancients. In
each of their Centuriae, the Centuriators provide clear and lucid
tes monies from the fathers, in which they gave their approval to our
posi on. Bellarmine himself acknowledges this in a certain way when, in
each controversy, he reports some statements of the fathers in favor of our
posi on, to which he tries to respond, to the best of his ability.
(3) What they do claim, on the other hand, is that “the seeds of some
papal errors” were sown in the wri ngs of the ancients, because the
ancients some mes spoke too freely and inappropriately before the
Pelagian controversy arose.
(4) They s ll do not establish all the fathers as patrons of all the papal
errors. On the contrary, they accurately dis nguish those blemishes and
straw that are found in the wri ngs of the fathers from Papist heresies and
errors. They also point out clearly that the Papists quite o en twist the
statements of the fathers into an alien and foreign sense. For instance,
what the fathers write about “ecclesias cal sa sfac on” the Papists
translate to “the sa sfac on for sins before God.” What the fathers assert
about the freedom of choice “from compulsion” the Papists translate as
freedom “from corrup on.” The fathers use the word “merit” more
generally as “acquiring” [consecu o]; the Papists use it specifically for “the
dignity inherent in works,” to which blessedness is supposed to be owed.
The fathers refer to the custom of their day as a free ma er, but the
Papists change it into necessary laws. (But this ma er is discussed more
appropriately in the individual ar cles.)
(5) The Papists themselves are somehow compelled to admit what the
Centuriators say, that “Chrysostom and other ancients were immoderate in
preaching about free choice, the merits of works, celibacy, sa sfac on,
martyrdom,” etc.
First, Chrysostom claims about free choice that “through it man makes
himself worthy of grace.” The Jesuit Toletus (in his commentary on Romans
6) confesses: “Not only Chrysostom but also Cyril, and not only those but
also other teachers, especially the Greeks, claimed this.” Maldonatus
(commentary on John 6) acknowledges: “Theophylact, Arnobius, and
Euthymius speak in such a way as if man could merit grace before he was
drawn to grace by grace.” Pererius (commentary on Romans 9, no. 33)
writes: “Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Jerome were of that opinion.” But is
this now proved as far as the Papists are concerned? Not at all. Maldonatus
adds, loc. cit.: “This teaching of theirs is too closely related to the error of
the Pelagians. Let the reader be careful if he is reading Chrysostom in this
place that he not fall into the Pelagian heresy.” Toletus adds, loc. cit.:
“Augus ne teaches much differently from those, for he teaches that God
gives us grace not only that we may be able to believe but even that we
may be willing. In this, the aforemen oned authors are not approved.”
Pererius adds, loc. cit.: “Certainly that teaching seems to be contrary to
those things that the apostle is discussing in this passage. The statement of
Augus ne is more consistent with the teaching of Paul.” Thus they are
acknowledging that in the ancient fathers, the pris ne, ancient, and
genuinely apostolic truth is at mes missing; that it therefore is safest to go
back to the doctrine of the apostles set forth in the Scriptures and to pass
frank judgment about the wri ngs of the fathers on the basis of it.
 Second, in regard to the merits of works, at mes the ancients speak
too kindly about it, especially in their sermons of exhorta on to the
people. The Papists themselves admit this. Vega, De jus f., bk. 8, ch. 8, p.
189: “It does not escape my no ce that the fathers use the word ‘merit’
where there is no merit, neither congruous [de congruo] nor deserved [de
condigno].” Stapleton, Promt. cath., fer. 5. post pass. Dom.: “If one of the
ancients used the word ‘meri ng,’ he meant it in no other way than an
actual acquiring.” He says this absolutely correctly, but from this use, or,
rather, misuse, of the word, the destruc ve heresy about the merits of
works in the proper sense later originated.
Third, the more moderate Papists admit that when the ancients extolled
celibacy, they were some mes excessive. Erasmus, Adv. Albert. Pigg. de
virg.: “Because of an emo onal fervor, Jerome at mes was caught up in an
admira on of celibacy that seemed, even to devout men, to be harmful to
marriage. This would be inconsequen al except that in the wri ngs of
Jerome are found the same words which are condemned in Tertullian by
the same accusa on.” Acosta, De Christo revel., bk. 2, ch. 20: “At mes
Jerome sounds quite hos le toward marriage.”
Fourth, Bellarmine himself acknowledges that at mes the ancients
spoke too inappropriately about sa sfac on, for he writes, De poenit., bk.
4, ch. 1, § jam igitur: “Sa sfac on is not offered for fault but for
punishment. But if the ancient fathers at mes seem to a ribute it to
human ac ons—that they perform sa sfac on to expiate their fault—then
we must interpret them as referring to congruous sa sfac on, not
deserved sa sfac on.” Yet this dis nc on is completely unknown to the
ancients.
Fi h, they make martyrdom equal to Bap sm; in fact, they even prefer
it and say that sins are washed away by it. In this, however, no one will be
able to deny that a misuse of words is at hand, unless he wishes to claim
that the blood of Christ and the blood of martyrs have the same efficacy,
and that the nature of our service and of Christ’s benefac on presented in
Bap sm are the same. Much more correctly does Augus ne deny that “the
blood of any martyr has been shed for the remission of sins” (Contra
Julianum, bk. 2). To be sure, Bellarmine does claim, De bapt., bk. 1, ch. 6:
“Martyrdom is correctly called and is a bap sm, because it agrees with
Bap sm in three effects: (1) It forms people to correspond to the suffering
and death of Christ. (2) It forgives original sin and all other sins that have
been commi ed. (3) It remits all punishment, temporal as well as eternal,
that is owed to sin.” Nevertheless he also adds this: “They are not equally
certain,” because Ledesmius and some other theologians claim:
“Martyrdom does not confer grace just by working the work [ex opere
operato], but by the work of the worker [ex opere operan s].” Toward the
end of the chapter he says: “Martyrdom is not a sacrament.”

The confession of the Papists that in some things they lack the
approval of the fathers
§ 206. As Bellarmine appeals to our confession that some dogmas of the
Roman church do occur in the wri ngs of the fathers, so also we, with
more right, can appeal to the confession of the Papists that they
themselves acknowledge that many dogmas of the Papist faith totally lack
the approval of the ancient fathers, especially of those who were closest to
the mes of the apostles.
Let us begin with the ar cle on Holy Scripture, the only founda on of
faith. (1) We do not accept the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom,
Ecclesias cus, the two books of Maccabees, etc., into the canon of the Old
Testament. Yet Bellarmine himself admits, De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 20, § ad
alteram: “In se ng forth the canon of Scripture, Epiphanius, Hilary, and
Rufinus obviously followed the Hebrews.” “But now, the Hebrews reject
those books,” according to the same witness (bk. 1, ch. 10, at the
beginning). Melchior Canus, Loc. theolog., bk. 2, ch. 10: “Melito, who went
to the East to examine this problem, finally discovered by careful
inves ga on that these books had to be rejected from the canon of the
Old Testament. Origen stated the same thing, as Eusebius writes (bk. 4, ch.
26). Eusebius himself makes the same claim (bk. 6, ch. 11). And Athanasius
and Damascenus, whom many theologians followed, are no strangers to
this idea.” Canus, therefore, is admi ng that in this controversy we have
on our side the most outstanding and oldest fathers. Bellarmine (De verbo
Dei, bk. 1, ch. 10) acknowledges that Jerome, too, held our posi on. Ederus
(Oecom. bibl., bk. 1, p. 22) grants us the support of the Council of Laodicea.
They summon canonical authority for those books from no higher than the
third Council of Carthage. Yet that council uses the word “canonical” in a
general sense for all books that can be read for edifica on in the church,
though they are not of equal authority. More is wri en about this
elsewhere [On Holy Scripture (1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1), §§ 6–16; see
also On Holy Scripture (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace I), §§ 67–107, 174–
240].
(2) We claim that controversies of faith must be defined from the
Scriptures alone. The Papists admit that the opinion of the ancients is the
same. Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, preface to Evang.: “The early church
knew no other rule. Oh, that the church today would hold to it!”
Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 4, ch. 11), hard pressed by the tes monies of
the ancients, concedes that “the ancients claim that all necessary things
have been wri en, that in regard to dogmas we can be fully and
completely instructed from the Scriptures, that there is no fault for which a
healing remedy is not found in the Scriptures,” etc.
(3) We say that the Hebrew text in the Old Testament and the Greek in
the New are authen c. This same thing is confirmed on the basis of many
tes monies of the fathers by Benedictus Arias Montanus, one of the
fathers of the Council of Trent, in the preface to his Opus biblicum.
Ludovicus Vives (August. de civit. Dei, bk. 4, ch. 8) makes the following
comment: “It would be quite useless, I think, to want to persuade with
many words that when there is any doubt about the sense or integrity of
the words of the La n Gospel, one must have recourse to the source,
namely, to the Greek copies, in which language the apostles wrote. Jerome
calls for this. Augus ne here gives the admoni on and commands it with
his own example.” On bk. 15, ch. 13: “Jerome calls for this very thing.
Reason itself teaches it. There is no one of sound judgment who would
disagree with it. But the consensus of good men of ability decrees this in
vain, for rigid stupidity is set against it like a dam, etc.”
(4) We commend the reading of the Scriptures to all Chris ans. The
Papists admit that the fathers prac ced the same thing. The Englishmen of
Rheims, preface to the New Testament: “Chrysostom was transla ng parts
of Scripture into the Armenian and Gothic languages.” Harding, art. 3, sect.
38: “The Armenians, Russians, Ethiopians, Dalma ans, and Muscovites
were reading the Scriptures in their vernacular language.” Cornelius
Agrippa, De vanit. scient., ch. 100: “In the Council of Nicaea it was decreed
that no Chris an should be without the Bible.”
 In the ar cle on original sin we teach that it is propagated through
carnal genera on to human beings with the single excep on of Christ. The
Papists admit that the fathers teach the same thing as we do. Melchior
Canus, Loci theol., bk. 7, ch. 1:
According to the genuine literal sense, nowhere in Holy Writ is the blessed Virgin considered
to have been free of sin. In fact, in it we learn that there is a general law that embraces
without excep on all people created by carnal offspring from Adam. One cannot say that
this came down to the church at the me of the apostles, for it is evident that the ancient
writers did not receive it from their forefathers. In fact, all who men on this subject
declared unanimously that the blessed Virgin had been conceived in original sin.

Canus cites in favor of this opinion Chrysostom, Eusebius, Remigius,

Ambrose, Augus ne, Bernard, Bede, Anselm, Erardus the Martyr,
Bonaventure, Aquinas, Hugh of St. Victor, etc. Suarez, In Thom., part 3, q.
27, art. 1: “The ancient fathers said li le about that special privilege of the
blessed Virgin” (that she was free of sin in her first concep on) “both
because the Holy Spirit was instruc ng the church gradually and because
they were occupied in explaining other more serious mysteries. But a er
this truth began to be taught more clearly within five hundred years, it so
kindled the spirits of the faithful and gradually faith in it increased that it
has now been accepted by the consent of all. Especially since two hundred
years ago, all the writers of the church and all the universi es have
subscribed to this belief.” Salmeron, commentary on Romans 5, at the
beginning of disp. 51: “I respond as follows to the statements of the fathers
that are cited against the privilege of the immaculate concep on of the
blessed Virgin (for some cite two hundred fathers; others, like Bandellus,
almost three hundred; Cajetan, fi een, and those, he says, are irrefutable):
Against the mul tude of teachers we set forth another mul tude, as one
nail is driven out by another.” Later he adds: “More recent teachers are to
be preferred to the old ones as more insigh ul in this ques on.”
On the topic of repentance: (1) We accuse papal indulgences of novelty.
Some of the Papists themselves do not deny this. Archbishop Antoninus of
Florence, part 1, t. 10, ch. 3: “As regards indulgences, we have nothing
expressly from Holy Scripture nor even from the statements of the ancient
teachers, but only of modern teachers.” Bishop Roffinus, Contra Lutherum,
art. 18: “Who can be surprised now that, at the beginning of the growing
church, indulgences were not used?” Gregorius de Valen a, De indulgent.,
bk. 2, ch. 5: “There were some Catholics before Luther, whose opinion
Thomas reports (part 3, q. 25, art. 5) as saying that indulgences were pious
frauds.” Alphonsus de Castro, Contra haeres., bk. 8, p. 255: “In all the
things that we are deba ng in this work, there is nothing that Holy Writ has
explained less openly and about which the ancient writers have said less”
(than indulgences).
(2) We claim that, in the early church, the auricular confession such as
the Papists demand was unknown. The same thing is acknowledged by
Gra an, the author of the Ius canonicum, dist. 5 de poenit., c. in poenit.:
“Very religious people have also deemed that a secret confession is
unnecessary, people like Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylact, and other
Greek fathers.” Rhenanus, preface to Tertullian’s De poenit.: “The ancients
used public confession for many centuries before that secret one was
developed. Tertullian has nothing about it, for it was completely unknown
at that me.” Maldonatus, Summ., q. 18. art. 4: “Even among Catholics
there are some who think that there is no divine commandment about
confession, such as all the interpreters of the decrees and, among the
Scholas cs, Scotus.”
In the ar cle on jus fica on: (1) We claim that faith alone jus fies.
Some of the Papists admit that the fathers taught the same thing. Johann
Hoffmeister (in Fabricius’s Harm. August. confess., p. 46): “Before this
uproar started in the church, no one was offended by the li le word
‘alone.’ Now some tender ears can barely endure it. Indeed, no one ever
summoned Ambrose to court because he declared that man was jus fied
by faith alone.” Georgius Cassander writes, Consult., art. 4: “In the fathers,
also, we have sufficient examples where jus fica on, which comes a er
regenera on, is said to stand by faith alone.” Erasmus: “The word ‘alone,’
assailed in this century by so many cries in Luther, is reverently heard and
read in the fathers.”
(2) We claim that works, properly speaking, are not meritorious. Some
Papist writers admit that the devout ancients support the same belief.
Vega, De jus ficat., bk. 1, ch. 8, p. 188, and in Opusc. de merit., q. 7, p. 816:
“I s ll see some very learned, very pious Catholic men who are inclined to
believe that the church rejects congruous merit as a recent inven on
opposed to the authority of the fathers. Actually, the fathers do not have
this dis nc on of congruous and deserved anywhere.”
 In the ar cle on the sacraments we disapprove of the number seven for
the sacraments. Cassander (Consult. de August. confess., art. 13)
acknowledges that this was unknown to the ancients: “Among the slightly
older authors, some mes two, some mes three, sacraments are set
among the sacraments in the proper sense: Bap sm, the Eucharist, and
confirma on. Before Peter Lombard, you will not quickly discover anyone
who stated a certain and definite number of sacraments. Not even all the
Scholas cs used to call these seven equally and properly ‘sacraments.’ ”
In the ar cle on the Eucharist we disapprove of Communion under one
kind. The Papists dare not deny that this was exiled from the church for
long centuries. Cassander, Cons., art. 22:
It is quite evident that the Western or Roman church for a thousand years a er Christ
tendered both kinds, bread and wine, to all members of the church in the solemn and
ordinary dispensa on of this Sacrament. This is obvious from countless ancient tes monies
of both Greek and La n fathers. It is also evident that they were induced to do this by the
example of Christ. This s ll holds as the custom throughout Greece and Armenia. Therefore
it is not mere chance that the best Catholics and those who have occupied themselves in the
reading of the ecclesias cal writers are kindled with a great desire to have the chalice, in
order that the Lord’s Sacrament may be brought back to the ancient custom of the universal
church, which was con nued without interrup on for many centuries.

Cardinal Cusanus, Le er 2 ad Bohemos: “Formerly, very holy men affirmed

by word and deed that by force of Christ’s command the Sacrament of
both kinds was necessary.” Some of the Papists admit this. Erasmus, Epist.
de concord. eccles.: “There are some who ask for Communion, I admit it, as
Christ ins tuted it. It was formerly observed that way.”
Cassander, Consult., art. 24:
The Protestants complain about private Masses, and this is not without reason if we take
the expression “private Masses” to mean those where the priest alone par cipates in the
confected Sacrament and no distribu on of the mysteries takes place. A clearer name for
these is “solitary Masses.” The ancients seem to have disapproved of these, for it is absurd
that the lone priest should say, “The Lord be with you.” Odo Camerensis writes about these
in his Canon. and says that in ancient mes they were not in the use of the church.

We say that transubstan a on was unknown to the ancients. Some of

the Papists admit this. Erasmus, Annot. on 1 Corinthians 7: “The church
defined transubstan a on recently.” Bellarmine, De euch., bk. 3, ch. 23:
“Scotus adds that before the Lateran Council there was no dogma of
transubstan a on.” Cassander, Consult.: “Transubstan a on is new in both
name and effect.”
On the topic of the church, we deny to the pope a monarchic dominion.
Aeneas Sylvius admits (Le er 31) that this was unknown to the ancients:
“Before the Council of Nicaea everyone lived for himself, and li le
a en on was paid to the Roman church.” Bishop Gregory of Rome, bk. 4,
Le er 26: “None of my predecessors ever used that profane expression
‘universal bishop.’ ” Cusanus, De concord. eccl., bk. 2, ch. 34: “Gregory says
this: no Roman pon ff usurped for himself the imprudent tle ‘universal
bishop.’ Boniface III, however, who came second a er Gregory, a er a
great struggle finally obtained from Phocas that Rome should be called the
head of all the churches, according to Pla na, on Boniface III.”
The elec on of the pope by cardinals is a novelty, according to
Bellarmine, De cleric., bk. 1, ch. 16:
I admit that formerly some bishops were not preferred to other bishops. A erward,
however, the ranking was changed. For, a er the elec on of the chief pon ff fell to the
cardinals, the dignity of cardinals began to be greater than before. For the first eight
hundred years the cardinals were neither the only nor the chief advisors of the pope. In
these last six or seven hundred years, episcopal councils have begun to be omi ed, and the
en re business has been reduced to the senate of cardinals.

We deny that the pope has the authority to summon general councils.
Some Papists admit that the same thing was denied in the early church.
Cusanus, Concord. cathol., bk. 2, ch. 25: “From that me when the
emperors began to be Chris an, the business of the church seems to have
depended upon their will. Even the greatest councils were assembled on
the basis of their declara on, as is clear from Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen,
and Nicephorus. The emperors assembled the first eight general councils.
The Roman pon ff, like the other patriarchs, received the sacred, imperial
commands to come or to be sent to councils.”
That the pope cannot err we say is a new and here cal dogma. Some
Papists admit the novelty of this doctrine. Ambrosius Catharinus,
commentary on Gala ans 2: “It is false that the pope cannot err, even
though recent writers have dared to defend the opposite.” Bellarmine, De
pont., bk. 4, ch. 2, § secunda opinio: “Teachers at Paris have held that the
pope can err; for example, Gerson, Almainus, as well as Pope Adrian VI.” (If
the pope cannot err, that Adrian did not err when he stated that popes are
subject to the danger of erring. On the other hand, if Pope Adrian erred
when he asserted this, it follows that the pope can err.)
We accuse the jubilee years that the Roman popes promulgate of
novelty. The Papists cannot deny this. Polydore Vergilius (De rerum invent.,
bk. 8, ch. 1) and Pla na (Vita Bonif. VIII.) write as follows: “This Boniface
was the first to ordain a jubilee for the year 1300. He wanted this to be
repeated solemnly every hundredth year. Clement VI sanc oned that it be
celebrated every fi ieth year, and Sixtus V reduced it to every twenty-fi h
year.”
That the pope is above a council we say is a novelty first heard in the
church a few years ago. Some of the Papists admit this. Aeneas Sylvius,
himself later a pope, says De gest. concil. Basil.: “In the mes of the ancient
councils, the popes regarded the acts of councils as oracles. Pope Damasus
said that it was not his responsibility to put his hand upon cases that a
council had defined.” Cardinal Cusanus, De concord. cathol., bk. 2, ch. 17:
“It is clear that the pope is not above the church on the basis of Augus ne,
Cyprian, and Pope Gregory, and even Ambrose, and the confession of the
popes.” Bellarmine, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 14: “Cardinal Cameracensis,
Almain, Gerson, Nicolaus Campanus, Panormitanus, Cardinal Floren nus,
and the fathers at the Council of Basel decreed that the pope is beneath a
council.”
We claim that it is a novelty to say that clerics are exempt from the
power of the civil magistrate, and that this was unknown to the ancient
fathers. Bishop Espencaeus admits this (commentary on Titus 3, digress.
10):
The apostle teaches that all believers are subject to the powers of the world; but it is
amazing how many and how great uproars some restless people have caused by s rring up a
controversy between kingdom and priesthood. So many centuries before this Camerina,
Chrysostom never suspected anything like this would come of the apostles’ statement: “Let
every soul be subject to the powers.” He says that everyone—apostle, prophet, evangelist,
bishop—should be subject. Theodoret, Oecumenius, and Theophylact follow him. And what
about non-Greeks? Gregory the Great openly acknowledged the same thing and says that
emperors were granted the right to rule over the priests. Bernard draws the same
conclusion. He says: “If every soul, then yours too. Who has made you an excep on to
universality? If anyone tries to make an excep on, he is trying to deceive.” Gra an, dist. 65,
c. in synodo and c. si competenter: “The popes themselves in their decrees admit that they
are subject to emperors.”
 Some of the Papists acknowledge that celibacy of priests was something
free in the early church. Cassander, Consult., art. 23: “It remains that in the
ordaining of estates, celibacy be relaxed, and that according to the
honorable custom of the ancient church, as well as of the Eastern churches
un l now, also married men be admi ed to the ministry of the church.”
Cajetan, Opusc., vol. 1, trea se 17: “For a long me in the Eastern church it
was permissible to marry a er ordina on.” Gregorius de Valen a, De
coelib., p. 59: “Clichtovaeus, who wanted to defend the law of celibacy
strenuously, thinks that the law of celibacy was first invented by Pope
Siricius, that is, around the year 390.”
Eck (Enchirid., ch. de vener. sanct.) confesses that the invoca on of the
saints was unknown to the early church closest to the mes of the
apostles. He says: “In the beginning of the church in the New Testament,
people were not permi ed to invoke the saints, lest recently converted
Gen les be allowed to be led to idolatry again.”
Bishop Roffensis (Adv. Luth., art. 18) acknowledges that the doctrine of
purgatory is new and unknown to the early church. He says:
Whoever wishes should read the commentaries of the Greek fathers. He will find, I believe,
no men on, or very rare men on, of purgatory. Not all La ns at the same me conceived
the truth of this subject, nor was a belief in purgatory as necessary to the early church as it
is now. On it depends every judgment of indulgences, for if there is no purgatory, we have
no need of them. Therefore they think that for some me purgatory was unknown. Then
gradually some people began to believe it, partly because of revela ons, partly on the basis
of Scripture. Then recently it was recognized, etc.

Cassander, Consult., art. de missa: “Un l today it had never been

determined in the church how our prayers could benefit the souls of the
dead. Rather, this was purely a witness of our love toward the dead, and of
the ar cle of the immortality of the soul and the future resurrec on of
bodies.”
Some of the Papists admit that the worship of images was unknown to
the early church. Erasmus, Catech.: “Un l the days of Jerome there were
men of proven religion who would make no image, not even of Christ
Himself.” Cassander, Consult., art. 21: “It is certain that at the beginning of
the preaching of the Gospel and for some me therea er images were not
used, as is clear from Clement of Alexandria and Arnobius.” And later:
“What the mind of the Roman church was at the me of Gregory we
conclude from his wri ngs. It undoubtedly had pictures not for the people
to worship but for those who did not know of the history to be informed by
them.” Polydorus Vergilius, De rerum invent., bk. 6, ch. 13: “According to
Jerome, all the ancient fathers condemned the worship of images.”
Azorius acknowledges that the ancients did not prac ce a strict
observance of the Lenten fast. On the basis of Irenaeus (bk. 5, ch. 25) he
writes as follows, Ins t. moral., bk. 7, ch. 23: “Formerly, there was great
variety among Chris ans concerning the number of days of the Lenten fast.
Even Irenaeus indicates this. He says that some believe they should fast for
one day; others, two days; not a few, s ll longer; many, forty days. Those
last measure their day with both day and night hours. This variety and
discrepancy did not begin recently, during our age, but long ago before our
forefathers.”
We complain that the medley of ceremonies differs from the simplicity
of the early church. Cassander admits this, Consult., art. 25:
We must admit that those tradi ons are new in which the unlearned and supers ous
leaders of the churches have departed from modera on and the mind of the church, for
instance, concerning an excessively severe demand for fas ng and the choice of foods,
concerning the celibacy of those who have bound themselves to celibacy too rashly,
concerning the vows of monks and all other things of this sort. We are in agreement with
the Augsburg Confession when it says that, if the bishops had corrected those abuses,
especially those that invaded the Mass and other parts of divine worship, there now would
be fewer dissensions. Furthermore, we think that they should not only be admonished and
begged to correct the abuses, but should also be eager to bring back some of the ancient
rites and customs of the church that were discarded and changed through the progress and
passing of me.

Cornelius Agrippa, De vanit. scient., ch. 56: “Chris ans today are more
burdened than the Jews once were, because of the increasing laws
regarding ceremonies.”
We could provide from the Papist writers more tes monies of this kind
in which they admit the newness of their dogmas and rituals but the
conformity of ours with the ancient church. These, however, we refer to
the specific explana on of the individual controversies.

Whether the Evangelical churches enjoy a consensus with the

ancient church
 § 207. The third sec on. Are the Evangelical churches joined by a kinship
of doctrine with the ancient church closest to the mes of the apostles?
We affirm this constantly and prove this consensus of doctrine in the
individual controversies. Bellarmine strives to prove the opposite, that we
“are in support of the sort of dogmas that the ancient church considered as
established heresies.” To this end he weaves a garland of twenty heresies
and tries to put it upon us.

First, the heresy of the Simonians

(I) He says: “The Simonians taught that people were saved according to
the grace of Simon, whom they made God, and not according to righteous
works, Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 20. ‘The Eunomians taught similarly, that no sins
could harm a man provided he had faith,’ according to Augus ne, De
haeres., ch. 54. But this same idea is the belief of all the sectarians.”
** We are unjustly a acked in the same way by Costerus (Enchir., ch. 2,
§ 78), who says: “Among the heresies of Eunomius, blessed Augus ne lists
the doctrine of faith alone, which Luther again raised up from hell a er so
many years had passed.” However, the words of Augus ne in De haeres.,
ch. 54, describe the heresy of Eunomius far differently: “Our opponent is
said to have been of such a good life that he declared that the commission
and persevering in any sins would bring no harm to anyone at all who
shared in the sort of faith he was teaching.” **
Becanus writes, De eccles., q. 3, concl. 5, no. 22: “Luther condemns
good works.” Concl. 8, no. 74: “Luther imagines that jus fying faith consists
in this: that a person persuade himself with certainty that no sins, however
enormous, hurt him or are counted against him.”
We respond. We discussed this ma er as much as necessary in our
trea se On Good Works [Commonplace XX], § 44, where we washed away
that virulent and false accusa on, which is drenched with devilish poison.
Surely, as much as Christ differs from Simon Magus, as the Redeemer of
the world differs from that wicked impostor, as much as the grace of God
differs from the grace of Simon, as much as Chris an liberty differs from
the license to sin, as much as living faith differs from empty persuasion—in
fact, as distant as the heights of heaven are from the depths of the earth—
so greatly is our belief different from the Simonian and Eunomian heresy.
Eunomius preached the sort of faith that could stand with any sins at all,
even if a man would persevere in them (according to Augus ne, De
haeres., ch. 54). But do we teach such a faith? Bellarmine himself absolves
us of this crime (De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 3; bk. 3, ch. 6; and bk. 4, chs. 1 and 4).
There he points out that our people teach that “true faith cannot be
without good works.” The Papists, on the other hand, teach that faith can
be without good works. Therefore they are more like Eunomius than we
are. Let Bellarmine himself respond for us: “The Simonians used to teach,”
he writes here, “that man is saved by the grace of Simon Magus.” He writes
in De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 12: “The Protestants say that we must be jus fied
only through the grace of God in Christ Jesus, which we apprehend only
through faith.” Here he writes: “The Eunomians taught that no sin can
harm a man provided he has faith.” In De jus f., bk. 4, ch. 1, § ac primum,
he writes: “With its ‘by faith alone,’ the Augsburg Confession does not
exclude the other virtues but [only] their merit.” Ibid.: “The Protestants
deny that faith can stand along with wicked works.” De just., bk. 1, ch. 15:
“They say that faith alone jus fies, but they say that faith is not alone.” But
do these agree with each other? On the contrary, they are diametrically
opposed to each other. Toletus, commentary on John 13: “Eunomius
declared that faith was sufficient for salva on. The Protestants do teach
that it is sufficient for salva on, but they deny that such a faith can be
without works.” Therefore he is admi ng that Eunomius preached an
empty, dead faith but that the Protestants teach a living faith that is ac ve
through works. Stapleton, De jus f., bk. 9, ch. 7: “All Protestants, to a man,
say that the faith which jus fies is living and that it works through love and
other good works.” Vega, De jus fic., bk. 15, ch. 5: “They declare that
jus fica on and sanc fica on are so joined together and cohere so closely
that the one cannot be sundered from the other.”

Second, the heresy of Florinus

§ 208. (II) “The heresy of Florinus was that God is the cause of sins
(Eusebius, Hist., bk. 5, ch. 20). Calvin teaches the same thing without
shame (Ins t., bk. 1, ch. 18, § 2; bk. 3, ch. 23, § 24; ch. 24, § 14). Luther
taught the same thing in his book De serv. arbitr., as did also Philipp
Melanchthon in his commentary on Romans 8.”
 ** Campianus (Rat. 8) says it is the axiom of the Protestants that “God is
the cause of sin.” **
We respond. What the belief of our churches is regarding the cause of
sin is expressed in clear language in the Augsburg Confession, art. XIX: “Of
the cause of sin, they teach that, though God does create and preserve
nature, yet the cause of sin is the will of the wicked, that is, of the devil and
ungodly men. This will, without the help of God, turns away from God.”
According to that public symbol of our churches we must weigh whatever
Luther or Melanchthon said in their early years in the heat of the struggle
with their adversaries. In his commentaries on Genesis 26 and Ma hew
11, Luther himself explained how he wished his book De servo arbitrio to
be understood. The Jesuit Suarez (De variis opusc. theol., bk. 2, ch. 2, no. 5)
absolves us of this heresy: “Concerning evil acts with regard to the form of
sin, there is no controversy among Catholics. Therefore let it be certain in
faith that God by no means inclines toward the form of sin. Furthermore,
the here cs” (so he calls the Protestants) “do not deny this, for they know
well that God cannot intend the form of sin nor does He incline the will of
man to intend it.” Book 1, ch. 2, § non ergo: “Our adversaries admit that
the proper cause of sin is the human will.”
Bellarmine should see to it that he does not become guilty of that
heresy which he falsely a ributes to us. For he argues as follows: “Through
sin man has lost his original righteousness and consists of flesh and spirit.
As a result, contrary propensi es and a rash inclina on to sin have come
into being, born out of a condi on of his nature that God created.” He also
says, De grat. prim. hom., bk. 1, ch. 5:
The condi on of humans a er Adam’s fall differs from his condi on in natural purity no
more than one who is stripped differs from one who is naked. Human nature is neither
worse, if you take away original fault, nor does it labor with greater ignorance and weakness
than it was and than it labored in natural purity. Hence the corrup on of nature does not
flow from the loss of a natural endowment nor from the addi on of a wicked quality, but
only from the loss of a supernatural endowment because of the sin of Adam.

By this logic, however, the rebellion of the flesh against the spirit in man is
related to the very nature that God created. In this way, the Creator of that
nature—God—is established as the cause of that rebellion, which, as the
apostle teaches, is truly sin (Rom. 7:7ff.; Gal. 5:17; etc.). He also argues, De
grat. et lib. arbitr., bk. 2, ch. 8: “With His absolute will God wants to save
many, both children and adults; and with His absolute will He does not
want to save many, both children and adults.” Yet that absolute will to not
save includes this very thing: that God is the author of the sins because of
which they are condemned, as is clear from the disputa on on the
absolute decree of reproba on against the Calvinists [On Elec on and
Reproba on (Commonplace X)].

Third, the heresy of Origen

§ 209. (III) “Origen’s heresy was that Adam lost the image of God
according to which he had been created, according to Epiphanius, Haeres.
64. Calvin teaches the same thing (Ins t., bk. 2, ch. 1, § 5). It was also
Origen’s error that hell is nothing except the terror of conscience,
according to Jerome, Le er ad Avitum. Calvin teaches the same thing
(Ins t., bk. 3, last chapter, last §).”
We respond. (1) We have discussed the loss of the divine image in our
trea se On the Image of God in the First Man [Commonplace XI], §§ 16ff.
and §§ 129ff. If we take the image of God, according to the explana on of
Scripture, as the true righteousness and holiness according to which man
was created and as the concreated integrity and uprightness of all powers
that was in man before the fall, then not only Origen but also other fathers
correctly declare that the divine image was lost through the fall. We have
listed their tes monies in the aforemen oned place. On the other hand,
many of the ancients dis nguish “image” and “likeness” in such a way that
they relate “image” to the soul’s essen al powers (mind, will, memory,
etc.) and “likeness” to the soul’s quali es, that is, righteousness and
holiness. Thus, in this sense and respect and according to this hypothesis, it
is correct to declare that the image of God is s ll le in man, and it is
correct to prosecute those for heresy who declared in this sense that the
image of God was lost through the fall. But Bellarmine knows, as do other
Papists, that we speak about the image of God according to the
explana on of Scripture itself, namely, that there was a concreated
righteousness and holiness, an integrity and uprightness of all powers in
conformity with the divine Law. Since this has been lost, the high crime of
heresy cannot be charged against us if we say that in this sense and respect
the image of God was lost through the fall. Some of our adversaries
themselves admit this. Alphonsus de Castro, Adv. haeres., bk. 2, tle
“Adam”: “Origen took ‘image’ to mean either nature or ra onal substance,
or he meant likeness or quality of mind. But if Origen used these according
to this manner, who does not see that here there is no suspicion of
heresy?” Maldonatus, commentary on Luke 15: “Many interpret the
‘substance’ that the prodigal is said to have lost as free choice and the
other natural abili es. Some of these are Augus ne, Bede, Euthymius, and
Bernard, who nevertheless say these things in a sound sense. Others think
that the image and likeness are meant by the lost ‘substance.’ ” Vasquez (In
Thoma. 1.2., vol. 1, disput. 137, no. 14) responds: “One image of God was
naturally impressed upon the intellect, namely, memory and will. None of
this is lessened intrinsically but only extrinsically. Therefore it is never
destroyed, however much it may be diminished extrinsically. But there is
another image of God impressed on man through grace and love, for by
these quali es we are made like God. This is completely lost through sin,
and this is what Origen and Augus ne should be understood to mean
about this.” Pererius (on Genesis, bk. 4, p. 474) also disapproves of this
dis nc on between image and likeness that Bellarmine accepts. All of
these, then—Alphonsus de Castro, Maldonatus, Vasquez, Pererius—admit
that the image of God can be said to have been lost in a sound and
orthodox sense. They thus release us from the lying accusa on of heresy.
We admit that it is here cal if anyone claims either that the very essence
of the soul (that is, the intellect, will, and all the rest of its powers) has
been lost or that no remnants of the divine image survive, but especially if
he embraces Origen’s error about a preexistent soul established in sin
before it was cast down into the body and claims that in this sense the
image of God has been destroyed.
(2) None of our people says that hell is nothing other than the terror of
conscience. We do say that part of hell’s punishment—and, in fact, the
most serious part by far—consists of an aliena on from the life of God, of
an everlas ng sensa on of the wrath of God, of eternal terrors of
conscience, of the warfare of all creatures against the damned. Meanwhile,
we do not deny that the reprobate will also be subjected to physical
punishments in a certain “where,” because they have sinned not only in
soul but also in body. Jerome says: “Many interpret the ‘unquenchable fire’
to mean the eternal torments of the conscience.” He finds no fault with
this, provided that they claim that the punishments of the damned will be
eternal, which Origen here cally denied. Although Augus ne claims that
“the damned will be burned with physical fire,” yet he does not condemn
as here cal the belief of those who understand that the fire will be
nonphysical.

Fourth, the heresy of the Pepu ans

§ 210. (IV) “According to Augus ne (De haeres., ch. 27), the Pepu ans
give so much authority [principatus] to women that they even honor them
with the priesthood. In art. 13 of those which Leo condemned, Luther says
that in the sacrament of penance a woman or child can absolve as much as
a bishop or pope can. Now, in fact, a woman is the chief pon ff of the
Calvinists in England.”
We respond. (1) We do not entrust the ordinary administra on of the
ministry to women, which the Pepu ans once did. As for the fact that in an
extreme case of necessity we concede to the laity the administra on of
Bap sm, the Papists agree with us in this.
(2) Luther is speaking about an extraordinary case of necessity when a
priest cannot be had. There, he says, the Absolu on of a Chris an woman
or even of a child can accomplish as much as that of a priest. He says: “In
the remission of a fault the pope accomplishes no more than any priest
and, in fact, when a priest is absent, than any Chris an.” He also teaches:
“The power to wipe out fault is placed not in the quality of the minister but
in the faith of the believer. We must not assign the effec ng of remission to
any such power of the minister, such as the Papists claim, but to the faith
by which we embrace the word of Gospel promise.” On the other hand, he
has by no means taken away the func on and dignity of the ecclesias cal
ministry, for he writes as follows in his Post. eccles., for the Sunday a er
Easter: “In 1 Corinthians 14 the apostle requires that all things be done in
order. But if we all wanted to administer the Sacraments, what will become
of the order? If we all wanted to preach at the same me, what sort of
croaking will we have? We all have the power to administer the
Sacraments, but no one should rashly take it upon himself to do this except
he whom the church has appointed for this task.” We must believe the
same about the power of loosing and binding.
 (3) We know that Elizabeth was the queen of England, but that she
usurped the func ons of the ecclesias cal ministry is the lie of Cochlaeus.
Bellarmine is repea ng it here. He would have done far be er if,
remembering that the popess John VIII came from England, he had
abstained from the false accusa on he makes here.

Fi h, the heresy of Proclus

§ 211. (V) “According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 64), the here c Proclus said
that sin always lives in the reborn, for concupiscence truly is sin and is not
removed by Bap sm but is put to sleep by faith. The Messalian here cs
a erward taught the same thing, according to Theodoret (De haeret. fab.,
bk. 4). This is the very same belief of Luther (art. 2 and 31, and in the
Assert. of those ar cles) as well as Melanchthon (Loc. comm., ch. de
peccato orig.).”
We respond. (1) Methodius (in Epiphanius, Haeres. 64) describes the
heresy of Proclus as follows: “Proclus examines the resurrec on. He says
that souls lived without bodies before the commandment. Later, it was
thrown into the bond and prison and chains of the body, and without the
body it is impossible to sin.” What do we have in common with this
opinion?
(2) When Proclus says, “Sin lives in the reborn,” he understands that to
mean the dominion of sin, as is evident from the refuta on of Proclus in
Epiphanius. We, on the contrary, say that not only is the guilt of sin
removed from the reborn but also the dominion of sin. Bellarmine himself
acknowledges this, De amiss. grat., bk. 5, ch. 10: “The Protestants say that
concupiscence in the reborn is sin, though it does not always hold sway.”
Paul, and from him, Augus ne, teach the first of these along with us in
clear language. The la er of these we condemn in Proclus.
(3) Alphonsus de Castro (De haeres., bk. 3, tle bap smus) describes the
heresy of the Messalians as follows: “The Messalians used to a ribute such
power to prayer that they took it away from Bap sm. They said that no
advantage came to the bap zed from Bap sm, but that zealous prayer
alone will cause the indwelling devil to flee.” But what do our churches
have in common with this heresy of the Messalians? We say that in
Bap sm all sins are remi ed and thus their guilt is removed. In fact, even
the power of sin that s ll dwells in the flesh is broken and diminished. All
of this we have confirmed in detail in its own commonplace [On Holy
Bap sm (Commonplace XXIII), §§ 101–64]. Cassander (Consult., art. 2)
explains the whole ma er with a dis nc on that is quite true. He says: “If
you establish the defini on [ra o] of sin in that fault and iniquity, in that
weakness and illness, whose spirit one must resist, lest it produce unlawful
deeds, it is not unsuitable to call that ‘sin.’ But if you understand the
defini on of sin as located in the actual offense of God and in the guilt to
which punishment and condemna on correspond adversely, that is not sin
in the regenerate because, unless the will consents to it, it is not counted
as sin.”
(4) Papist monks are more entangled in the error of the Messalians, for
Sixtus Senensis writes (Biblioth., bk. 6, annot. 3): “Augus ne wrote the
book De opere monachorum against the lazy monks who were at that me
in Africa fostering this error which had sprung from the Messalian here cs.
In it he shows three points in par cular: first, that monks who were busy
with no task of the Gospel, no churchly concern, were not to have a
leisurely life without any work of their hands,” etc.

Sixth, the heresy of the Nova ans

§ 212. (VI) “The greatest error of the Nova ans was that there was no
power in the church for reconciling people to God except through Bap sm.
They later added that it was not necessary for the bishop to anoint the
bap zed with chrism (according to Theodoret, De haeret. fab., bk. 3, and
Pope Cornelius in Eusebius, bk. 6, ch. 33). The belief in favor of the first
part belongs to Calvinists, because Calvin (Ins t., bk. 4, ch. 19, § 17) says
that there is no sacrament of repentance except Bap sm, and he does not
approve of Jerome’s statement that repentance is the second plank a er
shipwreck. The belief in favor of the second part belongs to all Lutherans,
because Luther rejects penance from the number of the sacraments.”
We respond. We wiped away this stain of Nova an heresy with the
sponge of truth in our trea se On Repentance [Commonplace XVIII], § 21.
In the same trea se (§ 13), we explained in what sense Jerome’s statement
must be understood. The error of the Nova ans was that they denied
forgiveness to the repentant who fell a er Bap sm (Eusebius, Hist eccles.,
bk. 6, ch. 33). Yet like here cs, they changed their belief rather frequently.
Some mes they simply denied that repentance is possible a er Bap sm.
Some mes they conceded that the fallen should be encouraged to repent,
but that people must hope for forgiveness not from priests but from God.
Some mes they made a dis nc on between more serious sins, among
which the crime of denial under persecu on stands out, and less serious
and daily sins whose forgiveness they grant to ministers of the church; but
the forgiveness of the former they reserve for God alone. The Papists
themselves admit that this was the heresy of the Nova ans (Vega, De
jus f., bk. 13, ch. 2; Alphonsus de Castro, Adv. haeres., bk. 12, tle
poeniten a; Maldonatus, on John 14).
But what do we have in common with that heresy—we who zealously
encourage to serious repentance those who have fallen into even the most
serious sins a er Bap sm? If they bear witness of this with their words,
gestures, and deeds, we li them up with the consola on of the Gospel
and announce to them the remission of their sins. The Augsburg
Confession, art. XII: “Of repentance they” (our churches) “teach that for
those who have fallen a er Bap sm there is remission of sins whenever
they are converted; and that the church ought to impart Absolu on to
those thus returning to repentance,” etc. “The Nova ans also are
condemned who would not absolve such as had fallen a er Bap sm,
though they returned to repentance.” Bellarmine is arguing that our
churches are fostering the very error that the Augsburg Confession clearly
condemns in the Nova ans. Let him see to it that the error of the
Nova ans not find a place in the bosom of the Roman church, for if one
must always have doubts about the forgiveness of his sins, how can one
truly say that the power to reconcile people to God thrives in the church? If
that reconcilia on is certain, doubt should be commanded to depart.
Because of their arrogant opinion of their purity and saintliness, the
Nova ans were called “Cathari” [i.e., “the pure”], according to Augus ne
(De haeres., ch. 38). But what greater arrogance of purity and saintliness
can there be than that Papist monks boast that they not only fulfill the Law
perfectly but even can offer works of supereroga on?

Seventh, the error of Sabellius

 § 213. (VII) “Sabellius taught that there is only one person in God and
not three (according to Epiphanius, Haeres. 57). In our me Servetus has
taught the same thing (De Trin., bk. 1), and now this idea holds sway in
many places.”
We respond. What does the Augsburg Confession have in common with
the blasphemies of Servetus? Bellarmine himself admits, preface to
Controv. de Christo: “Servetus was burned at Geneva at the advice and
encouragement of Calvin.” Why, then, does he call us into the fellowship of
that heresy? The Spaniard Servetus was instructed in the academies of
Numidia. He took his beginning, therefore, not from us but from them.
** The Jesuit Armandus (in his Le er ad Charmier.) clearly separates
and dis nguishes the “Serve an sect,” as he himself speaks, from that of
the Protestants. **
What our churches confess about the mystery of the Trinity is explained
clearly in the Augsburg Confession, art. I, which condemns clearly “the
Samosatenes, old and new,” who argue that there is only one person in the
divinity. The Papist censors found nothing lacking in this ar cle.
Bellarmine should consider how he will free his own Genebrardus from
the suspicion of tritheism, for he a acked Sabellianism in such a way that
he almost fell into tritheism. Vega (Oppugna o Samosat., p. 10),
Possevinus (Biblioth., bk. 8), and Pistorius (Epit. colloq. Emmer n.) argue
that “the Trinity of persons in the divine essence can be proved only on the
basis of tradi on.” By this logic this mystery would rest upon a very
slippery and uncertain founda on. There are in the papacy common
pictures in which the Trinity is depicted in the form of a three-headed man.
No one can deny that these pictures promote the heresy of the Tritheists
and give the simple an occasion to think about three gods.

Eighth, the heresy of the Manichaeans

§ 214. (VIII) “The heresy of the Manichaeans is to condemn the nature
of humans and to take away free choice, as we see in Jerome (preface to
Dial. contra Pelag.) and Augus ne (De haeres., ch. 46). The Manichaeans
do not a ribute the origin of sins to free choice. All the sectarians clearly
believe the same thing. Luther says (art. 36) that this is a ma er of tle
alone. Furthermore, he says in his Assert. of the same ar cle that this is a
 tle without a reality and that all things happen of absolute necessity. In
addi on, the Manichaeans would accuse the fathers of the Old Testament
in many places, according to Augus ne (Contra Faust., bk. 22). Calvin does
the same thing in many places.”
We respond. (1) Article XVIII of the Augsburg Confession explains our
posi on clearly: “Of free will they” (our churches) “teach that the human
will has some liberty to perform civil righteousness and to choose things
subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Spirit, to work the
righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness, since the natural man
does not perceive the things of the Spirit of God. Rather, this is done in
hearts, when the Holy Spirit is received through the Word.” Augus ne says
this in the same words (Hypognos con, bk. 3, etc.). The emperor and his
princes approved this ar cle. Johann Hoffmeister acknowledges that this
was taken from the monuments of the holy fathers and, in fact, even from
Holy Writ. Georgius Cassander commends it as “consen ng with the
ecclesias cal doctrine,” and he approves the dis nc on between the
objects of free choice.
(2) When Luther calls free choice “a tle without a reality,” he is
speaking about the power of free choice for good, on which point he is
following Augus ne, who (Contra Julian., bk. 2, ch. 2) calls it “bound
choice”; and he writes, Contra duas epist. Pelag., bk. 3, ch. 8: “Free choice
has been taken prisoner and has no power except to sin.” In fact, on this
point Luther is following Christ Himself, whose axiom is: “Everyone who
commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). He also follows the apostle of
Christ who complains that he was “sold under sin” (Rom. 7:14).
(3) Therefore we acknowledge that a er the fall the human will is
u erly free to sin and, in fact, is moved to sin with all its might. We
acknowledge that in external ac ons a freedom remains. But in spiritual
ma ers we declare that no powers of free choice are le .
(4) The Manichaeans, on the other hand, clearly denied free choice
even toward evil. Because they claimed that there was a substan al malice
in man, they made up another creator, lest they be forced to a ribute
wickedness or the origin of evil to the good God. They also establish three
ranks of people: “first, of clay, who are incapable of renewal; second, good,
who are incapable of sinning; third, in the middle, who can be purged by a
separa on from ma er [ὕλη] as an adverse substance.” Which of these is
defended in our churches?
(5) Bellarmine should be careful not to cross over into the camp of the
Manichaeans unwi ngly. He says, De grat. prim. homin., ch. 7: “We say
that there would have been a rebellion of the flesh against the Spirit in
man because of the condi on of his nature, if man had remained in his
natural purity.” By this logic, he along with the Manichaeans ascribes that
corrup on to the Creator of nature Himself.
(6) If Calvin rashly declares anything about certain deeds of the
patriarchs, he should do this at his own risk. Although we claim that the
patriarchs did not lack their blemishes and, in fact, that some of them fell
into the gravest sins, we nevertheless forbid passing rash judgment on
specific deeds of theirs that they performed at the familiar promp ng of
the Holy Spirit. Bellarmine himself lists four diverse opinions about the
polygamy of the patriarchs: “Some claim that the patriarchs had one true
wife and that the rest were concubines, from whom bastard sons were
born. Some claim that polygamy came into use from some custom that no
law reprehended. Augus ne is among these. Others think that polygamy
was allowed to the fathers by the Law and that divine inspira on was
between them.” Bellarmine thinks: “In general it was allowed to all na ons
on the basis of a general dispensa on.” This opinion differs from canon law
and the statement of Innocent III ([Ius canonicum,] de divor is, c.
gaudemus) and the gloss, and from the Scholas cs. The Holy Spirit Himself
says that Abraham was “an idolater” when he was s ll living across the
river in Ur of the Chaldees (Josh. 24:2). The Papist writers Genebrardus
and Masius make the same claim (according to Pererius, commentary on
Genesis, bk. 6, no. 255).
** Lindanus (Panop., bk. 1, ch. 11) states the same about Abraham on
the basis of Suidas and Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 10, last chapter). **
The deed of Judas Maccabbeus cannot be approved from the
apocryphal book, nor is there any commandment in the divine Law about a
sacrifice for the dead.
It was in a far different sense, however, and for a much different
purpose that the Manichaeans kept no ng and censuring the faults of the
patriarchs. Sixtus Senensis explains this to us at length, Bibliothec., bk. 7,
ch. 8: “The Manichaeans had rejected the Scriptures of the Old Testament
and therefore kept making abusive a acks on the behavior of the
patriarchs. Although the serious crimes of the patriarchs in the Old
Testament are conceded, the authority of Scripture is not thereby
diminished. In fact, it is all the more recommended to us, that we may
have confidence in it because Scripture does not make an excep on for
anyone’s person, so as to fla er him, and does not keep silent about
certain praiseworthy things in those worthy of censure nor about some
things to be censured in the praiseworthy.” Ibid.: “Some crimes of the
patriarchs are recorded in Scripture in order that we may achieve these
four things: faith, knowledge, fear, and hope—faith in the history, which
fla ers no one; knowledge, that we may flee the vice that Scripture
censures; fear, that the fall of the ancestors may be the fear of the
descendants; hope, that in such lapses we may not despair of salva on.”
Those are the words of Senensis, from Augus ne. So, then, from the same
flower the Manichaeans suck poison; the orthodox, honey. Because this
was not unknown to Bellarmine, who would not detest his madness in
slandering us?

Ninth, the heresy of the Dona sts

§ 215. (IX) “The Dona sts wanted the church to consist of the righteous
alone. From that, they deduced that the visible church had perished from
the world and remained only in Africa (Augus ne, De unit. ecclesiae, ch.
12). The same people butchered catholics very savagely. They hated monks
and bishops in par cular, whom they called ‘Pharisees,’ and most of all, the
bishop of Rome, whose chair they called ‘the throne of pes lence’ [cf. Ps.
1:1]. They used to break down altars, plunder churches, sell the sacred
chalices, etc. It is certain that the doctrine and life of Calvinists are the
same, for Calvin teaches that the church consists of only good people
(Instit., bk. 4, ch. 1, § 7). The Augsburg Confession, art. VII, also teaches
this. They all teach that the visible church perished for several centuries.
Furthermore, the Calvinists have omi ed none of those things that the
Dona sts said or did blasphemously, cruelly, or sacrilegiously, according to
the Historia of Surius, the book De furoribus Gallicis, and other authors.”
Becanus (De ecclesia, p. 57) rehashes the same old story. He says: “The
Dona sts taught that the catholic church, which earlier had spread over all
the world, later disappeared from all the earth, etc. Lutherans teach almost
the same thing.”
We respond. (1) Let art. VIII of the Augsburg Confession speak on our
behalf: “Although the church properly is the gathering of saints and true
believers, nevertheless, since in this life many hypocrites and evil persons
are mingled therewith, it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil
men.” To this ar cle the emperor and his princes responded that “it is
accepted with the Roman church.” He praises the Protestant princes for
“condemning the Dona sts and ancient Origenists.” Bellarmine a ributes
the heresy of the Dona sts to us. The most praiseworthy Emperor Charles
V absolves us of it. Hoffmeister brings forward that fine dis nc on from
Augus ne: “One is said to be in the church in two ways. In one way he is in
it as a member in a structure of righteousness, that is, a partaker of
spiritual life, that is, united to the other members in the spirit of love. The
other way,” he says, “to be in the church is to cling to the other members
like chaff to grain.” We said more about this en re subject earlier [§§ 48,
51, 70, 78].
(2) Therefore our posi on has nothing in common with the Dona sts.
The Dona sts want the visible church to consist solely of the elect. We
define the invisible church as “the gathering of the saints.” The Dona sts
were forcing the visible church into a certain corner of the world. We say
that it is sca ered throughout the world.
(3) Bellarmine should beware, lest he be caught in that mud of error
into which he does his best to hurl others. “The Dona sts taught that the
visible church perished from the earth and remained only in Africa,” as
Bellarmine writes here from Augus ne. Yet the Papists do this very thing
when they bind the church catholic to the Roman see. Bellarmine says, De
eccles., bk. 3, ch. 8, § si ergo: “All the apostolic sees at Alexandria, An och,
and Jerusalem ceased to exist. Only at Rome did the see of Peter remain
unmoved.” The Dona sts drew their opinion from the words of Song of
Songs [1:7], explained mys cally: “Show where you lie down in the south
[meridie],” which Augus ne laughs at under this accusa on (Letter 48 ad
Vincent.). The Papists try to prove their opinion from Christ’s words: “Peter,
feed My sheep” [John 21:17], also explained allegorically.
(4) At that me, the Dona sts were rebuking the bishop of Rome
undeservedly because of this ar cle of doctrine. But we accuse him very
deservedly of many more errors.
(5) If, in changing ceremonies, and especially in the uproar of war, the
Calvinists did anything haphazardly or irregularly, we are by no means
obligated to accept the blame for this situa on. Regarding churchly rituals,
art. XV of the Augsburg Confession explains our posi on very clearly:
“They” (our churches) “teach that those rituals are to be kept which can be
kept without sin and which are profitable for tranquility and good order in
the church, as par cular holy days,” [etc.]

Tenth, the heresy of the Arians

§ 216. (X) “The Arians taught that the Son of God was less than the
Father (according to Epiphanius, Haeres. 69). Then, they did not by any
means accept unwri en tradi ons, as Maximinus, bishop of the Arians,
teaches (according to Augus ne, Cont. Maxim., bk. 1, ch. 2). This heresy
was later imitated by Nestorius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches (as we have it in
the Seventh Council, act. 1). Finally, the same Arians supported more and
greater sacrileges against sacraments, altars, priests, monks, nuns, etc.,
than the Dona sts, as is clear from Athanasius (Apol. pro fuga), Rufinus
(Hist., bk. 11, ch. 3), and Theodoret (Hist., bk. 4, ch. 19). The Tritheists
teach the first error of the Arians. Although Luther, Philipp Melanchthon,
Calvin, and the like consider Arius a here c, they s ll cannot deny that they
sca ered the seed of this error in their own wri ngs, as a result of which
the new Arians arose, as we have pointed out in the preface of our books
De Christo. Second, all the here cs of this me teach the second error.
Surely, those savage, sacrilegious crimes of the Arians are the very ones
that the Calvinists keep doing in many places, if only the names be
changed.”
We respond. (1) Article I of the Augsburg Confession frees us from the
charge of Arianism: “Our churches, with common consent, do teach that
the decree of the Council of Nicaea concerning the unity of the divine
essence and concerning the three persons is true and to be believed
without any doub ng,” etc. “They condemn … the Arians, Eunomians,” etc.
(2) That the seeds of Arian error are found in the books of our people is
[only] a proposi on of the Jesuits. In its own place we have explained very
clearly the things that Bellarmine states in the preface of his books De
Christo. Concerning Calvin, however, he does say correctly that Calvin with
his bad interpreta ons corrupts the statements of the Old Testament that
prove the mystery of the Trinity and the divinity of the Son.
(3) Bellarmine should watch carefully, lest he provide nourishment for
the Arian error. He denies that the things given to Christ in me were given
to Him according to His human nature. The consequence of this will be that
they were given to Him according to His divine nature, but “Arius took into
his own fellowship anyone who held such beliefs,” according to Leo, Letter
22. Bellarmine argues (De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 15) that “among the ancients,
si ng at the right hand was less honorable than si ng at the le hand.” By
this logic, one will never be able to prove from the si ng at the right hand
of the Father that there is equality of power, majesty, and glory between
the Father and the Son.
(4) Refusing to accept tradi ons outside of Scripture among the ar cles
of faith is by no means here cal. Otherwise the apostle would have been
here cal who declares that “Holy Writ is able to make us wise unto
salva on” and teaches that “Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable
for teaching, for reproof, for correc on, and for training in righteousness,
that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2
Tim. 3:15–17). The holy fathers would also be here cs, for they accept
nothing in the ar cles of faith except what can be proved from the Holy
Scriptures. We will show later [§ 230] that it is the property of here cs
that, “when they argue from the Scripture, they are turned into an
accusa on of the Scriptures, as if they were not correct. From these the
truth cannot be found by those who do not know the tradi on,” according
to Irenaeus (Advers. haeres., bk. 3, ch. 2, p. 169). Consequently, the Arians
were not accused of heresy because they rejected tradi ons in the ar cles
of faith, but because they were unwilling to accept the truth about the
divinity of the Son that was proved from Scripture, as they referred that
dogma to tradi ons outside of Scripture. They were unwilling to accept the
word “consubstan al” [ὁμοούσιος], which is not found in the Scriptures,
though the force and sense of the word is found in them. Bellarmine is
correct in saying, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 12, § sic e am: “When the Council of
Nicaea defined that Christ is consubstan al with the Father, it drew its
conclusions from the Scriptures, which clearly contain the statements that
God is one, that the Father is God, and that the Son is God. From these
statements it necessarily follows that the Father and the Son are of the
same substance and divinity.” Again, De verb. Dei, bk. 4, ch. 11, § profert:
“The Arian heresy is expressly refuted from the Scriptures themselves.”
Therefore Arius was found guilty of heresy on the basis of the Scriptures,
not of tradi ons.
(5) Instead of being enemies of tradi ons, the Arians much rather
appealed to them. Athanasius (Contra Arian., orat. 2, p. 124) men ons a
wri ng composed by Arius whose tle was Thalia. This wri ng, Socrates
reports (Histor. eccles., bk. 1, ch. 6), was condemned by name in the
Council of Nicaea. It began this way: “This is what I have learned from the
elect of God, from those who walk uprightly according to the faith and are
acquainted with God and have received the Spirit of God.”
(6) It is false to say that we reject all tradi ons. As our witness we
produce Bellarmine himself, De verbo Dei, bk. 4, ch. 3: “The Protestants
admit that the apostles established some things that relate to order in the
church. They observe some feast days,” etc. How do these agree: that
Protestants deny all tradi ons, and yet they grant some tradi ons?
Lindanus does the same (Panop., bk. 1, ch. 2). Brenz (Apolog.) says: “Lest
we leave any ambiguity in the word ‘tradi ons,’ we are not speaking now
about the tradi on by which our forefathers handed down to us Holy
Scripture and what is contained in it. This tradi on, we affirm, is certain,
firm, and undoubted. We are speaking, however, about other tradi ons
that were not commanded by the apostles in their wri ngs.” Therefore we
make a dis nc on between wri en and unwri en tradi ons; between
necessary, useful ones and unnecessary, useless ones; between rituals and
dogmas, etc., which we handle in its own place [cf. On Holy Scripture (1625
Exegesis, Commonplace I), §§ 394–413].
(7) The Spanish Inquisi on and the acts of the martyrs speak to whether
the Papists or we have exercised cruel es against others because of a
different profession of religion. Bellarmine himself admits (De laicis, bk. 3,
ch. 21) that we deny that “here cs are to be punished with the ul mate
penalty.”

Eleventh, the heresy of the Aërians

 § 217. (XI) “According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 79) and Augus ne (De
haeres., ch. 33), the Aërians taught three errors: first, we should not pray
nor sacrifice for the dead; second, solemnly established fasts should not be
celebrated, but each person should fast whenever he wishes, lest he seem
to be under the Law; and, third, the presbytery should be discerned from
the bishop without a difference. The Centuriators (Cent. 4, ch. 5, col. 401)
admit that they have these three beliefs in common with Aërius.”
We respond. (1) Epiphanius and Augus ne, who put Aërius in the
number of the here cs, witness that “he was clearly an Arian.” Alphonsus
de Castro (Adv. haeres., tle cibus) says: “Aërius followed the heresy of the
Ta ans, since he taught that it was not permissible to eat meat.” He adds,
ibid., tle nup ae: “He made this error, that he would admit no one to
Communion unless they were con nent.” No wonder, then, that
Epiphanius and Augus ne listed him among the here cs because of those
errors!
(2) If Aërius had taught nothing else than that praying and sacrificing for
the dead were useless, that the fas ng of Chris ans was not bound to
certain days by mandate of Christ nor of the apostles, and that by divine
right there is no difference between a bishop and a presbyter, he could not
have been put on the list of here cs, since those three points can be
proved from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture teaches that praying for the
dead is useless, when it declares that the impenitent are immediately
thrown from death into hell, from which there is no hope of redemp on,
and that the penitent and true believers in Christ are taken to heaven (John
3:18; 5:24; Luke 23:43; Rev. 14:13; etc.).
** Heb. 9:27: “It is appointed for man to die once, and a er death, the
judgment.” If nothing remains for man a er death but the judgment, then
as each and every man dies, so also will he rise again on the Last Day.
Thomas, commentary on 1 Timothy 6, lect. 4: “The sort of person you will
be found in that hour” (at the hour of death), “that is the sort of person
you will be found to be then” (on the day of the last judgment). **
Sacrificing for the dead conflicts with the ins tu on of the Lord’s Supper
because Christ ins tuted no sacrifice but a mys cal ea ng and drinking. He
ins tuted this for the living who can commemorate His death, not for the
dead. Augus ne himself speaks hesitantly about purgatory. How, then, can
he claim anything for certain about sacrifices for the dead? The sacrifices
once used were nothing else but remembrances and thanksgivings for the
benefits that were given to the church through those dead.
Eusebius teaches (bk. 5, ch. 16) that the laws of fas ng came from the
here c Montanus. On the other hand, Socrates (bk. 5, ch. 21) explains that
the apostles le this free to the judgment of everyone. Augus ne himself
writes about this as follows, Letter 86 ad Casulanum: “I see in the le ers
of the evangelists and apostles that fas ng was commanded. I do not find
it defined, however, by command of the Lord or of the apostles on what
days we must and must not fast.” Because Papist fas ng consists only of a
dis nc on of foods; and is forced under the opinion of necessity, worship,
and merit; and is undertaken for the purpose of being sa sfac on for sins
—we, along with the apostle, call it “a doctrine of demons” (1 Tim. 4:1).
Meanwhile, we do not deny that Chris ans should fast at every me both
spiritually through abs nence from vices and physically through sobriety
and modera on. We do not deny that fas ng has its advantages in suitable
persons. A Chris an magistrate, therefore, can declare a fast in public
necessi es.
The difference between bishop and presbyter cannot be proved from
Holy Writ, as we shall explain more fully in its own commonplace [On the
Ecclesias cal Ministry (Commonplace XXVI), §§ 27–29]. The Papist writer
Michael Medina (De sacr. orig. et con n., bk. 1, ch. 5) affirms: “Not only did
Jerome think the same as the Aërians, but also Ambrose, Augus ne,
Sedulius, Primasius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, and
Theophylact were of that opinion.” And yet those ancient fathers wrote
a er Aërius; therefore if they had realized that this opinion had been
condemned in Aërius as heresy, they surely would not have approved of it
with their words.
(3) As for those three aforemen oned points, because they can be
proved from Scripture and the fathers, Aërius could not and should not
have been condemned for heresy on account of them, just as no council
condemned him because of them. Theodoret (in the book De fabulis
Judaeorum) does not place him among the here cs, as the Historia
ecclesiae also does not. They do put Eustachius there, who a acked him on
these points.
(4) Some of the Papists themselves admit that we do not simply and
absolutely disapprove of the exercise of stated fasts, but rather of the
corrup ons connected with them. Cassander, Consult., art. 16: “In their
Saxon confession, the Protestants write clearly that for the sake of public
peace they wish to observe stated fasts and tradi ons of this kind.” Luther
(commentary on Matthew 6) hopes that “the exercise of devout and
Chris an fas ng will be brought back into use.” Thus if Aërius rashly
overthrew church discipline and opened the door to lack of modera on,
we by no means approve of him on this point.

Twel h, the heresy of Jovinian

§ 218. (XII) “Jovinian has five errors in common with the sectarians: (1)
A human being cannot sin a er Bap sm if he has been bap zed truly, that
is, if he has really received faith and the grace of God. Calvin teaches the
same thing (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 2, §§ 11–12).”
We respond. Let the Augsburg Confession, art. XII, speak for us: “They
condemn the Anabap sts, who deny that those once jus fied can lose the
Holy Spirit.”
** Campianus (Rat. 8) a ributes the heresy of the Stoics and of Jovinian
to Protestants “because they teach along with them that all sins are equal.”
We respond. Campianus concludes this from the fact that we claim that
“every sin by its nature is mortal.” But to draw such a conclusion from that
is u erly absurd, because even in the eternal punishments of death there
are degrees (Luke 12:47; 10:12; Rom. 2:5). This is taught by Costerus
(Enchir., ch. 2, p. 96) and Azorius (Ins t., bk. 4, ch. 9, art. 5), who free
Gerson from this belief of the Stoics. We do not remove the degrees of
sins, but we say that one sin is more serious than another: [a] with respect
to the object, that is, to the person against whom it is commi ed; [b] with
respect to the efficient cause, that is, to the person who commits it; [c]
with respect to the intent with which it is commi ed; [d] with respect to
the ma er itself in which it is being commi ed. Thus blasphemy against
God is a more serious sin than simple denial; adultery more serious than
simple fornica on. **
(2) “[Jovinian taught] that the choice of foods and fas ng are not
meritorious. The same thing is found in the Augsburg Confession, art.
XXIV.”
 We respond. No one will ever be able to prove from Scripture that the
choice of foods is meritorious before God. On the contrary, the apostles
teach the opposite in clear language. Rom. 14:6: “He who eats, eats to the
Lord … while he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat.” Verse 17:
“The kingdom of God is not food and drink, but righteousness, peace, and
joy in the Holy Spirit.” 1 Cor. 8:8: “Food does not commend us to God.”
Heb. 13:9: “It is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by
foods.” The ancients did not condemn Jovinian with the charge that he
denied fas ng, especially fas ng that consisted only in the choice of foods,
for this is the very thing that Scripture says is not meritorious. Rather, they
condemned him for teaching that “fas ng is of no benefit at all.”
Bellarmine, De bonis oper., bk. 2, ch. 11: “Jovinian taught that fas ng
brought no benefit for salva on. Brenz and the other Protestants do teach
that fas ng is beneficial for restraining the wantonness of the flesh, as an
aid to prayer, as a sign of humility and repentance,” etc. Pererius,
commentary on Romans 14, disp. 3, no. 20: “Philipp Melanchthon does
not deny that the observance of fas ng and of indifferent things can be
helpful to a man and lead him to the worship of God, not immediately but
mediately. For he fasts in order to be someone be er suited to pour forth
prayers, in which there is the worship of God.” So, then, the Jesuits
themselves absolve us of the Jovinian heresy. Some of the Papists admit
that fas ng in the narrow sense of the word consists not in the choice of
foods but in total abs nence. Maldonatus, Summ., q. 23, art. 2: “A perfect
and true fast, which is like the ‘pa ern’ for all fasts, once was something
else. The name itself declares that it means ‘ea ng nothing.’ Properly
speaking, to be fas ng is to eat nothing at all. The fasts of Moses, Paul, and
others were like that, without food and drink.” Erasmus, on 1 Corinthians
8: “To me, it would seem to belong to purer Chris anity and to be in
harmony with evangelical and apostolic doctrine if no par cular kind of
food were prescribed. Choice of foods neither adds to nor removes from
piety. It can make a person supers ous, but not devout.” Therefore when
we disapprove of the choice of foods (that is, of that which the Papists
observe in their fas ng) and when we reject that supers ous fas ng
which the Papists recommend, we are not rejec ng every fast undertaken
for a true purpose.
 (3) “[Jovinian taught] that marriage is equal to virginity in dignity and
merit. Luther teaches the same thing (on 1 Corinthians 7), as does the
Augsburg Confession, art. XXIII.”
We respond. We do not deny that in a certain respect celibacy is to be
preferred to marriage in the case of suitable persons. We deny, however,
that it must be preferred in the sense that “celibacy is the greatest
sa sfac on for sins and deserves the kingdom of heaven,” as Petrus a Soto
speaks (Ref. conf. Wirtenb.). When Jerome disputes against Jovinian, he
correctly writes somewhere: “Just as circumcision is nothing and
uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God [1 Cor.
7:19], so neither virginity nor marriage jus fies, but just as married people
are saved if they remain in faith, so also celibates must be saved through
the same.” Nevertheless one cannot deny that because of his admira on of
celibacy and the heat of the argument, he was harsher and more
vehement toward marriage than is right. Erasmus acknowledges this in his
notes, and the ma er itself proves this clearly. For these are Jerome’s
words: “If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch her. I ask you,
what sort of good is it that forbids prayer, that does not permit one to
receive the body of the Lord? One must always pray; therefore he should
never be in service to marriage. When I carry out the duty of a husband, I
am not carrying out the duty of a Chris an.” When he handles that passage
of the apostle “But I spare you,” etc. [1 Cor. 7:32], he adds:
I am lis ng only the tribula on of the flesh. I do not men on what condemna on remains
for the married in the life to come that I may spare the weak who are now married. The end
of marriage is death, but the fruit of sanc fica on, which pertains to either celibacy or
con nence, is recompensed with eternal life. Marriage fills the earth; virginity fills paradise.
Just as Paul is speaking about marriage in terms of pardon, so also he says about the man
who had commi ed incest: “If you forgave anything, so did I” [2 Cor. 2:10], etc.

We find more of the same in Jerome. Augus ne modestly suppresses

Jerome’s name and refutes him (De virgin. and De bon. conjug.). For this
reason, Ludovicus Vives (In De civ. Dei, bk. 16, ch. 34) is correct in wri ng:
“The Cataphrygians claimed that second marriages are no different from
fornica on. Jerome not only hates second marriages but argues that even
the first ones are equal to it when he disputes against Jovinian: ‘A celibate
person is not at all equal to a married one.’ ” But if Jovinian reproved the
error that virginity is deserving of eternal salva on, that celibacy is
sa sfac on for sins, etc., he thinks correctly in this area. Ambrose, however
(bk. 10, Le er 82), lists the following as the errors of the Jovinianists: “The
bap zed ought not be bound by the disciplines of the virtues. Feas ng
does not harm them nor does an abundance of pleasures. Virgins should
marry and have children. Widows should do likewise. Even if the la er can
be con nent, they are wrong who are unwilling to marry again.” Also:
“They say that those people are mad who chas se their flesh with fas ngs
to make it subject to the mind. They say that virginity has no grace, that all
people are of the same value, that chas ty is of no usefulness, that there is
no reward for virginity, no fruit for widowhood, no honor for chas ty.”
Also: “Whoever has been bap zed in Christ is acceptable to God,
regardless of what life he has.” That is what Ambrose says about the
Jovinianists. If these accusa ons are true, Jovinian erred very seriously and
went too far in the opposite direc on.
(4) “[Jovinian taught] that Mary lost her virginity in childbirth. Bucer and
Molinaeus make the same error. They say that when Christ was born He
opened Mary’s womb.”
** Maldonatus repeats the accusa on (commentary on Luke 2:23). **
We respond. We believe that Mary remained a virgin before, during,
and a er childbearing. So, then, if Jovinian “destroyed the virginity of
Mary” and declared that “by giving birth she was corrupted,” as Augus ne
speaks about him, then we have no fellowship with him.
** It is one thing to say, “Christ opened the womb of His mother, Mary.”
But it is another thing to say: “Mary lost her virginity in childbearing.” **
Therefore what is added about opening the virginal womb in
childbearing does not oppose her at all as far as her virginity is concerned.
Thus this is established by the tes mony of some of the ancients. Jansen,
Concord. evang., on Luke 2: “Some of the fathers say that Christ literally
did open the womb of His mother, because men generally open the womb
in the case of other women. This is the posi on of Theophylact on this
passage. Ambrose’s posi on is similar. He writes: ‘No intercourse with a
man opened the secret places of her virginity. Rather, the Holy Spirit
poured the immaculate Seed into her inviolable womb. So, then, He alone
opened the womb, that the Immaculate One might come forth.’ Origen has
similar words” ** (in homily 14, on Luke). ** Erasmus, Annota on. on
Luke 2:
 Origen (homily 14) thinks that Christ opened the womb of His virgin mother, but not in the
fashion of all others. For the concep on of all others also opens a woman’s womb, though
Christ was conceived while the Virgin’s womb was closed and without the work of a man.
Again, when He was being born, He did open the womb, but in such a way that He did not
tear the maidenhead of her virginal chas ty. This is Origen’s belief. It does indeed conflict
with the fact that pious credulity has now impressed upon the minds of almost everyone
that Christ came forth without any strain or labor of her who gave birth, and that the Virgin’s
womb was closed. Although this is plausible and not irreligious, it cannot be taught with the
tes monies of the Scriptures.

Rhenanus, Arg. ad lib. Tert. de carne Chris : “Tertullian says that Mary gave
birth by the law of an opened body, though today all the companies of
theologians want Christ to have come forth when the Virgin’s womb was
closed. Nevertheless Ambrose subscribes to Tertullian, but who could have
foretold what those subtle theologians were giving to define so many
centuries a er him?”
** Maldonatus (on Luke 2) adds: “Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius,
Jerome, and Euthymius thought in the same way.” **
All these will respond that virginity is not removed by the opening of the
womb in childbearing but by its opening in intercourse with a man.
** Toletus, De instruct. sacerd., bk. 4, ch. 6, § quartus casus: “Although a
woman is overpowered by a man, if she does not consent inwardly, she
does not sin in the shameful act. If she was a virgin, she does not lose her
virginity.” But if she does not lose her virginity through intercourse with a
man, provided the virgin is unwilling and does not consent, much less will
Mary’s virginity have been violated through the exit of the most holy body
of Christ. **
(5) “[Jovinian taught] that the rewards of the blessed are all equal.
Luther teaches the same thing in his Serm. de natali B. Mariae and in his
commentary on 1 Peter, where he says that all Chris ans are as holy and
righteous as is the mother of God. From this it undoubtedly follows that all
people will be equally blessed.”
We respond. Neither Luther nor any of us denies a difference of rewards
in eternal life. When Luther says that “all are equally holy and righteous,”
he is speaking about imputed righteousness, which makes all believers
equal in Christ. Bellarmine himself acknowledges this (De jus fica one, bk.
3, ch. 1): “When the Protestants teach that all people are equally holy and
righteous before God, they are speaking about imputed righteousness.”
From this, however, one cannot infer that we deny the diversity of rewards
in eternal life. Just as imputed righteousness does not exclude renewal and
good works, so also it does not exclude the heavenly rewards that will one
day be given differently from grace to the works and sufferings of the
saints.

Thirteenth, the heresy of Vigilan us

§ 219. (XIII) Vigilan us taught: (1) “The relics of saints should not be
venerated. Luther teaches the same thing in his Serm. de cruce and in his
book De abroganda missa.”
We respond. Jerome accuses Vigilan us of claiming: “The relics of the
saints should be dignified with no honor. People are polluted by touching
them.” None of us says this. Instead, we approve of the judgment of
Cassander, Consult. de August. confess., p. 148:
The true and authorita ve relics, especially in these areas, are very scarce. Many of those
that are being displayed can be considered, for good reason, as suspect. Visi ng and
venera ng them are of no great service to piety, but rather to supers on and profit. It
seems much more advisable, therefore, that we abstain from all display of relics and that
the people be s rred to honor the true relics of the saints, that is, to imitate their examples
of piety and virtues, which we find in wri ngs by them or about them.

Therefore it cannot be proved to us that in the papacy the relics of the

saints (uncertain as they are) are set before the people to be kissed,
worshiped, and venerated with bended knee, and that pilgrimages to them
are undertaken for those purposes, as if the grace of God and the
remission of sins were bound to those relics. If Vigilan us denied this and
was censured by Jerome under that charge, we set against Jerome the
outstanding declara on that he himself set forth on Matthew 23:
“Whatever does not have authority from the Scriptures is despised with
the same ease with which it is asserted.” But now, that supers ous and
idolatrous venera on of relics has no founda on in the Scriptures. Erasmus
passed the following judgment on those arguments between Jerome and
Vigilan us: “Jerome rages so bi erly against Vigilan us that I am
compelled to desire a bit more modera on. Would that he had stuck
merely to the arguments and had restrained himself from his outbursts! He
argues quite sufficiently that the nightly vigils that were removed by the
authority of ecclesias cal men did not please them, and they survive only
in name. Today people run with a not dissimilar zeal to the relics of the
martyrs.”
(2) “[Vigilan us taught] that the prayers of the dead for others are not
heard. From this it follows that it is useless to invoke the saints. Luther
claims the same thing in his book De euchar. ad Wald., where he says that
‘the invoca on of the saints is foolish and destruc ve.’ ”
We respond. The Apology of the Augsburg Confession [XXI 9] concedes
that “the saints pray for the church in general.” Cassander, on art. 21: “The
Protestants grant that the saints in heaven pray for the church in general.
They deny, however, that the consequence from this is that the saints
should be invoked.” Therefore our posi on differs from the opinion of
Vigilan us. Jerome a acks Vigilan us on the charge that he denied that
“the prayers of the dead for others are heard.” Nowhere in all that wri ng,
however, does he infer from this that the saints should be invoked by us. In
fact, he denies clearly that “angels, archangels, martyrs, etc., are
worshiped [adorari] in the church.” Although the saints in the church
triumphant may pray for the church militant in general, it does not follow
from this that we must invoke them, because they do not know the
troubles of individuals in par cular and the laments of our hearts.
Furthermore, that invoca on has no command, no promise, no approved
example in the Scriptures.
(3) “[Vigilan us taught] that churchmen ought to be married. Luther
teaches the same thing on 1 Corinthians 7, where he says that by divine
Law marriage is commanded to all, even churchmen and monks, who feel
that they do not have the gi of con nence.”
We respond.
** That cannot be a heresy—and, indeed, an old heresy—if its contrary
does not exist in any passage of the en re Holy Scripture, which has been
given to be the only rule of our faith. But now, no passage of Scripture says
that priests should be celibate, because celibacy is not a ached by divine
Law to holy orders, as is taught by Bellarmine (De cleric., ch. 18) and
Gregorius de Valen a (vol. 4, disp. 9, q. 5, punct. 6, § sed his argumen s).
**
We are by no means saying, however, that all men without excep on
should be married. Rather, we are asser ng that the remedy of marriage
has been divinely prescribed for those who do not have the special gi of
con nence. This is according to the apostolic rule: “It is be er to marry
than to burn” [1 Cor. 7:9] and “To avoid fornica on, let each man have his
own wife” [1 Cor. 7:2]. Vigilan us taught that priests should marry wives.
We teach that they may marry wives. These are not equivalents. Costerus,
Enchir., ch. 15: “On the basis of Jerome, it is evident that Vigilan us the
here c taught that bishops were not to ordain deacons unless the deacons
had first married a wife.” Bellarmine, De cleric., bk. 1, ch. 19: “It was an
error that clergymen should marry wives before they enter holy orders
because it was not allowed a er orders. This was, as others wish, the error
of the Nicolaitan here cs, which, it is evident, Vigilan us expressly taught.”
But do we impose the necessity of marriage upon clergymen? Not at all!
Rather, we defend their freedom to marry and remove the Papist necessity
of celibacy from their necks like a yoke. Bellarmine himself admits this, for
he writes again, loc. cit.: “Lutherans teach that not only before but even
a er ordina on it is permissible to marry a wife.” In its own commonplace
we shall prove that this is in harmony with Holy Writ and the history of the
early church [On Marriage, Celibacy, and Similar Topics (Commonplace
XXVIII), §§ 505–54].
(4) “[Vigilan us taught] that it is not advantageous to leave everything
and give it to the poor and, having le all things, to hurry to religion.
Luther teaches the same in his book De vo s monast.”
We respond. Nowhere does Christ command the rash renuncia on of
one’s possessions without a special calling and outside the case of
necessity. Instead, to His faithful He recommends self-sufficiency, a
contempt for earthly things, poverty of spirit, and an inner turning away of
the heart from all possessions. Perfec on does not lie in the former but in
the la er. Papist monks desert all things in such a way that they have an
abundance of all things. Bellarmine himself makes this admission, De
pon f. Rom., bk. 4, ch. 14, § de secunda: “Nicholas IV and John XXII did not
agree on the ques on of whether poverty, which removes all dominion
from itself and with only use le , is holy and meritorious.” Nicholas affirms
this ([Ius canonicum,] in 6., de verb. signif., c. exiit). John, on the other
hand, denies it ([Ius canonicum,] extra, de verb. signif., c. ad conditorum
canonum).
Fourteenth, the heresy of the Pelagians
§ 220. (XIV) “The Pelagians taught: (1) That original sin does not exist in
man and especially in the children of the faithful. This is according to
Augustine, Contra Julian., bk. 6, chs. 2 and 3; Ad Bonifac., bk. 4, chs. 2 and
4. (2) They taught that righteousness is lost through any sin, however
insignificant, and thus that every sin is mortal. This is according to Jerome,
Contra Pelagianos, bk. 2. Zwingli, Bucer, and Calvin teach the first of these.
All the sectarians teach the second error.”
We respond. (1) Article II of the Augsburg Confession frees us from the
false accusa on of Pelagianism: “They” (our churches) “teach that since
the fall of Adam all men bego en in the natural way are born with sin, that
is, without the fear of God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease,
or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal
death on those who have not been born again through Bap sm and the
Holy Spirit. They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that the vice
of origin is sin.” Emperor Charles and the princes approved of this ar cle
except that they desired something in the manner of speaking. Hoffmeister
and Cassander simply approve of it. Vega, the assessor and interpreter of
the Council of Trent, does the same (De concil. Trident., bk. 2, ch. 6).
(2) Gregorius de Valen a (De peccat. origin., ch. 8, and vol. 2, disp. 6, q.
11, punct. 1) accuses us of highly exaggera ng original sin. He says: “The
Protestants do not deny original sin so much as they s r it up with their
strange ways of speaking. They even say that it remains in the reborn as
long as they are living this life.” Under what appearance of truth, then, can
one claim that Protestants deny original sin? We have spoken in great
detail elsewhere about the opinion of the Calvinists, to which we are
complete strangers [On Original Sin (Commonplace XII), §§ 60, 105–9].
(3) We have shown that the Papists in many ways diminish original sin
and are close to Pelagianism in our trea se On Original Sin [Commonplace
XII], §§ 57ff.
(4) We by no means say with the Pelagians that “all sins are mortal in
actuality.” Rather, in the reborn we dis nguish sins of weakness and faulty
emo ons from sins against conscience. We say that only these la er, but
not the former, are mortal in actuality. You see, all sins, even the least
significant, are by their own nature mortal. Nevertheless the sins of
weakness are not imputed to the repentant, those who believe in Christ,
those who live under the shadow of grace and resist the lusts of the flesh.
In this regard they cease to be mortal in actuality. Instead of this teaching
being Pelagian, it is, much rather, defended by some Catholic writers.
Vasquez, In Thomam, vol. 1, disp. 142, no. 7: “Of the Catholic doctors,
some serious and pious men such as Gerson, Almainus, and Roffensis say
that all sins are of themselves mortal, and that by mercy alone they are not
imputed for eternal punishment. Michael Bias teaches the same thing.”
(5) It was the opinion of Pelagius that “no sin, not even the most
insignificant, can stand along with righteousness and grace.” We dis nguish
between imputed and inherent righteousness, between the righteousness
of faith and of works. Any sin, even the most insignificant, corrupts
inherent righteousness and the righteousness of works. All the less can it
stand in the judgment of God. We do assert, however, that the
righteousness of faith can exist in the reborn along with sins that are venial
through the grace of God.

Fi eenth, the heresy of the Nestorians

§ 221. (XV) “The Nestorians taught that in Christ there are two persons
and two natures (Theodoret, De haeret. fab., bk. 4.) They also held all the
ancients in contempt, which Luther, Calvin, and all the rest do exceedingly.
The principal error of Nestorius is taught at this me by Beza, who posits
two hyposta c unions in Christ.”
We respond. (1) It is strange that Bellarmine here a ributes
Nestorianism only to Beza, since elsewhere he carries all Lutherans into the
company of this error.
** (Nevertheless the error of Nestorius is refuted by Calvin, Instit., bk.
2, ch. 14, art. 4, and by Beza, Conf., art. de Christo, ch. 22.) **
[Bellarmine,] De Christ., bk. 3, ch. 1: “The Lutherans teach two things
from which it follows that they are either Eutychians or Nestorians, or a
monster composed of both heresies. If they wish the divine a ributes to
be joined essen ally to Christ’s flesh, they are Eutychians; if accidentally,
they are Nestorians.” A third possibility exists, however: a personal
communica on, about which there is more elsewhere [On the Person and
Office of Christ (1610 Loci theologici, locus 7), §§ 125–27, 137; (1625
Exegesis, Commonplace IV), § 242]. In the preface to De Christo: “Luther
favors Nestorius when he calls Christ an omnipotent man and teaches that
divinity can suffer.” We have taken care of this false accusa on elsewhere.
(2) We shall prove in its own place that the Jesuits supply nourishment
to the heresy of the Nestorians when they badly analyze the personal
proposi ons and stubbornly deny that there occurred a communica on of
the divine a ributes to the flesh of Christ, as well as that the office of
mediator belongs to Christ according to both natures [§ 230]. Lauren us
Valla (Declam. de donat. Const.) expressly men ons that Pope Celes ne
“was infected with the heresy of Nestorius.”
(3) By no means do we despise the ancients; rather, we consider them
as fathers. If they propose anything in harmony with the voice of our
heavenly Father, we accept that with faithful obedience. But if they
propose something not in harmony, we prefer the voice of our heavenly
Father. We consider them as lights [lumina], not as dei es [numina]; as
witnesses [indices] of the faith, not as judges [judices]. Luther, on Genesis
2, p. 27: “It is proper to venerate the labors of the fathers, for they were
great men. Yet they were men who did fall and who were able to fall. Let us
not exalt them the way the monks do, who idolize everything they did as if
the fathers were not able to sin,” etc. It is certain that there is a great
difference between the calling of the apostles and that of the fathers. Why,
then, would we evaluate the wri ngs of the fathers as equal to the wri ngs
of the apostles?
(4) If the Papists do not want to be considered as despisers of the
fathers when they subject their wri ngs to the judgment of the Roman
pope, much less ought we to be considered as despisers of the fathers
when we subject their interpreta ons and dogmas to the Holy Spirit, who
speaks in and through the Scripture. But the first statement is true.
Duraeus, Confut. resp. Witack., reason 5: “The fathers are not considered
fathers when they either write or teach something that the church” (that
is, the pope, as our analysis set forth earlier teaches [§ 105]) “has not
accepted.” Bellarmine, De concil., bk. 2, ch. 12: “The decrees of the popes
are called ‘holy scriptures’ that they may be dis nguished from secular
wri ngs. They are also called ‘canonical’ that they may be dis nguished
from the holy wri ngs of the fathers, which are not rules and do not have
the authority to bind.” Stapleton (Princip., bk. 10, ch. 11) says: “We must
accept the interpreta on of the bishops and theologians of the church
when these condi ons are met: first, provided they have remained in the
Catholic unity, that is, if they have quietly and calmly submi ed to the
authority of the pope,” etc. Therefore the la er statement must also be
admi ed.

Sixteenth, the heresy of those who deny the las ng presence of

the body of Christ in the Supper
§ 222. (XVI) “At the same me there were some—I do not know if they
were also Nestorians—who taught that the body of Christ did not remain
in the Eucharist if it was reserved un l the next day. Cyril says in a Le er ad
Calosirium that these are insane. This error is defended by Bucer,
Melanchthon, and Calvin.”
We respond. We have dealt with the reserva on of the Eucharist at
great length in our trea se On the Eucharist [Commonplace XXIV], ch. 17,
§§ 290ff. Neither Christ nor the apostles reserved it or ordered it to be
reserved, much less did they carry the consecrated bread around in a
theatrical parade. Instead, they gave it to communicants to eat. Origen, on
Leviticus 7, homily 5: “The Lord did not set aside the bread that He gave
to the disciples, saying, ‘Take and eat,’ nor did He order that it be saved for
the next day.” Gabriel Biel (In can., lect. 26) reports the words of
Paschasius: “Christ wanted His disciples to become partakers of the fruit of
this Sacrament. A er He consecrated His body, He did not stop with the
consecra on, nor did He give it to the disciples that they might reserve it
with honor. Rather, He gave it for their use, saying, ‘Take, eat.’ Because
through the use the ea ng passes by and it is consumed, He gave them the
power to consecrate as o en as they wished.” Georgius Cassander
(Consult.) cites the words of Bishop Humbertus Sylvae Candidae:
We read that the Lord gave to His disciples not an imperfect but a perfect remembrance by
the bread that He blessed, and then broke and distributed. He did not just bless it and
reserve it for the next day, nor did He just break it and put it back. Rather, He immediately
distributed what He had broken. Thus Alexander the Martyr and Pope Quintus from the
me of the apostle Peter insert the Lord’s Passion into the canon of the Mass and say, “As
o en as you do this, that is, as o en as you bless, break, and distribute, you do this in
remembrance of Me.” Any one of these three that happens, namely, blessing without
breaking and distribu on, or breaking without blessing and distribu ng, does not represent
 the perfect remembrance of Christ, just as there is no distribu on without blessing and
breaking.

Erasmus, trea se De amicab. eccles. concord.: “At the me of the ancient

church the people did not run to see what the priest was showing. Rather,
with bodies prostrate on the ground and hearts li ed up to heaven they
would give thanks to Christ the Redeemer, who redeemed us with His
death.” Let us therefore follow the ordina on and ins tu on of Christ, who
connected the ea ng of the eucharis c bread directly with the blessing
and distribu on, and the dispute about the permanence of Christ’s body in
the Eucharist will die, if it is reserved for a few days. We must take note,
however, that the charge of Bellarmine about our renewal of the Nestorian
error does not agree with the words of the Jesuit Suarez (vol. 4, disp. 46, q.
75, art. 1, sect. 8), who a ributes the first beginning of that error to the
Protestants. He says: “There is another heresy of these mes that teaches
that we must not keep the Eucharist on the altar nor carry it about nor
worship it. The ins gator of this is said to be Bucer, as Royardus, Hosius,
Castro, Cochlaeus, and Sander affirm.”

Seventeenth, the heresy of the Eutychians

§ 223. (XVII) “The Eutychians taught that there was one nature in Christ
(according to Theodoret, De haeret. fab., bk. 4). Schwenkfeld, Brenz, and
Smidelinus—the patrons of ubiquity—have restored the same teaching at
this me.”
We respond. (1) Let the Augsburg Confession, art. III, speak for us:
“They” (our churches) “teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did
assume the human nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, so that
there are two natures, the divine and the human, inseparably conjoined in
the unity of the person,” etc.
(2) Therefore we and our churches, then, have no fellowship with
Schwenkfeld, who taught that a er His ascension Christ’s human nature
was changed into divine.
(3) The communica on of the divine proper es to the human nature of
Christ in the person of the Word does not remove the dis nc on of
natures, as is explained more fully in its own place [On the Person and
Office of Christ (1610 Loci Theologici, locus 7), § 137; On the Person and
Office of Christ (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace IV), § 269]. In the Council of
Ephesus the flesh of Christ is called “life-giving.” But now, the power to give
life is a property of the divine nature, and this is predicated personally
about the flesh of Christ without any suspicion of Eutychian confounding.
(4) Gregorius de Valen a (Contra Ubiquit., bk. 1, ch. 2) admits this in a
certain way:
The Lutherans say that the real communica on of the divine proper es with the assumed
humanity is not at all essen al. That is, they affirm this not so much about the humanity as
they do about the divinity, as if the humanity may be said to exist through its own essence.
That communica on is also not physical [physica] or subjec ve, as if the divine a ributes
were in the humanity itself as in their subject. Rather, that communica on is said to be of a
unique and arcane mode which they call “hyposta c” or “personal.” Thus they want to
appear as though they were not removing the dis nc on of natures, because they say that
the humanity remains circumscribed physically and by its own nature, yet that because of
that hyposta c union the divine proper es belong to it.

Eutyches, however, said that there was only one nature in Christ fused
from the two and that now it is only divine. How, then, does our posi on
call the heresy of Eutyches back from hell?
(5) Both mul presence [πολυτοπία] and omnipresence seem to conflict
with the property of the body, if we wish to disregard the light of the Word
and follow the darkness of reason. Thomas, [ST,] supplem., q. 73, art. 3:
“If the body of Christ can be in two places at the same me, then it can be
in more places, and even everywhere.” Hence if omnipresence (that is, the
omnipotent dominion of Christ, present in heaven and on earth according
to both natures) conflicts with the human nature and completely destroys
it, the consequence will be that also mul presence (that is, the presence of
the body of Christ in the Lord’s Supper being celebrated in various places,
which the Papists acknowledge) conflicts with the human nature and
completely destroys it.
(6) Some of the Scholas cs themselves and the Papists disputed without
any heresy of Eutychianism that “His natural body can be in many places
even locally and circumscrip vely.” We nevertheless certainly do not
a ribute this mode of presence to the body of Christ when we say in a
sound sense that it is omnipresent. Scotus (Sent., 4, dist. 11, q. 2) raises the
ques on: “Can the same body be locally in diverse places at the same
me?” He says, “Here many hold the nega ve conclusion, but different
people prove it in different ways.” A er lis ng several arguments of
theologians and his own as well, he adds: “Against that” (nega ve)
“opinion this is enough in general: that we must hold that anything is
possible for God which is neither clearly impossible from the terms, nor
from it is an impossibility or contradic on concluded clearly.” Later he
supplies a refuta on of the arguments previously cited and adds: “I
concede that it is simply possible for God for the same body to be locally in
diverse places at the same me.” Biel, Sent., 4, dist. 11: “Not only can the
body of Christ be in diverse places defini vely and sacramentally, but also
it and any other body can be in many places circumscrip vely by divine
power.” Hugh, De sacram., bk. 2, part 8, ch. 12: “How can one body be in
many places at the same me? It is here, it is there, the whole thing is
everywhere. Do not be surprised. He who made the place also made the
body and put place in the body and body in the place. He who caused one
body to be in one place did as He wished. If He had so wished, He could
have done otherwise.” Franciscus Mayronis, Sent., 4, dist. 11, q. 3:
Can God cause the same body to be everywhere? I say: Yes, because whenever something is
determined to one [place], if it is undetermined to other equivalent [places], it extends itself
to any of them in the same manner. Therefore since one body is not determined to a place
one in number, it follows that divine power can make it occupy all places. This, however, is
difficult: Can it be in infinite places? I say: Yes. On the other hand: Would the body be
infinite? I say that this does not follow, both because this happens by divine power and
because locality is an extrinsic rela on.

The Papist Paul Kamerius writes clearly in his Proposi ones: “It is very easy
to prove with many firm reasons that Christ is everywhere with His body.”
He draws those arguments from the assump on of Christ into God’s glory,
from the indivisible unity of the person, and from the communica on of
omnipotence. Johannes Ertlius and Caspar Franck make the same claim.
Why, then, do they accuse us of Eutychianism for claiming that Christ as
God and man is present with us, when they read the founda ons for that
asser on without offense in their own writers?

Eighteenth, the heresy of Xenaias

§ 224. (XVIII) “The Persian Xenaias was the first to assert openly that we
must not venerate the images of Christ and of the saints (according to
Nicephorus, bk. 16, ch. 27). Calvin makes the same claim (Instit., bk. 1, ch.
11, § 7), where he is even unwilling that the sign of the cross be li ed up in
any way. He says (§ 13) that in the first five hundred years there were no
images in the churches of the Chris ans, which is an eminent lie.”
We respond. (1) In the controversy about images we embrace the
decree of the Council of Frankfurt, which Charlemagne sums up with
vigorous brevity (Adv. synod. Graec., bk. 4, ch. 9): “Images take nothing
away if you do not have them. They bestow nothing if you have them. Yet if
you give them up, they cause an incau ous levity; but if you worship them,
they brand guilt upon you.” In the Council of Constan nople under
Copronymus, it had been determined: “Not only are images not to be
worshiped, they are not even to be had.” But in the second Council of
Nicaea under Constan ne and Irene, the opposite was decided: “Not only
are images to be had, they are also to be worshiped.” Charlemagne, king of
the Franks, to whom Pope Adrian had sent the Acta of the Council of
Nicaea for approval, saw that there was error on both sides. Bishop Felix
Orgelitanus, who had said that “according to His human nature Christ was
the adop ve Son of God,” gave Charlemagne the opportunity; so he called
together the bishops, priests, abbots, and monks from all his provinces in
France, Italy, and Germany in the year 794 and established the Council of
Frankfurt am Main. There, the fathers took the middle road. With the
second Council of Nicaea they stated against the Council of Constan nople
that “it is permissible to have images.” On the other hand, with the Council
of Constan nople they stated against the second Council of Nicaea that
“images are not to be worshiped,” according to Ado (Chron., anno 795),
Abbas Ursbergensis (anno 793), Hincmar of Reims (Contra episc.
Jandunens., ch. 20), Aven nus (Annal. Bojorum, bk. 4), Regino (Chron., bk.
2), Eginhardus (Vita Caroli Magni, ch. 69), etc.
(2) The Papists are unable to disapprove of this modera on of the
Council of Frankfurt, because Bishop Gregory of Rome (bk. 9, Le er 9)
warns Bishop Serenus “to teach the people that they are permi ed to have
images but not to worship them.” Charlemagne lists this le er of Gregory
in his own wri ng (bk. 2, ch. 23), in the chapter that has this theme:
“Gregory, the bishop of the city of Rome, forbids both the worship and the
destruc on of images.” (See [Ius canonicum,] de consecrat., dist. 3, c.
perlatum.)
(3) Calvin did not say simply that formerly there were no images in
Chris an temples. Rather, he denies that they were commonly and
everywhere in all temples. On this point he has some of the Papists
agreeing with him. Erasmus, Symb. catech. 6, p. 207: “Un l the me of
Jerome there were men of proven religious who would take into their
temples no painted, sculpted, or carved image, not even of Christ. I
suppose this was because of the Anthropomorphites. Gradually, the use of
images crept into the temples.” Georgius Cassander, Consult. ad impp.: “As
regards the images of the saints, it is certain that, at the start of the
preaching of the Gospel, images were not used for some me among
Chris ans, especially in their churches, as is clear from Clement and
Arnobius. Origen declares how much the ancients abhorred all venera on
of images at the beginning of the church. He says, Adv. Celsum: ‘It is
impossible for anyone who knows God to become a suppliant of statues,’ ”
etc. He also cites a canon of the Council of Elvira [concilium Eliber num]
held in 320: “There should be no pictures in the church, lest that which is
painted on the walls be worshiped.” Here we should report what Aelius
Lampridius tells, Vita Alex. Severi: “The first temples of the Chris ans were
free of all images.”

Nineteenth, the heresy of the Lampe ans

§ 225. (XIX) “The Lampe ans taught that monasteries should be free,
that is, without perpetual vows (according to Damascenus, De centum
haeresib.). At this me Luther has taught the same thing (De vo s
monast.).”
We respond. (1) What one should think about monasteries is explained
elsewhere [§ 266]. We say that monas c vows of that form and purpose as
are taken in the papacy today are a self-chosen service prescribed nowhere
in the Word of God. We say that they conflict with Chris an liberty, take
away Christ’s merit, obscure the divinely commanded works, ensnare
consciences, are filled with supers on, hypocrisy, and idolatry, etc. This is
because by them people bind themselves rashly to perpetual virginity,
poverty, and obedience according to a certain rule of living. This they do
under the opinion of worship and merit, the forgiveness of sins and
righteousness before God, and, in fact, even with the convic on that this is
a state of perfec on in which the living can earn the grace of God and
eternal life not only for themselves but also for others through works of
supereroga on.
(2) The Lampe ans (or Lamperians, as others call them) simply
repudiate all vows without excep on and say that they are of no use to
Chris ans because they seem to inflict a sort of necessity and compulsion
(according to Alphonsus de Castro, Adv. haeres., tle vota). We concede,
however, that one can take vows about some ma ers, if they are related to
good ends and are of the number of things possible. Bellarmine tes fies
for us concerning this subject (De monach., bk. 2, ch. 15).
(3) Cajetan (commentary on Matthew 19) acknowledges that monas c
vows lack the approval of Scripture: “Note, prudent reader, that Jesus
prescribed no vow to the man who wanted to a ain the perfect life. You
see, the achievement of perfec on does not consist in the bonds of vows
but in works.” Erasmus, preface to Ench. mil. Christ., p. 31: “In him we will
not much desire those three vows, which were invented by men, if he
sincerely and purely keeps the first and only vow that we, in Bap sm,
made to Christ, not to man.”
(4) Moreover, the pope himself quite o en relaxes monas c vows, as
can be proved with many examples. Experience tes fies that a just cause
for dissolving vows can occur.
(5) Polydorus Virgilius (De rer. invent., bk. 7, ch. 1) tes fies that
monasteries once were free without the bonds of vows: “Every” monk
“took honorable clothing as his right. Again, there was no bond of vows so
that it would be undecided to each whether to stay or go wherever in the
world he wished. Or if one regre ed having taken a vow of this sort, he
would also have had the power to return to his earlier life, but not without
a mark of inconstancy. But if it was legi mate for the vow to remain
inviolate through new laws of men, we would have had by far the most
holy monks of all me, when wicked men had been monks not for a long
me.” Hospinian (De monach., bk. 3, ch. 10, f. 61, from Vadianus, Epit.
trium terrae par um, f. 187) writes: “They persisted in this kind of life by
will rather than by necessity. They were allowed to change their intent as
o en as reason remanded.”

Twen eth, the Sacramentarian heresy

 § 226. (XX) “There were some who denied that the Eucharist is truly the
body of Christ. They wanted it to be merely the figure or image of the body
of Christ. This is reported in the Seventh Council, Act. 6, vol. 3. Much
earlier Theodoret reports the same thing from Igna us in a dialog called
Impa bilis. At this me Zwingli and Calvin are teaching this heresy,” etc.
We respond. The posi on of our churches is explained in clear words in
the Augsburg Confession, art. X: “Of the Supper of the Lord our churches
teach that the body and blood of Christ are truly present and are
distributed to those who eat in the Supper of the Lord; and they reject
those who teach otherwise.” The Apology of the Confession [X 54]: “We
confess that we believe that in the Lord’s Supper the body and blood of
Christ are truly and substan ally present, and are truly given with those
things that are seen, the bread and the wine, to those who receive the
Sacrament.”
Those are the twenty heresies—or, rather, false accusa ons—with
which Bellarmine wanted to burden our churches. Now we must s ll list
the ancient heresies that have flowed together into the papacy, if only they
could be listed, for Danaeus writes quite truly in his Comment. August. de
haeres., ch. 95: “Finally, Papism arose. All earlier heresies it partly received
like a riverbed and partly absorbed like the sea. It took them under a
different name, to be sure, but retained and strengthened their dogma.”
Because of this, we could rightly apply to the Papists what Epiphanius
wrote about the Ebionites (Haeres. 30): “Just as if someone had made for
himself an ornament of different precious stones, and a brightly colored
garment, and had dressed himself splendidly, so these took everything
from every sect—whatever is horrendous and destruc ve and abominable,
and ugly and incredible and full of hatred—and they formed themselves
according to these things.” Two hundred years ago, Franciscus Petrarch
acknowledged this very thing. In Le er 20 he calls the Curia of the pope
“the mother of all idolatries and fornica ons as well as an asylum for
heresies and errors.” In his Italian poetry he calls Rome “the school of
errors and temple of heresy.”
Before we list the heresies that developed a er the birth of Christ and
that the papacy has taken into its bosom, we shall first show what dogmas
and rituals they borrowed from the heathen and Jews.
Heathen rituals that have been taken into the Roman church
§ 227. ** Dr. Hoë (commentary on Revelation 11, bk. 3, pp. 418ff.)
shows in detail how the Papists agree with the heathen in some chief parts
of doctrine. **
The Papists themselves admit that some rituals have been taken into
the Roman church from the heathen.
** A witness of this is Beatus Rhenanus:
The ancient churches at mes took ceremonies from the heathen. There is no doubt that all
the temples of the gods which Chris ans took over were consecrated to the saints. In the
reforma on of the temples nothing more was done than to remove the idols of the gods
and to give to those names the names of their dei es to be worshiped under a definite law.
For instance, the Pantheon, the ancient work of Marcus Agrippa, was consecrated to all the
dei es by permission of Emperor Phocas. The observance of feasts seems par cularly to
have had its beginning from the heathen. Among the Jews there were no feasts of dei es
and of the dead. Among the heathen, however, there were the Diipolia of Jupiter, the
Saturnalia of Saturn, the Mercurialia of Mercury, the Dionysia of Bacchus, the Nemea of
Hercules, the Panthenaea of Minerva, the Laurentalia of Lauren a, the Cerealia of Ceres, the
Herea of Juno. The Romans imitated these ins tu ons of feast days. On feast days it was the
custom of the heathen to decorate their temples with laurel and to deck them with ivy and
other fes ve foliage, to strew garlands and flowers. As Polydorus says, those idol worshipers
used to do all these things in former mes. Mar n, the first pon ff of Rome, both tes fies to
them and forbids them. The places, too, in which they placed their dei es for each
individual cult have their origin with the heathen. They worshiped various dei es on
Parnassus, Sora e, Paphos, Cnidus, in mountains, groves, forests, and islands. The ritual of
offering candles to images comes from the same heathen. Do not the ninth-day sacrifices for
the dead come from the heathen? and the purifying of the fields? and praying toward the
east? Plutarch (Numa) is our witness that the temples of the heathen gods faced toward the
eastern sun. Our Romanists even set up crossroads gods at the crossroads that were
a ributed to the sacred rites of the heathen, in which sheep were slaughtered and garlands
were hung. It is also the custom that, when the sacred rites are finished, the priest
pronounces these words: Ite, missa est. The Aureus asinus itself of Apuleius is a witness that
this began with the heathen. From where did so many and such infinite altars come? They
tes fy most truly that many remnants of the heathen religion hang on in the temples of
Chris ans. From where do the orders of monks come? From the Nazarites of the Hebrews?
Why do we not rather admit the Sodales Augustales, Mercuriales, Talios, Hadrianales,
Aelianos, Antoninos, the fratres Arvales, and other orders of religious people who provided
the Romans with the opportunity for crea ng monas cism? Indeed, the Roman pon ff
introduced nuns into his church a er the example of the Vestal virgins, etc. Did not the
images and idols, with which the Romans decorate their churches, come from the heathen?
etc. Jeremiah beau fully depicts that idolatry of the Babylonians and the honor and worship
that they showed their idols. You can see both from the Romans and the Babylonians how
easily that prayer can be adapted to the idols of the Romans (Baruch 6). I now come to the
chief points of the religions of which there is a marvelous consensus between the later and
the ancient Romans. The name, authority, and power of the popes among the Chris ans are
 the same as those of the pon ffs were among the ancient Romans. Numa created a chief
pon ff [pon fex maximus] from the fathers, and he was to be in charge both of the religious
ac vi es of the immortal gods and of the supreme republic, for their pon ffs were
established as judges and arbiters equally of divine ma ers and of human ma ers. Our
pon ffs usurp the same authority. **

Polydorus Virgilius, De rer. invent., bk. 4: “A forest of heathen

ceremonies has filled the field of the Lord.” Rhenanus, In Tertulliani contra
Marcion., bk. 5: “Truly, no one can deny it: the ceremony of the burning
candles, which we Chris ans today customarily carry around on the day
appointed for the purifica on of Mary, originated from the sacred
Februales of the Romans. By means of a change they came to the
assistance of stubborn paganism, which they would have irritated by
removing that en re affair.” Jacobus de Voragine, De sanc s, sermon 82:
“They have transferred that fes val in honor of the mother of light, so that
we might carry lights in honor of her who bore to us the true Light. Thus it
is no longer celebrated in honor of Proserpina, wife of the god of the
underworld, but in honor of the heavenly bride of God,” etc. Cornelius
Agrippa, De vanit. scient., ch. 56: “According to Eusebius, a good part of the
ceremonies has migrated from the heathen into our religion.”
** Pisecius the Pho nian here is quite detailed in his Resp. ad 6. rat.
Campiani, pp. 75ff. **
We can say this, however, not only about the ceremonies and rituals but
also truly about some doctrines, that is, that they borrow their origin or
confirma on from the heathen. Scotus (Sent., 3, dist. 24, q. 1) writes: (The
Scholas c) “theologians have mixed philosophy with theology with the
greatest profit.” We easily acknowledge that they mixed, but we have not
yet been able to grasp that they mixed with the greatest profit, since
indeed this philosophy-theology mix [μιξοφιλοσοφοθεολογία] has
inflicted various corrup ons upon the simplicity of heavenly doctrine.
Ethical specula on about the habits of jus ce and of other virtues was
raised to the theological teacher’s chair, took away the imputed
righteousness of faith, and subs tuted in its place the habitual, infused,
and actual righteousness of works. From this the Jesuits (Cens. Colon., p.
154) argue from Aristotle (Topic., bk. 2, ch. 1): “Man is jus fied before God
not by faith but by good works.” They appeal to the judgment of all
philosophers, whether they be Arabs, Greeks, or La ns, who do not admit
that a person is called righteous unless he has been endowed with habitual
righteousness. They removed corrupt concupiscence from the number of
sins because of the ethical rule “Involuntary ac ons do not have the nature
of sin.” They establish the freedom of the will because the moral
philosophers claim that there is no place for either punishment or reward
unless that freedom precedes, and because, according to Aristotle, “reason
always prays for the best things.” This fundamental point is urged by
Cochlaeus (In Conf. Aug., art. 18). The dogma of transubstan a on
depends solely upon the logical principle that “two disparate things cannot
be predicated affirma vely about each other unless a change in essence
occurs.” They support Communion under one kind with the physical axiom
that “a living body does not exist without blood.” The primacy and
monarchy of the pope depend on the poli cal discourse that “the best rule
is monarchic.” The invoca on of the saints was introduced from poli cal
specula on: that no way to a king lies open except through the nobles of
his court. The possibility of fulfilling the Law depends on the rule of
poli cians: “The laws must be given according to ability.” They define
original sin as bare priva on because the Metaphysician teaches that
“every posi ve thing is good.”
** Scotus (Sent., 3, dist. 24, q. 1) writes that professors mixed
philosophy with theology with the greatest profit. A certain monk at
Tübingen omi ed the Gospel pericopes and in their place taught the Ethica
of Aristotle to the people from the pulpit. Cf. Apology of the Augsburg
Confession (in the locus “on jus fica on” [art. IV]), Vitus Winshemius
(Orat. fun. Wit., delivered April 21, 1560), and Luther (Coll. mens., p. 482).
**
Purgatorial fire has its proper basis in Plato’s Gorg. and Vergil’s Aeneid,
bk. 6. The canoniza on of the saints imitates the apotheosis of the
heathen. That the ecclesias cal orders were dis nguished by their
imita on of the heathen is admi ed by a pon fical law, [Ius canonicum,]
dist. 21, c. decre s. Here it says: “Some are simply priests, some
archpresbyters, some suffragan bishops, some bishops, some archbishops,
some primates, some patriarchs, and some supreme pon ffs.” Then it
adds: “The dis nc on of these was especially brought in from the heathen
who called some of their priests simply flamines, some archflamines, some
protoflamines.”
 Just as they borrow some chief points of doctrine, so also the pope-
worshipers borrow the origin of certain rituals from the heathen.
** They bap ze bells or, as Bellarmine (De Rom. pont., bk. 4, ch. 12)
prefers to say: “They solemnly consecrate bells that by their ringing they
might be able to put the demons to flight.” This opinion about the power
of bells took its origin from the heathen. Ovid (Fast., bk. 5) says that in the
sacred Lemurales the old woman drove out the ghosts of the dead with the
ringing of the bell. Alexander Aphrodisiensis (in his Problemat.) says: “With
the sound of bronze the evil spirits are driven away. For this reason it
became the custom for bronze to be moved at an eclipse of the moon.”
According to Caelius Rhodiginus (bk. 15, ch. 10), this is something that was
le wri en by Livy, Ovid, and Lucan. The very old scholiast of Theocritus
noted: “Formerly, if anyone had died, the bells were struck because people
believed that such a sound is clean and drives away defilements (turns
away the appari ons and tricks of demons).” Apollodorus (in his book
en tled Diis) reports that the hierophant (that is, the priest of Proserpina)
used to ring the bell at Athens when it thundered.” For more about Papist
dogmas and rituals drawn from heathenism, see the German wri ng of Dr.
Agricola, Franc. Burch. Auton. opposito, and the book Conr. Nucer. in Wolf,
vol. 1, p. 954. **
Eusebius (Hist. eccl., bk. 7, ch. 28) declares: “By heathen custom, the
images of Peter and Paul were kept and worshiped.” This is something that
the similarity of heathen and Papist worship proves quite clearly. The
heathen worshiped their gods with gold, silver, ivory, jewels, etc., according
to Lactan us (Instit., bk. 2, ch. 2). Living prac ce witnesses that the Papists
do the same thing. The heathen would affix the singular presence of a
deity to images. Arnobius, Contra gentes, bk. 1: “As if a present power
were in them, [saying], ‘I was honored and hailed, and I demanded
sacrifices.’ ” The Papists do the same thing. This is clear from the fact that
people crowd more around one image (of Christ, Mary, etc.) than around
others and from the fact that people at mes take long pilgrimages to a
par cular image, even though there are much more elegant ones at home.
Gregorius de Valen a (De idol., disp. 6, q. 11, punct. 6) says that this was
done “because they had discovered from sure experience that God would
bestow marvelous benefac ons, especially in certain places, upon those
who venerated certain images.” Consequently, Polydorus Virgilius (De rer.
invent., bk. 6, ch. 13) says: “Many of the more ignorant and stupid people
worship rocks or trees, marble, bronze, or painted images on the walls
smeared in various colors, not as figures but as if they actually had
percep on. They have more confidence in them than they have in Christ or
in the other gods to which those images were dedicated.” The heathen
burned incense before their idols (Arnobius, Contra gent., bk. 7). They
offered liba ons and incense to them (Socrates, Hist eccles., bk. 2, ch. 4).
They lit torches and candles for them (Baruch 6:18; Lactantius, Instit., bk.
6, ch. 62; Eusebius, De vita Const., bk. 2; Jerome, on Isaiah 26). They
honored their statues with crowns and garlands (Baruch 6:9; Acts 14:13;
Arnobius, bk. 7). They put clothing on them (Baruch 6:12). They carried
them around (Isa. 46:7; Amos 5:26; Baruch 6:3; Clement, Paraenet. ad
gent.). They set them up in a high place (Augustine, Letter 49). They
erected altars to them (Arnobius, Adv. gent., bk. 7). They prostrated
themselves to the ground and worshiped the images (Isa. 44:17;
Arnobius, bk. 6). They spoke to them (Jer. 2:27; Wisdom 13:17). They
made vows to them (Baruch 6:34; Augustine, Letter 45; Valerius
Maximus, Memor., bk. 1, ch. 1). They established fes vals for them (Exod.
32:5; 2 Macc. 6:7; Theodoret, De martyrib., bk. 8; Arnobius, bk. 7) and
would feast on those days (Exod. 32:6; Judg. 16:23; Amos 2:8). Public
prac ce tes fies that the Papists do all these things.
The heathen would not ask for all things from all [of their images], but
would ask for certain things from certain gods before their statues
(according to Ta an, Contra Graecos, and Arnobius, Contra gentes, bk. 2).
Thus the Papists, too, hope for some benefits from some saints and others
from other saints. They imagine that Apollonia eases toothaches; O lia
takes care of inflamma on of the eye; etc. Therefore a person suffering
with a toothache asks for relief not before the image of O lia but of
Apollonia. The saints of the Papists have taken the place of the heathen
gods according to the li le verse: “As the La ns [besought] Mars, so we
[beseech] you, O divine [dive] George.” In place of Apollo they have
subs tuted Sebas an and Roch; in place of Mars and Bellona, George; of
Juno, Anna; of Neptune, Nicolaus and Christopher; of Juno, Margaret; of
Minerva, Catherine; of Castor, Valen ne; of Liber, Urban and Medardus;
etc. Theodoret, De evang. verit. cognit., bk. 8: “Instead of the Pandii and
Diasii and Dyonisii, that is, instead of the solemn fes vi es for Jupiter and
Father Liber, they celebrate with a feast for the people the solemni es for
Peter, Paul, Thomas, Sergius, Marcellus, Leon us, Anthony, Maurice, and
other saints.” The heathen would put certain gods in charge of certain
provinces; in the same way, the Papists distribute the governorships of
regions, provinces, and ci es among their saints. Peter is worshiped
especially at Rome and is the protector of the city of God; Mark, of Venice;
Ambrose, of Milan; the three kings and Ursula with the eleven thousand
virgins, of Cologne; Vladislaus, in Hungary; Louis, in France; Wenceslaus, in
Bohemia; Thomas, in England; Genevieve, of Paris; Ulrich, of Augsburg;
Stephan, of Vienna, etc. What God once complained about the Jewish
idolaters may be applied deservedly to the Papists, Jer. 2:28: “For as many
as your ci es are your gods.”
The heathen would place celibate priests in charge of their gods
(Jerome, Adv. Jov., bk. 2), and these would strut about with shaved heads
(Jerome, on Ezekiel, bk. 13). In the same way celibacy and shaving are
required in the case of Papist sacrificers. When the heathen approached
their shrines, they would sprinkle themselves with purifying water (Jus n,
Apol. 2. pro Christ., p. 74; Theodoret, Hist. eccles., bk. 3, ch. 15;
Macrobius, Saturnalium, bk. 3, ch. 1; Aven nus, Chron. Bavar., bk. 3, p.
187). In the same way, the Papists sprinkle themselves with blessed water
for sanc fica on and purifica on when they are about to enter their
temples.
Exorcisms originated from the incanta ons of the heathen.

The sects of the philosophers contributed something to the

papacy
§ 228. The devout ancients are witnesses as to how much damage and
danger there is if we wish to borrow principles of dogmas from heathen
philosophy. Irenaeus, Advers. haeres., bk. 2, ch. 37, p. 135: “The here cs,
saying the same things as the heathen philosophers, are of the same kind
and spirit as they.” Tertullian (Adv. Hermog., p. 339) calls philosophers “the
patriarchs of the here cs.” Tertullian again, De praescript., p. 97: “Heresies
are ins gated by philosophy”; and Adv. Marcion., bk. 5, p. 328: “[Heresy]
consists of the rules of philosophy.”
 ** In fact, Bellarmine writes, De amiss. gra ae, bk. 4, ch. 11: “From the
error of the Stoics developed the Manichaean and Priscillian error. From
the error of Plato came the error of Origen; from the error of Aristotle—or
at least from the judgment of Aristotle not well understood—was born the
error of Apollinaris.” **
Why is it, then, so strange to say that the Scholas cs took the opinions
of the philosophers into the school of theology and out of two things that
were good in themselves made one very bad thing; from two sound things,
one corrupt one?
** Erasmus, Praefat. S. Hilarii: “The symbol of faith began to exist in
wri ngs rather than in hearts, and there were almost as many faiths as
people. Ar cles increased but sincerity decreased; arguments boiled up,
love became cold. The doctrine of Christ, which earlier knew no war over
words, began to depend on the support of philosophy. This was the first
step of the church sliding into worse things. Finally, the situa on
deteriorated to sophis c debates; thousands of ar cles burst forth.” **
There were once four schools of philosophers: Academics, Peripate cs,
Stoics, and Epicureans. From each of these something was added to the
papacy and to papal dogmas. The Academic school introduced the
incomprehensibility of all things and taught that nothing is known
completely. From this the Scholas cs adopted a method of arguing. When
they debated about the most serious ar cles of religion and had nowhere
to plant their feet, they were tossed about by various ra onaliza ons
thought up by human ingenuity, as by waves, now in this direc on, now in
that, and made everything uncertain that ought to have been most certain.
Ambrosius Catharinus, in his wri ng Contra Dominicum a Soto, correctly
judges: “Quite o en the Senten arians strayed from the right way because
they placed Holy Scripture behind their own reason and philosophy.”
** The author of the book en tled Onus eccles.: “The pagans seek to
destroy the norm of the Gospel. Therefore the devil s rs up the idea that
the doctrine of the Chris ans is supported by pagan authori es and
encourages the mixing of the dogmas of the heathen with the principles of
faith so that finally the truth of the Gospel might be puffed away through
sophis c deceits.” The mixing of philosophy and theology in the Scholas cs
is censured by Canus, Loc., bk. 8, ch. 1, and bk. 9, ch. 1. **
 Ludovicus Vives (Comm. Augustini de civ. Dei, bk. 18, ch. 18) writes
gravely:
Theologians teach with great consensus that crea ng something out of nothing belongs to
God alone. Yet they debate whether this power to create can be communicated to a
creature. Thomas writes much about this, and Scotus tries to weaken Thomas’s arguments
to strengthen his own. Occam tries to make Scotus’s arguments fall in order to establish his
own, but these Pierre d’Ailly tears down. Thus either they are playing games in a serious
ma er, or they are compelling a heavenly ma er to serve their own affec ons and fac ons.
What behavior can be corrected? What bad affec ons can be calmed and removed? What
divine thing can be made out of a doctrine s rred up and treated with divisions, turned this
way and that according to the whim of human affec ons, and hammered out by the tricks of
people who argue so stubbornly?

(He repeats the same complaints about the corrup on of theology through
the disputa ons of the Scholas cs in his Comm. de civ. Dei, bk. 3, ch. 31;
bk. 2, ch. 13; bk. 11, chs. 11 and 24; bk. 13, ch. 1; bk. 18, ch. 18; bk. 19,
ch. 12; bk. 20, ch. 16; and bk. 21, ch. 27.) Trithemius also does not deny
that “from me to me when the debates—or, rather, the doubts—of the
Scholas cs began to reign, secular philosophy began to befoul and
contaminate sacred theology.” In fact, even Pighius openly admits: “The
ar cle of jus fica on, that first part of Chris an doctrine, has been
obscured rather than illumined by the Scholas cs with their thorny
ques ons and defini ons” (according to Chemnitz, Examen, part 1, p. 231).
From the Academic sect, the Papists’ dogma about eternal doubt in the
ma er of salva on also flowed forth.
From the Peripate c school of Aristotle and his followers the Scholas cs
drew many things, which they forced into their theological disputa ons.
Thus when Scholas c theology was s ll ruling in the lecterns and pulpits,
you would have heard more quickly a passage of Aristotle than from the
Sacred Book. Epiphanius (Haeres. 5) writes about the Stoics: “They have
divided the one Deity into many par al essences, into the sun, moon, and
stars; into the soul, air, and other things.” In the same way, the Papists
divide the Deity into many ny gods and distribute the bestowal of certain
benefits and the obtaining of certain things among the saints. Thus they
commi ed to Christopher the prohibi on of sudden death; to Sebas an
and Roch, of the plague; to Anthony, of sacred fire; etc.
Concerning the Stoics, Augus ne also men ons, De civ. Dei, bk. 19, ch.
4: “They had such a stupor of pride that they said they had the greatest
good in themselves, and they thought that they could make themselves
blessed.” In his book De Epicureis et Stoicis, he rebuked them for “thinking
that the blessed life is acquired through the virtues of the mind.” The
Papists also teach this way, that each person earns a share of the greatest
good with his own virtues and works. The monks’ lack of natural affec on
has a kinship with the apathy of the Stoics. The monkish opinion about the
state of perfec on and works of supereroga on has a kinship with the
perfec on [κατόρθωμα] of the Stoics, etc.
In regard to the Epicureans, we know that they set the highest good in
pleasure, that they denied divine providence and the immortality of souls.
But many popes and prelates in the Roman church tes fy with their life
and behavior that they are Epicureans. Because of this, Panormitanus says,
“Many pon ffs live such a life that it is quite likely that they do not believe
in the resurrec on of the dead and eternal life.”
** Gerson, De indur. cord., part 3: “The church has changed many rituals
of the heathen, but not by removing them completely, etc.” Baronius
(Annal., vol. 2, AD 200, no. 5) admi ed that among the first Chris ans, at
the me of Tertullian, such customs were s ll noted with severe censure as
remnants of heathenism. Yet a erward he also adds: “Later, they seem to
have been introduced on purpose so that the same things which were
func ons of heathen supers on might now be sanc fied for the true
worship of God and be devoted to the cul va on of true religion.” (This
surely does appear to have happened later, not from the beginning, with
regard to the Ethnophrones, whose heresy is described by John of
Damascus, De haeres., and Nicetas, Thesaur. orth. fid., bk. 4, heresy 42:
when Chris ans followed the ins tu ons of the heathen, they also
became, among other things, imitators of heathen rituals and
supers ons.)

Rituals transferred from the Jews into the Roman church

§ 229. Some of the Papists do not deny that the Roman church
borrowed some rituals from the Jews. Bellarmine (De cult. sanct., bk. 3, ch.
7) compares blessed water with the water of tes ng (Numbers 5) and the
water of expia on (Numbers 19). Durandus (Ra onal., bk. 1, ch. 1) derives
the use of lamps from the Old Testament. He says: “The church is illumined
according to the Lord’s commandments, of which we read in Exodus:
‘Command the sons of Aaron to offer the purest oil of olive trees, that a
lamp may always burn in the tabernacle of tes mony.’ ” All the vestments
of the Mass imitate the clothing of the Levi cal priests, etc. Consequently,
Amalarius (De offic. ecclesiast., bk. 2, ch. 22) says: “The church has
accepted holy vestments like those of the priests of the Mosaic Law.” The
Papists have transferred to themselves not only some rituals from the
Levi cal priesthood, which was abrogated in the New Testament, but also
some dogmas corrupted from the Jewish church in later centuries.
Josephus reports, Antiq. Judaic., bk. 18, ch. 2, and De bello Judaico, bk. 2,
ch. 7: “For many centuries already the Jews had been divided into three
sects: Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees. The Essenes lived apart from the
common society of people. They had common possessions, they did not
admit their wives into their cloister, they fasted frequently, and claimed
that this way of life was a state of perfec on,” etc. The monks are so
closely related to these that Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 2, ch. 15) was led
into an error by that similarity and claimed that those Essenes, whose
exercises Philo and Josephus describe, were Chris ans because, “just like
monks, they lived in monasteries, chanted an phons, deserted their
property, read the Scriptures, prac ced con nence, gathered in the
monastery to pray, celebrated the Easter vigil by singing hymns, had
deacons and bishops.” Joseph Scaliger scolds this error of Eusebius with
very valid arguments in his Animadvers. In our day Nicolaus Serarius, a
Jesuit of Mainz, undertook the support of Eusebius with very trivial
arguments in his Trihaeresium, ch. 17, as is obvious to anyone at first
glance. We shall not consider their strength at this me. Rather, it is
enough for us to establish so strong a kinship of Papist monks with the
Essenes that they would willingly admit the Essenes into their order.
It was the opinion of the Sadducees that souls die along with bodies,
that there is no angel, no Spirit, no resurrec on from the dead (Acts 23:8).
Josephus says, “There are few of this sect, but they are nearly chief in
dignity,” for it is evident that some of the high priests among the Jews were
Sadducees. Therefore the Sadducees can be compared with the Roman
popes, whose shameful life, as described by historians, shows what they
think about the immortality of the soul, the resurrec on of the dead, and
eternal life. In fact, there were mes when some of them confessed those
opinions of the Sadducees in clear language. Regarding John XXIII, the
Council of Constance gives the following record: “Again and again he spoke
stubbornly before various prelates and other honorable and upright men
at the persuasion of the devil and declared, dogma zed, and affirmed that
there is no eternal life. In fact, he even said and stubbornly believed that
man’s soul dies with the human body and is ex nguished like that of dumb
animals. He also said that one who had died once would surely not rise
again on the Last Day.” Leo X would show his immense treasury of wealth
to Cardinal Bembo and say, “See how profitable to us is the fable of
Christ!”
John of Salisbury once compared the Papist clergymen to Pharisees. He
wrote around AD 1150, and in his Policra cus he speaks about the
foolishness of the Curia as follows:
The scribes and Pharisees sit in the Roman church and place unbearable burdens on the
shoulders of the people. The great pon ff is heavy and almost intolerable for all. His legates
do such reveling as if Satan had come out from the face of the Lord to whip the church. They
very o en do harm in the church, and, in this respect, they closely resemble the devil. As far
as they are concerned, judgment is nothing but a public bribe. They consider all piety as
financial profit, they jus fy the wicked for compensa on, they burden afflicted consciences,
they weigh down their tables with gold and silver, and take pleasure in the worst things. In
fact, they eat the sins of their people, clothe themselves with them, and indulge themselves
in them in various ways.

Innocent, who lived in the thirteenth century (Sermon 2 in die cinerum),

said: “A thread of pride holds us so bound to our demanding sins that we
do prefer to appear proud rather than humble. We walk with neck straight,
eyes up, chest out, broadening the fringes of our robes, enlarging our
phylacteries, seeking the places of honor at banquets, the best seats in the
synagogues. And the people call us ‘Rabbi.’ ” These are the words that
Christ spoke against the Pharisees in Matt. 23:5[–7]. In fact, several
centuries before Salisbury and Innocent, Jerome (in the preface to the
book of Didymus De Spiritu sancto) calls the Roman clergy “a senate of
Pharisees.” On the other hand, in his commentary on Matthew 10, he calls
Pharisees “the clergymen of the Jews.” Why go into more detail? Whether
you consider the life or the doctrine of the Pharisees and compare them
with the Papist clergy, you will detect so close a kinship that anyone would
dare to swear that the souls of the Jewish Pharisees had migrated into the
Papist clergy by a sort of Pythagorean metempsychosis.
 (1) The Pharisees used to call themselves this name from “separa on”
or “division,” because the holiness of life that they affected separated or
divided them from other Jews. This explana on for their name is followed
by Origen (on Matthew 23), Epiphanius (Haeres. 16), Jerome (on Matthew
23), etc. Thus Papist ministers call themselves “clergymen” [clerici] “as if
they alone belonged to the por on [or inheritance] of the Lord.” (This
explana on of their tle is given in [Ius canonicum,] dist. 21, c. clericos,
from Isidore, Etymol., bk. 7, ch. 12.) Yet the en re church of Christ is called
the κλῆρος or por on of Christ in Col. 1:12. He acquired it for Himself to
be His por on with His blood (Eph. 5:26; Titus 2:14). Some think that the
Pharisees were called that from their explana on of the Scriptures because
they claimed for themselves alone “the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52).
Because they “were si ng in the seat of Moses,” they arrogated to
themselves the genuine exposi on of the Law and the prophets (Matt.
23:2; Rom. 2:20). So, too, Papist bishops, but especially their head, the
Roman pope, arrogate the authen c exposi on of Scripture and the power
to make decrees in ma ers of faith.
(2) The Pharisees a ributed much to tradi ons, to the point that “they
made void the commandments of God because of their tradi ons” (Matt.
15:6). They were not content with the Word of God handed down to the
people of Israel in Holy Scripture by Moses and the prophets. To that they
added their own tradi ons, which (according to Jerome, Le er ad
Damasc.) they called their “seconds” [δευτερώσεις] and which, they
taught, were just as necessary as the wri en Word. Yet in many points they
conflicted with the Word. (This lie is discussed by Irenaeus, bk. 4, ch. 25;
Origen, on Numbers, homily 5; and Chrysostom, on Matthew, homily
52.) To gather greater authority for their tradi ons they contrived the
following: “On Mount Sinai, Moses received from God two laws, one that
was handed down in wri ng, the other that was received only orally.” They
declared that that la er one “was passed down through Moses to his
posterity by a successive order. In fact, Moses gave it to Joshua, Joshua to
the elders, the elders to the prophets, the prophets to the men of the
Great Synagogue.” (In regard to this ma er see P. Fagius, Comm. Thalm. in
sent. Patr.; Gala nus, De arcan. cath., bk. 1, ch. 2, bk. 4, ch. 4, etc.;
Johannes Picus Mirandulanus, Apol., q. 5.) In a similar manner, the Papists
(Council of Trent, sess. 4) claim: “Tradi ons ought to be accepted with an
equal reverence and affec on of piety as the wri en Word.” They imagine
that those tradi ons are preserved through a con nual succession from
the apostles in the Roman church. They a ribute so much to them that
they quite o en prefer them to the wri en Word of God.
(3) The Pharisees dreamed that the kingdom of the Messiah would be
worldly, and they denied the personal union of the divine and human
natures in Christ. As a result, they accused Him of blasphemy because He
had confessed that He is the Son of God. They referred the office of Christ
to His human nature alone, etc. In the same way, the pope, who boasts
that he is Christ’s vicar, administers a temporal kingdom. Therefore he is
either claiming that Christ’s kingdom is also temporal or he has falsely
established himself as Christ’s vicar. The Jesuits, too, since they deny the
necessary and direct consequence of the hyposta c union, namely, the
communica on of proper es, are forced to deny the union itself. In fact,
they even argue that Christ administers His office through His human
nature alone. The Pharisees thought that Elijah the Tishbite would return
in his own person before the coming of the Messiah, but they had been
misled by a corrupt understanding of the prophecy in Mal. 4:5 (Matt.
17:10; Mark 9:11). So also Bellarmine (De pon f., bk. 3, ch. 6) and other
Papists claim: “Elijah and Enoch will appear in their own persons before the
second coming of Christ and will do ba le against the An christ.” In
response to this we sing Jerome’s remark, commentary on Malachi 4: “The
Jews and Judaizing here cs think that their Elijah will come before their
‘anointed one’ to restore all things. As a result they propose to Christ the
ques on in the Gospel: ‘Why do the Pharisees say that Elijah will come?’ ”
(4) The Pharisees taught that the inner depraved concupiscence of the
heart was not sin (Matt. 5:28). The Papists teach the same thing, and
Bellarmine tries to prove their belief at length (De statu pecc., bk. 5, chs.
7ff.). From John 9:34 we gather that the Pharisees either completely
denied original sin or minimized it very much. We draw the same
conclusion from the rest of their errors regarding the possibility of fulfilling
the Law, the perfec on of one’s own righteousness, the excellence of
human powers, etc. We have demonstrated in its own place how the
Papists deny and minimize original sin both directly and indirectly [On
Original Sin (Commonplace XII), §§ 57–60]. The Pharisees claimed that
some sins were by their own nature venial, as we gather from Matt. 5:19.
The Papists make the same claim. The Pharisees defined sin more as a
transgression of their own tradi ons than of the divine Law (Matt. 5:33;
15:6). The prac ce of the Papists tes fies that they do the same thing. [Ius
canonicum,] 25, q. 1, c. nulli, and the same, c. violatores declares: “It is
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and an unforgivable sin to violate the
laws and decrees of the pope.” This is something that cannot be said about
any sins commi ed against divine Law.
(5) From the Pharisees’ persuasion about their own righteousness and
their opinion about the perfect fulfillment of the Law we conclude that
they proclaimed the powers of free will even in spiritual ma ers. We
demonstrate elsewhere that the Papists are stuck in the same mud [On
Free Choice (Commonplace XIV), §§ 50–54].
(6) The Pharisees thought that the Law required only some kind of
external obedience but that it by no means accused an inner disobedience
and the disorder of corrupt affec ons (Matt. 5:21). As a result, they hoped
for salva on from the Law, persuaded that they had fulfilled it perfectly.
The Papists claim that the perfect fulfillment of the Law is so easy that
anyone can perform even works of supereroga on.
(7) The Pharisees rejected the doctrine of the Gospel about the free
forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ and even condemned it as heresy,
as the Gospel account tes fies. The doctrine of the Gospel experiences the
same fate today from the Papists. The Pharisees judged it as blasphemy
that Christ promised the forgiveness of sins to the paraly c with certainty
and in this way established the certainty of salva on (Matt. 9:[2–]3). The
Papists reject the certainty of divine grace, righteousness, and salva on
offered in the Gospel and confirmed with the seals of the Sacraments and
with the internal tes mony of the Holy Spirit Himself. They rather teach
constant doubt.
(8) The Pharisees “tried to establish their own righteousness before the
judgment of God” (Rom. 10:3) and spit out the righteousness of faith
disdainfully. The Papists, likewise, bring the habitual and actual
righteousness of works to the tribunal of God and hiss away the imputa on
of the righteousness of Christ through faith.
(9) The Pharisees followed self-chosen services because they were not
content with the works prescribed in the divine Law (Matt. 15:9). They
have the Papists as their disciples and followers in the same school of self-
chosen services. The Pharisees “bound heavy burdens, hard to carry, and
laid them on men’s shoulders” (Matt. 23:4). Gerson once complained that
the Papist prelates did the same thing (De vita spir. anim., lect. 2):
“Because of the tradi ons of men, the light yoke of Christ and the law of
freedom become an iron yoke and a heavy burden pressing down the
necks of Chris ans because some want them to think that all their laws,
ins tu ons, rules, and statutes must be accepted as commands of the Law
of God, heading toward the destruc on of eternal death if they are
transgressed.” Ibid.: “O wise Augus ne, if you said these things at your
me” (meaning Letter 119 ad Januar.), “what would you have said at our
me when, according to variety and whim, there is an incredible variety
and confused mul plica on of these servile burdens and, as you say, of
human presump ons, through which, as among snares and entangling nets
for souls, one can scarcely walk safely and uncaught.”
(10) The Pharisees claimed the tle “church” on the basis of a personal
succession from Aaron. This is how the Roman pon ffs boast, that they are
the successors of Peter and are the monarchs of the church. The Pharisees
appealed “to the temple of the Lord”; the Papists appeal “to the throne of
Peter.”
(11) The Pharisees denied that the Bap sm of John was of God (Luke
7:30). The Papists deny the same thing, that John received a command
from God to bap ze. They also deny that John’s Bap sm was effec ve for
the remission of sins and salva on. The Pharisees’ error was thinking that
the Sacraments are beneficial just by doing the work [ex opere operato],
because of which they came to the Bap sm of John without repentance
and faith (Matt. 3:7). The Papists make the same claim, that “the
sacraments of the new Law confer grace just by doing the work without a
good mo ve on the part of the one using them.”
(12) The Pharisees (according to Josephus, Antiq., bk. 17, ch. 3) “were
so hos le to kings that they did not fear to a ack them openly.” The
histories tell us how hos le Roman popes have been to emperors. The
Pharisees refused “to enter the court of the governor, lest they be
contaminated” (John 18:28). So also Sylvester (in the Council of Rome,
canon 16) “forbids priests from entering the court because it is said to be
of blood and is the sacrifice of idols.”
 ** According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 16), “the Pharisees would prepare
beams three-quarters of a foot wide and would lie down on them in the
evening. If anyone fell asleep on them, he would fall to the ground and be
wakened to prayer again. Others would sca er stones taken from the
beaches beneath themselves so that the stones would gouge them and
keep them from falling into a deep sleep. They fasted twice a week on the
second and fi h days.” From these, the more austere monks in the papacy
borrowed their λαμευνίας, stated fasts, and similar things. The Capuchins
established a special holiness in using brushwood for beds. All the Papists
seek merit in fas ng twice a week, on the sixth and seventh days. **
See more points of comparison between the dogmas and rituals of the
Pharisees and Papists in Dr. Henricus Eckhartus and Dr. Himmelius, Papa
pharisaizans.
§ 230. Let us go on to the here cs who began a er the birth of Christ
and stubbornly supported their corrupt doctrines. They are called here cs
in the proper sense (according to Augus ne, Contra advers. legis et
prophetarum, bk. 2, ch. 12), so that it actually appears that the Roman
pope gathered his venom from all the flowers of the here cal meadow.
Just as Irenaeus (Adv. haeres., bk. 5, p. 328) declares about the An christ,
“that he recapitulated the devilish apostasy in himself,” so the Roman pope
declares that he is the An christ hereby: because his doctrine is a
recapitula on of almost all the heresies that arose in the church in those
first six centuries a er the birth of Christ, before the an -Chris an
dominion of the pope subjugated the church.

First, the heresy of the false apostles

(I) The false apostles taught that “besides faith in Christ the observance
of the Mosaic Law is required for jus fica on” (Acts [15]:5). Against this,
the decree of the apostle was set forth (v. 11): “We believe that we are
saved by the grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, as were also our fathers.” See
also the Epistle to the Gala ans. (See our trea se On the Law
[Commonplace XV], § 181, and On Jus fica on [Commonplace XIX], § 152.)
In a similar way, the Papists ascribe jus fica on before God to both faith
and works.
 ** (According to Epiphanius, Haeres. 9, in regard to the Samaritans: “If
anyone would speak to them about David, Isaiah, and those who came
a er Moses, they would not receive them but would stay close to the
tradi on that their own fathers had handed down.” The Papists commonly
teach that the Scriptures are not necessary but strangely proclaim the
necessity of the tradi ons introduced by the fathers.) **

Second, the Simonians

(II) The Simonians are named from Simon Magus, “the father of all
here cs” (as Irenaeus calls him, preface to bk. 3).
** Paschalis ([Ius canonicum,] 1, q. 7, last c.) writes: “It is clear that all
the faithful should reject the Simoniacs as the first and foremost here cs.
If, even a er they have been warned, they do not come to their senses, the
external powers must oppress them, for every criminal charge is like
nothing by comparison with the heresy of the Simoniacs.” But now, the
estates of the empire in the year 1522 at Nuremberg accused the pope
with mul ple charges of simony. **
The Simonians contributed not a small part to the papal errors. In the
first place, Simon “desired divine honors” (Nicephorus, Hist., bk. 2, ch. 36).
The Roman pon ff likewise calls himself “god” (Ius canonicum, dist. 96, c.
sa s). Steuchus, De donat. Const., p. 141: “Constan ne worshiped the
pope as a god and bestowed divine honors on him.” This certainly reveals
that the pope was the successor not of Simon Peter but of Simon Magus,
for Peter rejected such honors (Acts 10:26).
Second, Simon wanted to use money to purchase from the apostles the
power to confer the Holy Spirit through the imposi on of hands (Acts
8:19). Consequently, those people are called “Simoniacs” who buy or sell
something spiritual (Lombard, Sent., 4, dist. 25, ch. 4). This simony,
however, reigns throughout the papacy, as Bap sta Mantuanus exclaims:
“All things are for sale to us—temples, priests, altars, sacred rites, crowns,
fire, incense, prayers. Heaven is for sale—even God!”
** Alvarus Pelagius, De planctu ecclesiae, bk. 2, art. 10, f. 109b: “They
celebrate for money. Along with Judas, they sell the body of Christ for
money. They consecrate, ordain, and administer all sacraments for money.
But grace, which they do not have, they do not confer. Nothing is taken
without payment; nothing is given without payment. The grantors say, ‘We
are selling what we have purchased.’ ” **
Franciscus Petrarch writes, Dial. de Rom. cur. evit.: “Simon Magus has
returned to life at Rome with his wife, Simony.” Durandus (De modo celebr.
conc. gen., part 2, tle 10) says, “In the Roman church simony reigns as if it
were no sin.”
** If, as it says in [Ius canonicum,] c. quidam, 24, q. 3; c. haere cus; and
same caus. and q., c. qui in ecclesia, “we must consider as here cs those
who prac ce simony; who worship angels; who possess nothing of their
own and do not accept those who use anything in this world; who
abominate meats; who reject marriage; who walk barefooted” (for a
supers ous purpose); “who do not eat with other people; who
understand the most Holy Scripture otherwise than the sense of the Holy
Spirit demands, by whom it was wri en; who defend their false opinions
for the sake of their own preeminence; who stubbornly support the
corrupt ideas that they think”—then supporters of the pope will not be
able to be exonerated from the charge of heresy. Augus ne (Haeres. 46)
calls “those people ‘apostolic here cs’ who, due to a corrupt imita on,
declared that they represented the apostles because of something that,
nevertheless, did not apply to the apostles, namely, that they received no
one into their fellowship who had a wife or possessions. These same
people were completely incapable of tolera ng those who had vowed
celibacy and later had married, though they admi ed that they were
unable to keep their own vow.” (Cf. Epiphanius, Haeres. 61.) So also the
Papists thus do not allow marriage to virgins once the vow has been taken
(Englishmen of Rheims, Annot. on 1 Cor. 7:28). **
Marsilius Patavinus (Defens. pacis, part 2, ch. 24) says that Rome is a
flocking together of Simoniacs from everywhere. In fact, they sell heaven there. They sell
there all the elements: earth, every me they have to commit the bodies of the dead to the
ground; water, which they call “lustral water”; air and the sounds of bells; the fire of
candles. They sell the merits of both the living and the dead. They demand taxes not only
from the living but also from the dead. They sell chants, sacraments, priesthoods. Finally,
they even sell the forgiveness of sins.

Restaurus Castaldus (Tract. de imperat.) calls the pope “the monarch of all
simony.”
 Third, the disciples of Simon and all his successors are called “those who
in any way corrupt the truth and harm the church’s proclama on.”
Irenaeus (Adv. haer., bk. 1, ch. 30) says: “Although they do not confess the
name of their master, in order to mislead the rest, nevertheless they teach
his opinion, displaying the name of Jesus Christ as a provoca on, but in
various ways introducing the wickedness of Simon. They destroy many
through His good name while badly destroying the meaning. Through the
sweetness and beauty of His name, they give the people the bi er and
corrup ng venom of the serpent, the prince of apostasy.” These words of
Irenaeus, by which he describes the nature of the Simonians, fit the Jesuits
so well that they seem to have been u ered against the la er.
** Epiphanius (Haeres. 20) men ons that Simon “taught a purifica on
of souls a er the corrup on and destruc on of the flesh.” The Papists
teach that a er death and the destruc on of the body there will be a
purifica on of souls in purgatory. **
Fourth, to Simon and his adherents Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 20) ascribes the
use of exorcisms, which, as is evident, is also common among the Papists,
who exorcise not only intelligent creatures but also dumb animals and
things that lack all life and sense, such as oil, salt, herbs, candles, water,
etc.
Fi h, Irenaeus (loc. cit.) writes that the disciples of Simon “have an
image of Simon made in the form of Jupiter, and one of Selena in the form
of Minerva, and they worship these.” Eusebius (Hist. eccles., bk. 2, ch. 12)
reports that “they prostrated themselves before their pictures and images
and would venerate them with burnt fragrances, sacrificial vic ms, and
liba ons.” It is evident that in prac ce the same worship is given to images
in the kingdom of the An christ, so that Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 8) quite rightly
calls the Simonians “precursors of the An christ.”
Sixth, Irenaeus reports (bk. 1, ch. 8) that the Simonians “boast about
those ma ers that were not wri en but were handed down orally alone.”
Chapter 17: “They bring in an unspeakable mul tude of apocryphal
scriptures that they have invented to amaze the foolish and that are a
ma er of truth to those who are illiterate.” He says about them (bk. 3, ch.
2): “Whenever they argue from the Scriptures, they accuse them of
imperfec on, saying that those who do not know the tradi on cannot
learn the truth from them.” Almost all sectarians have taken this part of
the heresy from the Simonians, so that Irenaeus writes with good cause
(bk. 1, ch. 20): “All heresies have their existence from Simon Magus.” This
is because almost all here cs abandon the fountain of the Scriptures and
appeal to the cisterns of tradi on. Epiphanius teaches this in regard to the
Sethians (Haeres. 49), the Archon cs (Haeres. 40), the Severians (Haeres.
45), the Encra tes (Haeres. 47), and the Bardesanites (Haeres. 56).
Eusebius (bk. 5, ch. 28) reports that Artemon “boasted about his doctrine
as if it were ancient and handed down by the apostles, for he said that all
the forefathers and even the apostles themselves believed and taught as
did he.” Regarding Basilides, Clement (Stromat., bk. 7, p. 353) writes that
“he declared that he employed as his teacher a certain Glaucias who had
been the interpreter of the apostle Peter”; regarding Valen nus, that “he
had listened to Theodadus, a friend of Paul”; regarding the Marcionites,
that “they had as their teachers the disciples of Ma hias and hold and
teach the doctrine they had received from them.” Irenaeus (bk. 1, ch. 24)
recalls that the Carpocra ans “defended their lies under the pretext that
the Lord Jesus privately and in secret told such things to His apostles and
that the apostles did not teach those ma ers to everyone, but only to the
worthy.” In the Le er ad Floram, which is found in Epiphanius (Haeres. 33),
the here c Ptolemy boasts that he received his doctrine “by apostolic
tradi on through a succession.” From Athanasius (Contra Arian., orat. 2, p.
124) it is evident that Arius used the same pretense of tradi on. That
Eutyches did the same thing is clear from the Council of Chalcedon (Act. 1).
Therefore Basil declares in general (Sermon de fide, vol. 2, p. 194): “It is
obvious that apostasy or falling away from the faith either rejects
something that Scripture has or introduces something that has not been
wri en.” But now, it is known that the Papists introduce things that have
not been wri en and foist upon the church tradi ons that it must accept
with an equal affec on of piety with the wri en Word of God. In fact,
debates with the Papists tes fy that for them tradi ons are the sacred
anchor to which they flee for safety when they lack the approval of Holy
Writ, and that they are a Pandora’s box which holds within itself papal
errors.

Third, the heresy of Basilides

 (III) Regarding Basilides, Eusebius reports (Hist. eccles., bk. 4, ch. 7) that
he did not become embarrassed about teaching that “in mes of
persecu ons people must promptly deny their faith, even with perjury.”
The Helcesaites made the same claim. From their school came forth the
equivoca ons of the Jesuits. Campianus (Le er ad generalem societa s,
wri en from England, p. 86): “The condi on of Catholics in England is very
serious. Nothing free, nothing untouched is le for their minds, not even
the spoken word nor religion. You must speak along with others. You must
affirm with an oath what the rest are affirming. You must do this even
though in your mind you think much differently, even if in your conscience
you feel the exact opposite.”
** According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 24), Basilides said: “We are human
beings. All the rest are dogs and swine. Therefore do not throw your pearls
to the swine nor give what is holy to the dogs.” Regarding the
Carpocra ans, Irenaeus writes (bk. 3, ch. 2): “When they argued from the
Scriptures, they would turn and accuse the Scriptures as if they were not
correct and had no authority. They said that the Scriptures say things in
different ways, and that people who do not know the tradi on cannot
learn the truth from them. For, they said, truth has not been handed down
through wri ng, but orally; it was for this reason that Paul said, ‘We impart
wisdom among the perfect’ [1 Cor. 2:6].” The Papists teach both. Ledesma,
De Script. sacra vernacula non legend. et celebr.: “It is not fi ng for the
divine and sacrosanct mysteries of the faith to be in the mouths of all
people indiscriminately, etc. It was proper to keep some mysteries,
especially sacred ones, secret from the common people. Paul says in 1 Cor.
2[:2, 6]: ‘I determined to know nothing among you except Christ and Him
crucified.’ ‘Yet we impart wisdom to the perfect.’ ” The Basilidians denied
“that Christ suffered” ([Ius canonicum,] causa 24, q. 3, c. 39). Although the
Papists do not deny completely the suffering of Christ, they s ll do take
away its chief part, namely, His suffering in the soul. **

Fourth, the heresy of the Gnos cs

(IV) The Carpocra ans, who also called themselves Gnos cs, bestowed
worship and venera on upon images.
 ** They defended their fic ons (according to Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 24)
under this pretext: that “the Lord Jesus told His apostles such things
privately and in secret, and the apostles did not teach them to everyone,
but only to the worthy.” To demonstrate the insufficiency of the Scriptures,
the Papists likewise abuse the statement of Christ, etc., John 16:12: “I s ll
have many things to say to you.” **
Irenaeus, Adv. haeres., bk. 1, ch. 24, p. 92: “The Gnos cs have images—
some painted, some fashioned of other material. They say that Pilate made
the form of Christ at that me when Jesus was among people. They crown
these images and set them forth among the images of the philosophers of
the world.” Epiphanius (Haeres. 27, vol. 2, bk. 1) men ons that Carpocrates
“worshiped images of Christ and Paul set up along with the statues of the
philosophers. He burnt incense before them all.” Augus ne (De haeres. ad
Quodvult., heresy 7) writes this about Marcellina, a member of the
Carpocra an sect: “She worshiped images of Christ, Paul, Homer, and
Pythagoras by adoring them and placing incense before them.” This cult of
images in the Roman church grew so much that they honor the image and
prototype with the same kind of worship. Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 25, art.
3: “Because we must worship Christ with the worship of latria, we must
also worship His image with the same worship.” Article 4: “We must
worship with latria the cross of Christ on which Christ was crucified, both
because of what it represents and because of its contact with the limbs of
Christ. But we must worship a likeness of the cross, in any other material
only with regard to the former latria.”
** In the second Council of Nicaea, it was resolved that “an image of
God must be worshiped with that kind of worship” that is owed to God
Himself. Thomas, Bonaventure, and Cajetan defend this idolatrous decree.
Bellarmine allows “the ligh ng and burning of incense and fragrances
before images” (De sanct. beat., bk. 1, ch. 13) because it is part of divine
worship (2 Kings 18). **
Regarding the Gnos cs, Epiphanius (Haeres. 26) also writes: “They
fabricated a ‘gospel of perfec on.’ ” Of the same sort was the “eternal
gospel” that the monks fabricated and called with that glorious name.
** Augus ne, Haeres. 26: “The Cataphrygians mixed the Eucharist with
the blood of infants.” In the Sacrament the Papists very o en showed the
people the blood of ducks, chickens, and doves and persuaded them that
that was the blood of Christ. For many years, many people used to make
pilgrimages from all parts of the world to the Blood of Hales in England,
which they thought was the blood of Christ. Finally, that blood was
discovered to be only the blood of a snake. This was proved near the cross
of St. Paul in London in the very presence of the king by the bishop of
Rochester (according to Fox, p. 1188). In Prague it was observed that an
image of Christ hanging on the cross oozed blood from the five wounds
through hidden pipes arranged in such a way that it appeared to half fill a
great jar of perhaps fi y pounds. We have as eyewitness Anton. Wi., the
Englishman (Cent. 6, no. 5, contradict.). What is even worse, Emperor
Henry VII in the year 1313 was killed by a monk of the Order of Preachers
with poison smeared onto the Eucharist. **

Fi h, the heresy of the Cerinthians

(V) Regarding the Cerinthians and Nazareans, Augus ne writes (De
haeres., chs. 8 and 9): “They observe the Mosaic ceremonies, which were
abrogated by the coming of Christ.” The Papists do the same thing, as is
tes fied by the vestments of the Mass, the dis nc on of foods, lustral
water, etc.

Sixth, the heresy of the Valen nians

(VI) The Valen nians added their tradi ons to the wri en Word of God,
as is apparent from many passages of Irenaeus. They also “were
accustomed to anoint their dying at the point of death, pu ng oil on their
heads with invoca ons.” They did this with the opinion that such anoin ng
redeemed them (Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 18). From them the Papists have
received tradi ons and extreme unc on.
** The Valen nians “introduced a huge mul tude of gods and helpers”
(Irenaeus, bk. 1, chs. 16 and 17). The Papists do the same thing as they
appor on among the saints special func ons and patronages and from
them ask for those things that the heathen ask for from Bacchus, Mars,
Neptune, etc. **

Seventh, the heresy of the Heracleonites

 (VII) In imita on of the Valen nians, the Heracleonites “redeemed,” so
to speak, their dying in a new way, namely, through oil, balsam, water, and
invoca ons that they would say in Hebrew over their heads (Augus ne, De
haeres., ch. 16).
** Similar here cs (in Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 18) “redeemed the dead un l
the end of their dying, pu ng oil and water on their heads.” **
The Papists in the same way anoint their dying and recite prayers over
their head in a foreign language.
** Here let us men on the Pepuzians and Catharists. The Pepuzians
concede that “women can be priests” (Augus ne, Haeres. 27). As their
chief pon ff, the Papists had a woman, who presided at Rome for two full
years, who ordained and installed bishops and performed all the papal
du es. The Catharists called themselves that “as if they were pure and
perfect” (Augus ne, Haeres. 38). The Papists declare that some people are
so righteous and pure that they need no repentance. The Englishmen of
Rheims, on Luke 15: “The reborn can fulfill the Law perfectly.” **

Eighth, the heresy of unnamed here cs

(VIII) Augus ne (De haeres., ch. 79) men ons some here cs whom he
does not iden fy with a special name. They claimed that “when Christ
descended into hell, unbelievers believed in Him.” They thought that all
were thereby freed from hell. The offspring of this heresy (according to
Pappus, Epit. histor. eccl., p. 254) is among the Papists, who make the claim
about Christ’s descent into hell that the fathers of the Old Testament were
then led out of some part of hell, which they call “limbo.”

Ninth, the heresy of the Archon cs

(IX) According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 40), the Archon cs contrived
certain orders of angels. So, too, the Scholas cs philosophize in various
ways about dis nct hierarchies and orders of angels. Against that we must
set forth the statement of Irenaeus (bk. 2, ch. 54, p. 155): “Let them tell us
what the nature of invisible creatures is. Let them give us the number of
angels and the order of the archangels. Let them demonstrate the
mysteries of the thrones. Let them teach the dis nc ons of dominions,
principali es, powers, and virtues. But they have nothing to say.” We must
also set the statement of Augus ne (Enchir. ad Laur., ch. 58) against them:
“What difference there is among those four words in which the apostle
seems to have included that en re fellowship—saying, ‘whether thrones or
dominions or principali es or powers’—let those who can, say what it is.
Even if they can prove what they say, I confess that I am ignorant of these
ma ers.”

Tenth, the heresy of the Angelics

(X) The Angelics were inclined toward the cult of angels (Augus ne, De
haeres. 39). Regarding these angel-worshipers, see Theodoret
(commentary on Colossians 2) and the Council of Laodicea (canon 35). The
Papists approve of this cult of angels, as is clear from the Catechismus
Romanus, p. 593.
** Helxai, who was the patriarch of the Essenes [Osseni], demanded
that “they swear not only by God but also by salt and water, by air and
wind, by earth and sky,” according to Epiphanius, (Haeres. 19). The Papists
swear by creatures: by saints and their relics. **

Eleventh, the heresy of the Marcites

(XI) The Marcites confessed “that with certain words they changed the
wine which was in the chalice of the Lord’s Supper into blood and brought
down grace into that chalice” (Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 9; and Epiphanius,
Haeres. 34). The Papist transubstan ators make the same boast.
Lochmeyer, De celebr. miss., sermon 112: “So great is the power of the
priest that every day he becomes the creator of his own Creator.” Stella
Cleric.: “He who made me without my help has given me the power to
create Him. He who made me without my help is created through my
media on.”
** The Audians “with carnal thought contrived a God a er the likeness
of corrup ble man,” says Augus ne (De haeres., ch. 50). According to
Nicephorus (bk. 18, ch. 53), the Armenians and Jacobites “fashioned
images of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which is extremely absurd. They
bestowed the cross with due honor not otherwise than just as though they
had bap zed a man.” The Papists depict the Trinity in the form of a three-
headed man. They also bap ze inanimate objects for sacred use, like bells,
lambs of God, etc. **

Twel h, the heresy of the Marcionites

(XII) The Marcionites demanded virginity of their people and would not
admit the married into their fellowship (according to Epiphanius, Haeres.
42). The same thing was done by the Hieracites, who received into their
fellowship only monks and nuns and the unmarried (Augus ne, De haeres.,
ch. 47). In the same way, the Papist monks set forth their celibacy before
God under many names.
** According to Tertullian (Contra Marcion., bk. 4), Marcion
“determined which reward of the Creator—whether of torment or of
consola on—was set among those in hell [apud inferos] for those who
obeyed the Law and the prophets.” The Papists have imbibed this same
teaching, namely, that all the fathers who obeyed the Law and the
prophets were detained un l Christ’s ascension in a part of hell that they
call “limbo,” where they imagine there is a place of comfort and
consola on. Tertullian (Adv. Marcion., bk. 1, ch. 14) writes that Marcion
“considered the fruit of the sea” (that is, fish) “as a more holy food.” The
Carthusians do the same thing, as well as all Papists during Lent. **

Thirteenth, the heresy of the Encra tes

(XIII) Epiphanius (Haeres. 47) writes about the Encra tes: “They boast
about their con nence, doing all things decei ully. They are found even
among women. They deceive women in every possible way. They travel
with women, live together with women, and allow their services.” That the
Papist clergy does the same thing is very well-known. Whatever arguments
the adherents of Ta an, the Encra tes, opposed to marriage (which s ll are
extant in Tertullian and Clement), these are s ll used by the Papists to
establish a law of celibacy.
** The Ta ans “condemned marriage. They considered it no more than
fornica on. They did not accept married people into their ranks”
(Augus ne, Haeres. 47). In many ways the Papists detract from the dignity
of marriage, and they exclude married men from the ministry. **

Fourteenth, the heresy of Montanus

(XIV) ** The paraclete of Montanus (according to Tertullian, De anima,
ch. 34) o en commended this idea: “The soul makes a repayment in hell
un l the fullness of the resurrec on, and the delay of the resurrec on
washes away some modest sinfulness, un l one has paid off the last
penny.” The Papists have the same founda on for their sa sfac ons, which
they argue are necessary a er this life. **
Montanus was the first to make laws about fas ng. As a result,
Apollonius (in Eusebius, Hist. eccl., bk. 5, ch. 17) calls him “the lawgiver of
fas ng,” because he had prescribed fasts with certain laws. Tertullian (in his
book De jejun. adv. Psych., [ch. 1,] p. 770), himself a Montanist, describes
the beliefs of the Montanists as follows. Speaking of catholics, he says:
They charge us with keeping fasts of our own, with prolonging most of our sta ons un l the
evening, even with observing the ea ng of dry foods, drying out our food from every meat
and every liquid and any juicy fruits, lest we eat or drink anything having the flavor of wine;
also with refraining from washing, which is in harmony with our dry food. Therefore they say
it is a novelty, concerning the unlawfulness of which they lay down a rule, saying that either
it must be considered heresy, if it is human presump on, or it must be declared false
prophecy, if it is a spiritual declara on, as long as we who declare otherwise hear
“anathema” either way.

From this Montanus, the Papists have taken their laws of fasts and the
monks their ea ng of dry foods. Epiphanius (Haeres. 48) also writes that
Montanus “cared very li le about Scripture.” In this respect he is followed
by the Papists, who charge the Scriptures with being incomplete and with
obscurity. The Montanists declared that the Holy Spirit was infused in
them, not in the apostles (Supplem. haer. phil.). So also the Roman pon ffs
boast about the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit. Meanwhile, they
place the apostolic books, wri en by the Spirit of God, behind their own
decrees.
** The Aquarian here cs are so called because “they offered only water
in the chalice” ([Ius canonicum,] causa 24, q. 3, c. 39). The Papists come
very close to them when they claim that water necessarily must be offered
in the eucharis c chalice along with the wine. **
Fi eenth, the heresy of the Hieracites
(XV) The Hieracites claimed that eternal life is to be earned by works.
They said, “The kingdom of God does not belong to li le children because
they have no merits of the struggle by which sins are overcome”
(Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 47). The Papists have the same opinion that
“blessed eternity must be earned by our works.”
** The same Hieracites “received only monks and nuns into their
fellowship” (Augus ne, Haeres. 47). So also among the Papists, only monks
have the name “religious,” and they do not accept married men into the
ministry. They also denied the kingdom of heaven to infants ([Ius
canonicum,] causa 24, q. 3, c. 39). So also the Papists place unbap zed
infants in limbo outside the kingdom of heaven. ** (Council of Trent, sess.
6, c. 16 and 32.)

Sixteenth, the heresy of the Arabici

(XVI) The Arabici said that souls die with the body (according to
Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 83; Nicephorus, Hist. eccles., bk. 5, ch. 32). The
Council of Constance found John XXII, the head of the Roman church, guilty
of this heresy. There is, however, a discrepancy in it, because the Arabici
claimed that souls would rise again with their bodies at the end of the age.
Pope John, on the other hand, declared: “Souls that once have died will
not rise again on the Last Day.”
** To these we must join the Euchites and Abelians. The Euchites did
nothing else “but pray, and they believed that it is unlawful for monks to
work with their hands to sustain their life” (Augus ne, Haeres. 17). In the
papacy, monks and nuns murmur a certain number of prayers in La n, a
language most of them do not understand. The “religious” are not
obligated to work with their hands. (See the notes of the Englishmen of
Rheims on 2 Thessalonians 2, sect. 2.) “The Abelians did not make use of
the companionship of wives” (Augus ne, Haeres. 87). So also the Papists
claim: “Priests who were married before their ordina on should not go to
their wives, though they s ll are their wives” (the Englishmen of Rheims,
on Acts 21, sect. 1). **
Seventeenth, the heresy of Origen
(XVII) The ancients a ribute to Origen the claim that “the wicked will
finally be saved.” The opinion of Catharinus is not unlike this error
(commentary on Hebrews 1). On 2 Peter 3: “The earth a er Judgment
Day will be renewed to be the dwelling place for those people who are
worthy of neither heaven nor hell.”

Eighteenth, the heresy of the Mele ans

(XVIII) In regard to the Mele ans, Theodoret reports (Haeret. fab., bk.
4): “In many of their sacred rites they used bells to placate God and to
plead to Him.” The Papists a ribute the same power to their consecrated
bells, that their ringing drives away devils and averts lightning.

Nineteenth, the heresy of the Nova ans

(XIX) The Nova ans taught that one must always doubt about the
forgiveness of sins, because they made excep ons of the more serious sins
and said they forgave only the lesser sins, and that “the power to forgive
crimes was reserved for God alone” (Ambrose, De poenit., bk. 1, ch. 2, and
bk. 2, ch. 5). The dogma of doubt was likewise established in the Council of
Trent (sess. 6, ch. 9).
** They also refused to accept those who had fallen back again into
idolatry or heresy. So also among the Papists those who fell back again into
heresy must be handed over to the secular court, even though they repent
and return to the faith ([Ius canonicum,] sext. decret., bk. 5, tle 2, c. 4,
Alex. IV). **
The Nova ans also said that they were clean and pure, as a result of
which they called themselves very boas ully “The Pure” [Cathari]
(Augus ne, De haeres. ad Quodvultd., ch. 38). So also Papist monks take
pride in the opinion of their perfec on. The Nova ans condemned second
marriages (Augus ne, loc. cit.). The Papists are not fair enough with second
marriages because they deny them the blessing of the church.
** Let the Bonosians follow these. They said that Christ was the
adopted Son of God ([Ius canonicum,] causa 24, q. 3, c. 39). The Papists
claim that Christ merited for Himself.
 Then there are the Beghards, who declared: (1) “The soul does not need
a light to li it to God” ([Ius canonicum,] Clement., bk. 5, tle 3, c. 3). Some
of the Papists teach that heathen believed in Christ by their own choice. (2)
“Man can be perfect here” ([Ius canonicum,] Clement., ibid.). The Papists
say that it is possible for a person to keep the commandments of God
perfectly. (3) “A spiritual person is not subject to human obedience” ([Ius
canonicum,] Clement., ibid.). The Papists say that the pope is not subject to
any judgment.
The Ebionites belong here too. They observed the ceremonies of the old
Law along with the Gospel. As a result, they are noted as guilty of heresy
([Ius canonicum,] causa 24, q. 3, c. 39). The Papists have borrowed from
the ancient Law and from the rituals of the heathen the burning of
incense, washings, oil, salt, ashes, vestments, instruments, etc.
Also, the Nicolaitans, who “preferred unchaste concubines to honorable
wives.” The Papists tolerate having concubines in the case of their priests,
and they forbid marriage ([Ius canonicum,] dist. 34, c. 4). **

Twen eth, the heresy of [Paul] of Samosata

(XX) [Paul] of Samosata was condemned by the church under this
charge: that he taught that in Christ “the two natures are completely
unshared [ἀκοινωνήτους] with each other.” The Jesuits call this same
error back from hell when they deny that there is any real communica on
of the divine proper es to Christ’s flesh.

Twenty-first, the heresy of the Manichaeans

(XXI) The Manichaeans allowed their hearers, as common people and
imperfect, to be married, but they absolutely forbade it to the elect, as
being more perfect (Augustine, Letter 74). So also the Papists tolerate
marriage among the laity but completely disapprove of it among priests
and monks who, they claim, are established in a state of perfec on. The
Manichaeans “indeed receive the body of Christ in holy Communion but
completely refuse to drink the blood of redemp on” (Leo, Sermon 4
quadrages.). The Papists not only do the same thing but also command
everyone to do the same thing. The Manichaeans abhorred marriage but
meanwhile defiled themselves with various lusts. Consequently, Augus ne
writes (De morib. eccles. et Manich., bk. 2, ch. 31): “They do not forbid
having concubines, but being married.” Many sacrificers in the papacy do
the same thing, according to the orator of the duke of Bavaria at the
Council of Trent: “Our clergy is now considered infamous because of their
excessively free and notorious lust.” The Manichaeans established two
principles and these were coeternal (Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 46). What
Augus nus Steuchus writes (Cosmop. in princ. Genes.) agrees with this in
part: “The highest heaven was coeternal with God.” But if it was eternal, it
certainly was a principle.
** The Manichaeans made themselves “saviors of Christ,” for they
taught that “the members of Christ had been sca ered everywhere” and
that “with their food and drink they themselves freed the members of
Christ who had been bound to creatures. Such,” Augus ne says, “are their
elect, that they are not people whom God must save, but are rather saviors
of God, for they free the members of Christ when they eat.” The Papists
make themselves creators of their Creator and say that they change the
bread into the body of Christ. Augus ne writes about [the Manichaeans]
(De moribus Manich., bk. 2, ch. 13): “The man does not seem to have cut
out mushrooms, rice, truffles, cakes, pepper, and silphium from the rule of
holiness, as he belches gratefully from his swollen belly. On the other hand,
a thri y and frugal man who is served vegetables with a li le bit of lard is
handed over to certain punishment.” In this respect there is a difference:
the Manichaeans believed that “meat is impure from its crea on,” while
the Papists think it is impure “by reason of a curse, for God cursed the
earth but not the waters. Therefore they prefer fish to meat on fast days”
(Durandus, De aliis jejuniis, bk. 6). **
The Manichaeans established their fas ng in the choice of foods. “They
abstained from meat but overflowed with delicacies” (Augus ne, De morib.
eccles., bk. 2, ch. 31). Prac ce bears witness that the Papists do the same
thing. Azorius, Ins t., bk. 7, ch. 21: “Surely, no one can deny that the usual
fas ng of Chris ans abstains from the ea ng of meat and drinking of wine.
Now, however, it has become customary that we also use wine with fish,
herbs, and fruit.” The Manichaeans prevented their elect simply from
ea ng meat (Augustine, Contra Faust., bk. 30, ch. 5). So also those who
wish to appear to be more perfect among the Papists abstain from ea ng
meats, as is evident from the Carthusians. Franciscus de Victoria argues in
his Relec ones: “If a Carthusian monk could save his life by tas ng meat,
yet because of his vow it would be be er for him to suffer death than to
protect his life with the unlawful ea ng of meat.” If they wish to make the
excep on that “the Manichaeans abstained from meats because they
judged them unclean and abominable,” but that they abstain from the use
of meat for a different purpose, then one must note what happened to
Eustathius of Sebaste.

Twenty-second, the heresy of Eustathius

(XXII) Bishop Eustathius of Sebaste in Armenia was condemned in the
Council of Gangra because he forbade the ea ng of meats. Yet he certainly
did not consider meats unclean as did the Manichaeans. Instead, he said
that one must abstain from them because of a more careful, more exact,
and more exquisite discipline. For Sozomen men ons (Hist., bk. 3, ch. 13)
that at the Council of Gangra, Eustathius explained his belief as follows: “I
have ins tuted such prac ces not because of stubbornness or arrogance
but for religious exercise.” Therefore if the Papists are not condemned in
Manichaeus, then they are condemned in Eustathius.
** The Hemerobap sts washed every day (according to Epiphanius,
Haeres. 17; and Nicetas, Thesaur., bk. 1, ch. 41). The Papists sprinkle
themselves with holy water every day to wash away the sins they call
venial. The Marcosians “speak Hebrew names” in the administra on of
Bap sm (according to Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 18) “that they might be
wonders,” or (as Epiphanius, Haeres. 34, says) that “those who were
ini ated might be the more admired.” The Papists use a language
frequently not known to most ini ates nor to the witnesses who are
present, in order to bestow majesty on their sacred things, as they
pretend. Also, in the administra on of Bap sm they use some Hebrew
words. [The Marcosians] also anointed those who had been bap zed with
balsam, which ointment they said was a type (Irenaeus, bk. 1, ch. 18). The
Papists likewise “anoint the bap zed, that those who have been filled with
the gi s of the Holy Spirit might be reconciled to God and men,” as
Durandus says (Ra on., bk. 6, ch. 67). Marcosius (according to Epiphanius,
Haeres. 34) “would pretend that he was giving thanks and would draw out
a very long statement of invoca on. Then he would make cups mixed with
wine appear purple and blood red. It was thought to be a favor from those
who are above all things to put their blood in that cup through his
invoca on: ‘Let this redness now be transformed into blood.’ ” The Papists,
too, have contrived a transubstan a on of bread and wine and have
bound grace to the sacraments.

Twenty-third, the heresy of the Priscillianists

(XXIII) The Priscillianists (as Epiphanius reports, Haeres. 49) “boasted of
revela ons of Christ.” Many in the papacy have done the same thing.
** Augus ne (De mendac., ch. 2, and De haeres. ad Quodvultd., ch. 70)
reports that the Priscillianists once taught: “What is true must be kept in
the heart. To u er to strangers what is false is not a sin.” Also: “A Chris an
must deny Christ to be able to be concealed in the midst of his foes.” The
Priscillianists claimed “it is some mes permissible to lie” (according to
Sixtus Senensis, Biblioth., bk. 3, and Maldonatus, commentary on Luke
24:35). Therefore let the Jesuits either seriously recover their senses from
this foul heresy, or let them be condemned with the Priscillianists as
here cs. **
In regard to the same, Augus ne (De haeres., ch. 70) reports that they
had these words in their dogmas: “Swear, perjure, but do not betray a
secret!” The prac ce of the Jesuits tes fies that they do the same thing.
The priests of Visby (in a Le er ad Generosum quendam Catholicum) speak
as follows: “It is the trick of our Jesuits to ridicule the magistracies with
their oaths.”
** The Priscillianists gave the apocryphal books equal authority with
Holy Scripture (Augus ne, Haeres. 70). The Papists add to the Word of God
not only the apocryphal books but also tradi ons. **
The Priscillianists also rejected marriage as a carnal estate, and as a
result they separated from their spouses (Augus ne, loc. cit.).
** He says: “In the case of those whom he could convince of this evil, he
separated wives from their unwilling husbands and husbands from their
unwilling wives.” Bellarmine, De monach., ch. 38: “In an established
marriage that is not consummated, through the solemn profession of
religion the marriage of the other is separated and the repudia ng spouse
can be compelled to do what he is bound to do,” that is, to abandon the
duty which he had solemnly vowed. **
So also, Siricius, intending to prohibit the marriage of priests, applies
statements of Scripture to it: “Those who are in the flesh cannot please
God” [Rom. 8:8]. “To the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure” [Titus
1:15].
** The Acephali (according to Nicephorus, bk. 18, ch. 45) “kept
Communion” (the Eucharist) “reserved for a long me, and on the days of
Easter they gave it to the people belonging to them, cut into the niest
pieces.” The Papists learned from them to reserve the Eucharist for a long
me and commonly to give the people Communion only once a year, on
the days of Easter. **

Twenty-fourth, the heresy of the Dona sts

(XXIV) ** “The Dona sts bound the church to the party of Donatus at
the exclusion of all other assemblies.” The Papists bind the name and
reality of the church to the party of the pope alone. **
The Dona sts rebap zed people who had been bap zed by here cs
(Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 69). Akin to these are the Agrippinians, so
called from Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage. They decreed the rebap zing
of those who had fallen away from the church catholic to here cs and,
when they had recovered a sound mind, had returned to the church
(Pappus, Epit. hist. eccles., p. 260). They are imitated by some of the
Papists who, in the last century in Belgium and France, rebap zed infants
who had been bap zed by ministers of those churches. The Dona sts
bound the church to a certain place. The Papists do the same thing when
they replace the church catholic, which is of all places, with the Roman
church. The Dona sts made the power of the Word and Sacraments
depend on the worthiness of the minister. So also some of the Papists
argue that “unless God’s Word is preached by a Catholic and legi mately
called minister, it is not God’s Word but the word of the devil. Not only
does it not offer salva on, but it provides destruc on.”
** We should not omit the Apostolics, “who have very arrogantly called
themselves by that name” (says Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 40). “They did
not receive into their communion those who were married or who owned
property. They thought there was no hope for those who used the things
from which they themselves abstained.” Papist monks very arrogantly
commend their kind of life as apostolic and, in fact, as angelic. Surpassing
the arrogance of all are those in Portugal who do not call themselves
“Apostolics” but “Apostles,” and those who everywhere call themselves
“Jesuits,” as if they were the associates of Jesus Himself. The Ethnophrones
(according to Damascenus, Catal. haeres., and Nicephorus, Thes. orth. fid.,
bk. 4, haeres. 42) are considered here cs because they followed the
ins tu ons of the heathen, though in other things they were Chris ans.
“They were imitators of heathen rites and supers ons.” In almost all their
ceremonies the Papists are Ethnophrones, as we have shown earlier [§
227]. **

Twenty-fi h, the heresy of the Pelagians

(XXV) The Pelagians have contributed a due por on, and not
insignificant, to the papal faith. As we gather from the books of Jerome,
Augus ne, and others published against them, the Pelagians taught, first,
that “the sin of Adam did not pass on to his descendants, with the
excep on of its guilt alone.” The same thing was taught by Ambrosius
Catharinus (De laps. hom. et pecc. orig., ch. 6, published in 1542) and
Pighius (Controv. 1. de pecc. orig.), where they claim: “Original sin does not
have the true nature of sin but is only guilt by which the descendants of
our first parents are held bound because of the primeval transgression of
those parents, though no personal corrup on adheres to the nature [of the
descendants].” Bellarmine calls this belief very gently “less correct” (De
stat. pecc., bk. 5, ch. 6). Before Catharinus and Pighius, the same thing was
taught by Scotus (Sent., 4, dist. 14, q. 1, art. 1) and by Gabriel Biel (ibid., q.
1, art. 1, note 1), where they argue: “Only the bare guilt of penalty is le in
sinful people a er any wicked ac on, and they can be called sinners for no
other reason than that they are guilty of eternal damna on.” Durandus de
S. Porciano writes without circumlocu on (Sent., 2, dist. 30, q. 3) that
“original sin is nothing other than mere guilt.”
Second, the Pelagians taught that “li le children neither draw nor have
original sin from their parents.” Ruard. Tapperus teaches the same thing in
Art. 2. de peccat. orig., where he writes: “In a newborn child nothing is
found that truly and properly has the nature of sin.” Cornel. canon. Colon.
(vol. 2, Animadv.) argues that original sin is not properly sin “because it is
not a defect of the perfec on necessary to man for blessedness.
Corrup on is not hereditary and cannot be transmi ed from parents to
children because they have been cleansed,” etc. We have also shown in our
trea se On Original Sin [Commonplace XII], §§ 58 and 59, how the
Scholas cs and Papists and, among these, Bellarmine partly mi gate
original sin with various hypotheses and partly even deny it.
Third, the Pelagians taught that “concupiscence existed even in the
perfect nature before the fall.” The Catech. Romanus (p. 848) and all the
Jesuits teach the same thing.
Fourth, they taught that “in this life man can fulfill the Law perfectly.”
The same thing was defined in the Council of Trent (sess. 6, chs. 11 and
18).
Fi h, they taught that “man even a er the fall is endowed with free
choice in spiritual ma ers.”
** Bishop Faustus of Riez was considered a here c in the ancient
church. Fulgen us refuted his books De gra a et libero arbitrio as ones
that contained Pelagian errors. For this is how Isidore of Seville writes, De
script. eccles., ch. 14: “We have read the seven books of responses De
gra a Dei et libero arbitrio, in which he responds to Bishop Faustus of the
city of Riez in Gaul as one who agrees with the Pelagian corrup on. He
strives to destroy his deep cunning.” But Bellarmine (De grat. et lib. arb.,
bk. 3, ch. 1, § ex La nis, etc.) numbers Faustus “among the catholic authors
who wrote in defense of free choice.” **
The Papists fight for this same idea with all their might. In this ma er
there is, however, a certain difference, because the Papists connect grace
with free choice, while the Pelagians excluded grace.
** Augus ne, Ad quodvultd., ch. 88: “They even go so far as to say that
the life of the righteous in this world has no sin at all, and that from these
the church of Christ is perfected in this mortal life in such a way that it is
completely free of every stain and blemish. It is as if it were not Christ’s
church that cries out to God throughout the world: ‘Forgive us our debts.’ ”
Ibid.: “The Pelagians said that grace was given to people only for this
purpose: that they might more easily do those things which were
commanded them, through their own free choice.” **
 Sixth, they taught that “man, by his natural purity, can love God above
all things.” Biel supports the same teaching (Sent., 3, dist. 27, q. 1, art. 3,
dub. 1), as do also Tapperus (De lib. arbit., p. 291) and Andrada (Orth.
explic., bk. 3, p. 292).
Seventh, they taught that “man’s natural quali es remained unharmed
even a er the fall.” This is also the common declara on of the Scholas cs.
Biel (Sent., 2, dist. 30, q. 1, art. 3, dub. 4) writes: “The uprightness of the
will is not corrupted by sin.”
Eighth, the Pelagians taught that “grace is given by the merits of our
works.” The Scholas cs teach the same thing when they support
congruous merit [meritum de congruo] (Biel, Sent., 2, dist. 27, q. 1, art. 1,
can. 1; and Eck, Enchir., ch. 30). Christ’s statement: “If anyone loves Me, My
Father will love him” [John 14:23] is explained by Vincent. (Dom. 4. Adv.):
“If anyone loves Me with a natural love, My Father will love him by grace.”
Bellarmine, De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 21: “We do not see why the name ‘merit’
with the addi on ‘congruous’ is not given to disposi ons toward
jus fica on, which happen because of grace.”
Ninth, the Pelagians taught that “eternal life is to be earned by works.”
The same thing was decreed by the Council of Trent (sess. 6, chs. 16 and
32).
Tenth, they taught that “Adam would have died even if he had not
sinned.” Not all the Papists teach this; yet Augus nus Steuchus (Not. on
Genesis 2) accepts it and teaches that “death is natural; sin is not its
cause,” etc.
Eleventh, they taught that “from philosophy and the light of nature the
heathen were able to know God and be saved.” Augus ne, Ad Bonifac., bk.
1, ch. 21: “You distribute the mes and even before the Law you say that
people were saved through nature, then through the Law, and finally
through Christ,” etc. This same idea has the support of Andrada (Orth.
explic., bk. 3), Latomus, Tanner, and Erasmus.
Twel h, they taught that “people are predes ned on account of their
works.” Many Scholas cs and Papists cling to this heresy, as Catharinus
writes (on Romans 8).
Thirteenth, “many axioms and hypotheses” are common to the
Pelagians and the Papists. “Divine grace is not lacking to those who do
what is in them. The human will by its natural abili es can dispose itself
toward grace. Free choice of itself can avoid any new sin. Through free
choice and from his natural abili es man can fulfill the divine
commandments with regard to the substance of the act. Nothing is sin
unless it is voluntary, etc. Man is called unrighteous when he is compared
with God.”

Twenty-sixth, the heresy of the Nestorians

(XXVI) The Nestorians dissolved the unity of the person in Christ, as is
known from the Council of Ephesus. The Jesuits provide support for this
error in various ways: First, when they establish the form of the personal
union as carrying and sustaining. Luther (De concil. et eccles.) refuted this
Thomis c error. Because of it, Luther correctly claimed that there are many
Nestorians in the papacy.
Second, when they deny that Christ according to His human nature,
through and because of the personal union, is the Son of God (Gregorius
de Valen a, Defens. disput. contra fundam. ubiquit., p. 42). The Scholas cs
analyze the personal proposi ons (“The Son of Mary is the Son of God;
Christ the man is God”) in this way: “The Son of God, who sustains the
human nature, is God.” Nestorius would by no means have disapproved of
this analysis.
Third, when they compare the Word who assumed human nature with a
king who puts on his purple robe (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 15).
Fourth, when they place the Word outside the flesh, though Scripture
defines the personal union as the indwelling of all the fullness of the
Godhead in the assumed body (Col. 2:9). Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3, ch.
17: “Although the Word may be any place where His humanity is not,
nevertheless even there the Word is man, because the Word that is there
sustains the humanity.” And as he tries in this way to free himself from
Nestorianism, he becomes more entangled in it, because he presupposes
that for the Word to unite flesh to Himself personally is nothing else than
for the Word to sustain the flesh, though that flesh is elsewhere. Yet we
can affirm about all creatures that the hypostasis of the Word sustains
them.
Fi h, when they hos lely a ack the real communica on of proper es.
But now, if the communica on of proper es and natures (as the necessary
consequence) is denied, the union itself (as the immediate antecedent) is
denied. Consequently, the fathers at Ephesus concluded against Nestorius
in this way: “Whoever denies that the flesh of Christ is life-giving and is
that which gives life is dissolving the union.” Nestorius does the former;
therefore we must judge that he also does the la er. We pass the same
judgment concerning the Jesuits.
Sixth, when they exclude the divinity from the work of media on,
arguing that Christ performs the work of media on only according to His
human nature (Bellarmine, Judicium de lib. conc., p. 7; Busaeus, Theses
contra Gerlachium; etc.). But now, those who deny the proper end of the
personal union deny the personal union itself. The Jesuits deny the proper
end of the personal union, which is to do the work of a mediator. Therefore
they are convicted of denying the personal union itself.
Seventh, when they deny that Christ according to His human nature is
to be worshiped with one worship together with the Father and the Holy
Spirit. Rather, they a ribute “high venera on” [ὑπερδουλεία] to the
humanity of Christ, but not “worship” [λατρεία].
** The Sampsei (according to Epiphanius, Haeres. 19; and Nicetas,
Thesaur. orth. fidei, bk. 4, haeres. 25) carefully reserved the dust from the
feet of two women whom they worshiped, who were called Martha and
Marthana, or, as Nicetas has it, Maltho and Malthano. They even carried
about their spi le and all the other filth of the body as an aid to illnesses.
In like manner the Papists misuse the shoes, combs, trousers, etc., of their
saints. Henricus Sedulius, a Fransciscan of Antwerp, Apol. pro Alcor. Franc.,
p. 244: “The nails of Francis repel tempta ons; his spi le gave sight to a
girl; the water in which he washed his feet and hands gave life to animals
that were at the point of death.”

Twenty-seventh, the heresy of the Messalians

(XXVII) The Messalians, who are also called Euchites, decreed that one
had to pray at all mes (Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 57). Theodoret (Histor.,
bk. 4, ch. 11) writes about them: “A er finishing their chants, which they
would perform at a certain number and at certain hours as their duty, they
were idle for the en re remainder of the day.” This agrees with what
Augus ne adds (loc. cit.): “The Euchites believed that monks were not
allowed to do any work to sustain their lives.” Papist monks energe cally
emulate them. Pappus (Epit. histor. eccles., p. 313) ** (from Theodoret,
Epitom. decret. divin., ch. de bap smo) ** a ributes to the Messalians that
“they referred the salva on of their souls, which they had received, to the
exercise of their prayers, and they claimed that the power of Bap sm
applied only for preceding sins but not in both direc ons, that is, to wash
away and forgive also sins that were yet to happen.” In this the Papists
agree with them (Bellarmine, De bapt., bk. 1, ch. 18).
** According to Epiphanius (Haeres. 80): “The Messalians built churches
and chapels for themselves. At evening and morning they would gather
with many burning lamps and lanterns, etc. They would stretch forth their
hands and beg as if they were without food and had nothing. They also
went about wearing conspicuous sackcloth.” All the Papists light their
lamps and lanterns and gather together at their Ma ns, as they call them,
and at Vespers, and, in fact, all day. All monks profess to possess nothing;
all the mendicants beg from door to door, as if they lacked food. The
Capuchins, Recollects, and the like go about wearing conspicuous
sackcloth, and they also reach out their hands to beg, and, for this
purpose, they wear a satchel on their shoulders. The Papists imitate the
Euchites, especially monks who profess a religion “that counts its du es on
beads threaded on a string,” as Bap sta Mantuanus says (De ges s
Alphonsi, bk. 4). Here, however, we should not omit the Circumcellions
who (according to Augus ne, Contra Crescon., bk. 3, ch. 42) “were fearfully
armed with dreadful weapons of every kind. They go about disturbing not
churchmen, I say, but human peace and quiet itself, etc. They pour into
people’s eyes lime mixed with vinegar in a new and previously unheard-of
kind of wickedness.” What the Papists do by the work of the Inquisitors is
known to all. Their racks, fires, wheels, nooses, and swords are their
arguments against those who are discovered either to have spoken against
or even to have thought against papal errors. Likewise, we should also not
omit the Essenes and Elcesaites, who prayed in an unknown tongue. Elxai
said, “No one should ask for an interpreta on but should say these things
only in prayer” (according to Epiphanius, Haeres. 19). Among the Papists
the common people generally mu er their prayers in a language they do
not know. Public worship takes place in a language unknown to the largest
part of the people. **
Twenty-eighth, the heresy of the Collyridians
(XXVIII) The Collyridians worshiped Mary the God-bearer [θεοτόκος]
and offered her collyridae, or li le cakes. They would carry around her
image and worship by honoring it (Epiphanius, Contra haeres., bk. 3, and
vol. 2, Haeres. 79). Against the Collyridians, Epiphanius said: “Let Mary be
in honor. Let the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit be worshiped. Let no one
worship Mary.” For a long me the papacy has made this error of the
Collyridians its own. Alexander of Hales adapted the en re Psalter to
blessed Mary by subs tu ng the name “Mary” everywhere for the name
“God.” In their temples they s ll to this day cry out to her: “O happy
Childbearer, command your Son. By your mother’s right, order the
Redeemer.” Cassander correctly complains (Consult., art. 21): “It has come
to the point that Christ is subject to His mother even when He rules in
heaven.” Also: “Some famous men have said that God has transferred half
of His kingdom, which consists of jus ce and mercy—that is, the part that
consists of mercy—to Mary. Thus, if anyone is afraid of the Son, who sits at
the right hand of the Father, because He is the judge, he should approach
Mary, because she is the medicine.” Bellarmine and Gregorius de Valen a
generally add this doxology to their trea ses: “Glory be to God and to the
blessed Virgin Mary, our lady, as well as to Jesus Christ.” The Jesuit
Tursellinus writes in his dedicatory le er of his Histor. Lauret.: “The
powerful God accepted His mother as the associate of His divine majesty
and power insofar as it was permissible. He bestowed upon her the rule of
heavenly and mortal things. He restrains the lands and seas and skies and
all nature according to her choice (to the extent that the protec on of
humans demands). At her assent and through her, He gives His divine
treasures and heavenly gi s to mortals.” The Jesuit Osorius (vol. 5, Dom. 4.
Epiph., § voluit): “To whom should we compare blessed Mary? Not to Eve
nor Sarah nor Rachel nor Esther nor to the moon nor to the sun. To whom
then? Obviously, to God, who holds all good things.” All this proves clearly
that the Papists bestow divine honors on Mary.

Twenty-ninth, the heresy of Peter Gnaphaeus

 (XXIX) Regarding Peter Gnaphaeus, the presbyter of Chalcedon who was
condemned as a here c in the fi h general council, Nicephorus reports
(Histor., bk. 15, ch. 28): “He was the ins gator of mingling the invoca on of
the saints with the public prayers of the church. He originated the idea that
in every prayer the mother of God should be named and her divine name
be invoked.” The Papists s ll observe this in their prayers.

Thir eth, the heresy of the Armenians

(XXX) In regard to the Armenians, the same Nicephorus writes (Histor.,
bk. 18, ch. 54) that “they are said to worship and adore the cross.”
Consequently, he calls them “cross-worshipers” [staurolatrae] or
chazinzarii, because their word for “cross” is chazus. The Papists do the
same thing. They claim that one must give the worship of latria to the
cross. Thomas, [ST,] part 3, q. 25, art. 3: “We give the worship of latria to
that in which we place our hope of salva on. But we place our hope of
salva on in the cross of Christ, for the church sings: ‘O cross, hail, our only
hope. In this Passion de, grant righteousness to the devout and pardon to
the guilty.’ Therefore we must worship the cross of Christ with the worship
of latria.” In agreement with Thomas are Alexander of Hales (part 3, q. 3,
membr. 3, art. 3), Albertus (Sentent., 3, dist. 9, art. 4), Bonaventure (same
dist., q. 2, art. 1), etc. Among the more recent are Cajetan (In Thom., part
3, q. 25, art. 3), Gregorius de Valen a (vol. 3, disputat. 6, q. 11, punct. 6),
and Costerus (Enchir., p. 438).

Thirty-first, the heresy of the Nudipedales

(XXXI) The Nudipedales walked about with bare feet (Augus ne, De
haeres., ch. 68). Franciscan monks imitate them.

Thirty-second, the heresy of the Pa alorynchites

(XXXII) The Pa alorynchites were always zealous for silence (Philaster,
Haeres. 76, and Augus ne, De haeres., ch. 63). They are imitated by the
Carthusians, who do not even respond to a gree ng or say “Thank you”
because of their zeal for silence.
Thirty-third, the heresy of the Wonderlings
(XXXIII) Augus ne calls those people “Wonderlings” [Mirabiliarii] who
brought in new errors or renewed old ones under the pretext of miracles
that they or others had performed. He says (tractate 113 on John): “My
God warned me against the Wonderlings when He said, ‘In the last days
false prophets will rise up.’ ” Yet the Papists establish their supers ons
and idolatrous cults from miracles.

Thirty-fourth, the heresy of the Gnosimachi

(XXXIV) The Gnosimachi reject every pursuit of knowledge among
Chris ans, as a result of which they have received their name (according to
Damascenus, De haeres.). To their class belong the Papist monks who call
themselves “the brothers of ignorance.” They always have on their lips the
apostle’s words: “The le er kills” (2 Cor. 3:6). At first, their order was
separate from others, but now it is mingled among all. The poet censures
them with this fine epigram:
You have been quite careful that no le er may be able to destroy you.
Of course, that is because no le er is known to you.

** Therefore the Gnosimachi (according to Nicetas, Thes. orthod. fidei,

bk. 4, haeres. 39) resisted all knowledge and learning of Chris anity and
declared that those were working in vain who searched Holy Writ for any
learning and knowledge, especially because God requires of all Chris ans
nothing except good works. Therefore it is be er, they thought, for
someone to follow with a simple and uneducated mind his own regula on
than to place much concern in learning decrees and knowledge. The
Papists forbid the laity to read Scripture and have established the order of
the Ignorant Brothers [ordo fratrum ignoran um]. **

Thirty-fi h, the heresy of the Accusers of Chris ans

(XXXV) The Accusers of Chris ans [Chris anocategori] decreed that
people should give divine honors to images. By doing so, they caused
Chris ans to be accused of being idol worshipers, and as a result they
received their name (according to Damascenus, De haeres., toward the
end). The Papists likewise provide an opportunity for the supers ous cult
of images so that the Turks consider Chris ans as idolaters.
We could men on more of the same kind of thing, from which one sees
clearly that many heresies have flowed together like sewage into the
papacy. Moreover, there is another heresy that is more destruc ve than all
the rest. It is the head, source, and origin of many heresies that the Papists
for a long me now have made their own. That is the heresy that the
Roman pope cannot err. You see, once this hypothesis was accepted, and
once the examina on of papal decrees was removed by divine command,
could anything so here cal and erroneous be thought up that it would not
be accepted very readily and, in fact, be considered as necessary to be
accepted? Athanasius once gave a warning about this as he wrote to
Eustathius [Le er ad Eustathium] against those who command that people
believe what they say and that they not look at whether or not it is proper.
He says: “Their heresy renews all heresies and surpasses them all. They
command us simply to accept what they say, so that no one may
inves gate what is decent or indecent in them, nor consider what is useful,
what is worthy of inten on, what agrees with the truth.”
Section VII: ON THE SEVENTH MARK OF THE
CHURCH ASSIGNED BY BELLARMINE: THE
UNION OF MEMBERS WITH EACH OTHER
AND WITH THEIR HEAD: Whether the union of
members with each other and with their head is a mark of the
church
§ 231. The first sec on. Is the union of members with each other and
with their head a proper and genuine mark of the church? We respond. (1)
We confess that the church is one on the basis of the Apostles’ and Nicene
Creeds. The reasons for this unity we explained earlier (§ 34), among
which the chief is the unity of faith and doctrine (Eph. 4:5).
(2) Therefore unity per se is not a mark of the church. Rather, it must be
connected with faith and doctrine, Eph. 4:5: “One Lord, one faith;” v. 13:
“… un l we all a ain to the unity of faith” (Athanasius, Le er ad An och.).
“Only that is the true concord which is of faith. Without that, it is the best
dissent; the most destruc ve concord,” as Gregory Nazianzen writes (Orat.
1, de pace).
(3) Not just any unity of faith and doctrine is a mark of the church, but
only the unity of true faith and doctrine, that is, of prophe c and apostolic
doctrine, for that alone is of immovable and perpetual truth. Therefore the
unity of faith that is a mark of the church must be based on one founda on
of doctrine: the apostolic doctrine. Accordingly, the church is said to be
“built upon the founda on of the prophets and apostles” (Eph. 2:20). It is
said about the heavenly Jerusalem that “its wall has twelve founda ons
and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:14).
Accordingly, in Zech. 8:19 “truth and peace” are joined. In fact, truth is set
ahead of peace so that we may understand that God approves of only that
peace, concord, and unity which enjoys the founda on and bond of truth.
John 8:31: “If you remain in My Word, you are truly My disciples.” John
17:21: “That they may be one in Us.”
(4) Although the true church is one and its true members agree in one
religion, yet we cannot infer from this that wherever there is unity and
agreement in religion, there suddenly is the true, apostolic church. You see,
there are two kinds of unity, as Thomas teaches (on Ephesians 4, lect. 1):
“One is good; the other is bad. One is of spirit; the other, of flesh.” “The
unity of piety is to believe correctly; the unity of wickedness is to believe
wrongly,” as Ambrose says somewhere. As God’s church is one, so the
devil’s Babylon is one. Christ says, Matt. 12:[26]: “If Satan is divided
against himself, how, then, will his kingdom stand?” There was unity
among those who demanded the making of the golden calf (Exodus 32).
All the priests of Baal were unanimous in opposing Elijah and Micah. At the
me of Jeremiah all the people were unanimous in opposing the true
worship of God. Christ was condemned to death by the common counsel
of the priests and elders and with the assent of the en re people. The
en re city of Ephesus rose up against Paul. A er Christ’s ascension, Jews
and Gen les fought against Christ’s church. Although here cs may differ
from each other, yet they are agreed on one heresy. In Rev. 13:16 we have
this prophecy about the An christ: “It causes all, both small and great,
both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand.”
The Jesuit Ribera comments on this passage: “The apostle means the
infinite number of those who will be adherents of the An christ” (surely in
harmony and peace). All this shows that not just any unity but the unity of
faith and doctrine, and not any unity in faith and doctrine but the unity in
the true apostolic doctrine and in the truly catholic faith, is a mark of the
church.
(5) The statements of the ancients belong here, in which they teach that
we must evaluate unity on the basis of the truth of faith. Cyprian (De unit.
ecclesiae) says: “The church is one just as the light of the sun is one,
though the sun has many rays; just as a tree is one, though it has many
branches; just as a spring is one, though it has many streams. Unity is
preserved in the origin.” Here he takes the origin to mean Christ and the
doctrine of Christ.
** The pagans once reproached Chris ans with the charge that “unity of
faith does not flourish among them.” Augus ne, De ovibus, ch. 15: “Only
this has remained for those” (evil-speakers) “to say against us: ‘Why do you
not agree among yourselves?’ The pagan heathen who have remained,
having nothing to say against the name of Christ, reproach the Chris ans
with the disagreement of Chris ans.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromat., bk.
7: “This, then, is the first thing they cite against us; they say that one ought
not believe because of the disagreement of the sects [haereses], for the
truth is slowed and deferred when some people set up some dogmas and
others establish other dogmas. To them we say that there have been more
sects among you Jews and among you philosophers who were held in the
highest esteem among the Greeks,” etc. **
When the Arian Auxen us boasted about the unity of the Arians, Hilary
gave him this answer (at the beginning of Contra Auxent.): “Indeed, the
name of peace is lovely and the idea of unity is beau ful, but who doubts
that only the unity of the church and of the Gospels is the peace of
Christ?” A erward he adds: “The ministers of the An christ boast of their
peace, that is, of the unity of their wickedness, behaving not as the bishops
of Christ but as priests of the An christ.” Gregory Nazianzen, Orat. 1, de
pace: “It is be er for a disagreement to arise for the sake of piety than to
have a corrupt concord.” Jerome writes (Le er ad Theophilum, against the
errors of John of Jerusalem, vol. 2, p. 185): “We, too, want peace, but the
peace of Christ, true peace, peace without hos li es, peace in which war is
not covered, peace that does not subject people as foes but joins them as
friends.” When Augus ne (domin. 2. post octavas paschae de pace et
unitate, Sermon 1) had diligently recommended the pursuit of peace, he
added: “But this peace is to be guarded with good people and those who
keep the commandments of God, not with the hos le and wicked, who
have peace among themselves in their sins. The peace of Christ is
beneficial for eternal salva on. The peace that is in the devil leads to
eternal destruc on. We must always have peace with the good and war
with the vices, since the evils of wicked men should be hated,” etc. Hugh,
De claustr. anim., bk. 3, ch. 9: “Another peace is considered, that of the
wicked and of this world. Another is pretended, that of the devil and of
here cs. Another is commanded, namely, that we not fight against
here cs.”

The arguments of our posi on

(6) We argue as follows against this mark. That which does not fit the
true church alone is not a genuine and proper mark of it. Unity considered
of itself without a connec on with true faith and doctrine does not fit only
the true church. Therefore it is not a genuine and proper mark of it. The
minor premise is clear because Muhammadanism, Arianism, Judaism, and
all heresies have a sort of unity, for without it they do not cons tute one
body, one church. But now, here cs who are in agreement over one heresy
do establish one body and one church, though it is false and here cal.
Augus ne, Sermon de jejun.: “The pagans worship many different gods. In
fact, they argue about them and burn with hos le hatred among
themselves. Yet they have a sort of unity among themselves because they
go equally to their temples and are themselves in agreement with their
angry gods.” Johannes Ferus, Post., sermon 3 de coen.: “There is now a
greater concord among all heathen than among us Chris ans.”
(7) We must also add that the unity of faith and doctrine in the church
in this life is not perfect nor absolute in all parts, for at mes among the
members of the true church controversies occur which tear apart that holy
unity. Therefore a dis nc on must be made between an absolute unity,
perfect and free of all dissent, which will first take place in the church
triumphant, and a fundamental unity that consists of agreement over the
principal ar cles, though controversies may arise over some less principal
parts of the faith or about indifferent ceremonies or even about the
interpreta on of some passages of Scripture. This is the sort of unity that
takes place in the church militant, for in it we never find such a harmony
that is not mixed with some disagreements. For in this life “we know in
part and we prophesy in part” (1 Cor. 13:9). Augustine, De civ. Dei, bk. 15,
ch. 5:
Good people and good people, if they are perfect, cannot fight among themselves. Those
who make progress but are not yet perfect can do so, as every good man fights another to
the degree in which he fights against himself. In every man “the flesh lusts against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh.” Therefore spiritual concupiscence can fight against the
carnal concupiscence of another, or carnal concupiscence can fight against the spiritual
concupiscence of another in the same way as good and evil people fight with each other; or
certain carnal lusts of two good but not yet perfect people fight among themselves in the
same way as bad people fight with bad people. This goes on un l the health of those being
cured is brought to final victory.

Here Augus ne is disclosing the cause of discords in the church. The truly
devout have not yet been renewed perfectly. Rather, some remnants of the
flesh remain in them. Therefore they do not a ain the exact and perfect
knowledge of the mysteries of faith. In some ma ers they dream and
stagger. In the reborn, the flesh s ll ba les against the Spirit. Therefore it
can happen easily, especially at the sugges on of the devil, that those who
indulge in the opinions of the flesh s r up conten ons in the church. Yet
unless stubbornness is added and unless the founda on of faith is
removed, they are not immediately separated from the body of the church
because of that.
Examples prove this very thing. Some of the brethren cri cized Peter for
having dared to preach the Gospel to the heathen (Acts 11:2). Paul
opposed Peter to his face because he was not in step with the truth (Gal.
2:11, [14]). A sharp disagreement occurred between Paul and Barnabas
(Acts 15:39). In the Corinthian church schisms had developed, a
profana on of the Supper had crept in, and people were arguing hatefully
about adiaphora. Some of them were calling the ar cle of the resurrec on
into doubt, etc. Yet Paul did not remove the name “church” from the en re
assembly because of this, but wrote to them and s ll called them “the
church of God” (1 Cor. 1:2). In the church of the Gala ans the ar cle of
jus fica on had been corrupted by false apostles; yet because they were
s ll teachable and because some of them were s ll thinking correctly, Paul
s ll calls the assemblies of Gala ans “churches” (Gal. 1:2). Bellarmine
himself acknowledges this, De eccles. mil., bk. 4, ch. 2, § ter o verae: “The
churches of the Corinthians and Gala ans to which the apostle was wri ng
were true churches. The apostle says he is wri ng to the churches of God
that are in Corinth and in Gala a. Yet he rebukes the Corinthians for
teaching that there will be no resurrec on, and he censures the Gala ans
through almost the en re Epistle for teaching that one must keep the Law
of Moses along with the Gospel.” At the me of Cyprian there was a very
serious dispute in the church about bap zing those who were returning
from heresies to the church. Many learned bishops took posi ons on
either side. Both opinions were approved and disapproved by the decrees
of different councils. Yet the name and unity of the church were not taken
away from those who followed Cyprian by those who held the correct
posi on, nor, conversely, did those who adhered to Cyprian and the African
bishops remove the name and unity of the church from those who held the
correct faith. At the me of Cornelius there was a serious disagreement
between the Eastern and Western churches over the me of celebra ng
Easter. Yet none of those who were the adherents of Bishop Polycarp at the
church at Smyrna denied the name “church” to those who were in accord
with Hyginus, bishop of the church at Rome. In fact, when Bishop Victor of
Rome excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor under this charge and
tried to cut them off from the unity of the body, Irenaeus and the other
bishops censured him severely for doing this. His opinion held no authority
in the church, as we can see from Eusebius. Between Basil and the church
at Caesarea there was a controversy over churchly chants and ceremonies;
between Chrysostom and Epiphanius over the books and doctrine of
Origen; between Jerome and Augus ne over the works of the Law by
which no one is jus fied, according to the declara on of the apostle. There
were controversies over the hypocrisy of Peter [Gal. 2:13], over the origin
of the soul, etc. In fact, if one reads the wri ngs of the fathers thoroughly,
it will become clear that the fathers at mes disagreed not only with
others but even with themselves, so that it is certain that we must not
hope for a unity of every kind, a unity absolute in every part, in this life.
Accordingly, not every disagreement immediately takes away the
fellowship of unity and of the church.

Bellarmine’s arguments in favor of unity

§ 232. In order to prove that the unity of members with each other and
with their Head is a mark of the church, Bellarmine (I) produces the
tes monies of Scripture in which the church is called “one body, one bride,
one flock,” etc. To these he adds the Constan nopolitan Creed, in which we
confess that there is “one church.” A bit later, to prove that concord is a
sign of the kingdom of God, he cites Christ’s statement in Matt. 12[:25]:
“Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste,” and the apostle’s
statement in 1 Cor. 14[:33]: “For God is not a God of confusion but of
order.”
We respond. None of us denies that the church is one. What should
have been proved is that unity, considered of itself and alone, is a genuine
and proper mark of the church. This is what we deny. We deny it because
among the reasons why the church is and is called one, the unity of faith
and doctrine does not occupy last place. Bellarmine himself acknowledges
this (De eccl., bk. 3, ch. 5). Therefore unity, taken of itself and alone, is not
a mark of the church, but unity in faith—in the true faith and in doctrine—
is. Accordingly, as far as unity is concerned, we must pass judgment on the
basis of the truth of faith. In this way we return to the mark that we
assigned to the church, namely, that the truth of apostolic and prophe c
doctrine is the true mark of the church. Now, unity does befit the church,
but not the church alone, because we find a kind of unity even in the
kingdom of Satan and in the conven cles of here cs, just as Christ Himself
in clear words a ributes in the same place (Matt. 12:25) a unity to the
kingdom of Satan. Thus not every unity comes from God, and not every
disagreement comes from the devil, but there is a holy dissent. (About this,
see Luke 12:51.) Therefore unity is an accident of the church and not
straightaway a proper mark. But if we take unity as connected with the
truth of faith and doctrine, then we grant that it is proper to the church
and thus also a genuine mark of it. Bellarmine, however, passes over this
spiritual and internal unity of true faith and doctrine, by which the true
members of the church catholic are united as members of one mys cal
Body with Christ their Head and with each other, and brings us back to an
external unity.
§ 233. (II) He adds that “unity with the head” must be taken as “unity
with the Roman pon ff,” and he produces some tes monies of the fathers.
For instance: Irenaeus (bk. 3, ch. 3), Cyprian (bk. 1, Le er 3), Ambrose
(Orat. de obitu Satyri), Jerome (Le er ad Damas.), Optatus (Contra
Parmen. bk. 2), Augus ne (Letter 162), and Leo (Letter 87). With these he
tries to prove that among the ancients a connec on with the Roman
pon ff was always considered a mark of the true church.
We respond. (1) He should have proved from Scripture this principal
founda on of the Papist faith: that the Roman pope is the head of the
church and that connec on with the Roman pope is a mark of the true
church. You see, Bellarmine himself admits (De conc., bk. 2, ch. 12): “The
wri ngs of the fathers are not rules of faith and do not have binding
authority.” Thomas, too ([ST,] part 1, q. 1, art. 8), acknowledges: “In
ar cles of faith, something is concluded only with probability from the
statements of the fathers.”
(2) But now, in the Scriptures there is profound silence about this head
of the church, the Roman pope. He cites from them some things about the
primacy of Peter, but beyond the fact that they are explained badly about a
monarchical power over the other apostles, they pertain not so much to
the Roman pope as to the patriarch of Constan nople. Read what
Bellarmine debates laboriously (in De pon fice Romano, bk. 2, ch. 12) to
prove that “the Roman pope succeeded Peter in the ecclesias cal
monarchy.” It will then become quite clear how empty and frivolous his
subtlety is, with which he tries to prove this “supremacy over Chris anity”
[summa rei Chris anae] (for that is what he calls the monarchical primacy
of the pope in the preface to his book De pon fic.). He does not supply
clear and explicit tes monies of Scripture but only uncertain guesses and
inconsistent “conclusions.” He says: “No one has conducted himself as
Peter’s successor or has been considered as such except the bishops of
Rome and An och. But the bishop of An och did not succeed in the
papacy because Peter le An och and went to Rome. There he established
his see and died. Therefore the bishop of Rome was his successor.” (But
this is as if he who behaves as the successor of another immediately
becomes his successor by divine right. Neither the bishop of Rome nor the
bishop of An och succeeded Peter in apostleship; both were his successors
in the ministry. What he adds—that Peter le An och and established the
papal see at Rome—should have been proved from the Scriptures and not
simply asserted. In Addit. ad Pla nam, Onuphrius vigorously denies that
Peter le An och and went to Rome, and he tries to prove this from
ancient authors. Yet Bellarmine asserts this so confidently.) Finally,
Bellarmine adds:
One must note that, though it perhaps is not a ma er of divine right that the Roman pon ff
succeeds Peter as the Roman pon ff, yet this belongs to the Catholic faith. A er all, for
something to be a ma er of faith and a ma er of divine right is not the same thing.
Therefore even if we do not have it expressly stated in Scripture that the Roman pon ff is
Peter’s successor, yet it is deduced clearly from the Scriptures that someone is Peter’s
successor. Then, on the basis of the apostolic tradi on of Peter, it is held that he is the
Roman pon ff, a tradi on that general councils, papal decrees, and the consensus of the
fathers have declared.

(Here Bellarmine admits that he cannot deduce from Scripture that the
Roman pon ff succeeded Peter. That is enough for us, who adore the
fullness of Scripture and consequently cannot acknowledge the pope as
the head of the church.)
(3) Not only does Scripture nowhere say that the Roman pope is the
head of the church, it also contradicts this claim. It calls no one other than
Christ “the Head of the church” (Eph. 1:22; 5:[23]). It establishes no other
“Bridegroom” of the church except Christ (John 3:29). It acknowledges no
other “Chief Shepherd” except Christ alone (John 10:12; 1 Pet. 2:25). Thus
the apostolic and early church closest to the mes of the apostles did not
acknowledge the Roman pon ff as the head of the church but bestowed
this honor on Christ alone, who alone supplies life and spirit to His mys cal
Body.
(4) Formerly, when the pious ancients honored their connec on with
the Roman church, the transmission of the apostolic faith was s ll
preserved in it. But today the apostolic doctrine has been polluted with
many corrup ons and errors. Therefore just as formerly all churches should
have been in fellowship with the Roman church because it had preserved
the purity of apostolic doctrine, so also they should secede from it today
because it has corrupted the apostolic doctrine. Just as the Roman pon ffs
today have degenerated far from their predecessors, the Roman bishops
closest to the century of the apostles, so also the Roman church of today
has gone as far away as possible from its ancient purity and integrity.
(5) The fathers certainly did not appeal to the Roman church with the
inten on of conceding to it a monarchical dominion over all other
churches, because “before the council no great respect was held for it”
(according to Aeneas Sylvius, Gest. conc. Basil.). Instead, the fathers did
that because it surpassed the others in its firmness in the truth of the faith,
in its abundance of martyrs, in the splendor of its place, and in other
privileges, as we have shown earlier (§ 194, point 6).
§ 234. From the words and deeds of the devout ancients, it is evident
that they by no means a ributed to the bishop of Rome any such
monarchical and autocra c power as the Roman pon ff claims for himself
today.

The statement of Irenaeus

Among the fathers, Bellarmine brings forth: (I) Irenaeus, who declares:
“Because of the more powerful principality, every church ought to agree
with [convenire ad] the Roman [church].”
Yet the same Irenaeus resisted Bishop Victor of Rome when the la er
was excommunica ng the churches in Asia Minor. Consequently, Irenaeus
by no means a ributes to that bishop an infallible judgment. Eusebius
(Histor. eccles., bk. 5, ch. 23) quotes these words of Irenaeus: “Victor
caused many churches to be cut off that were maintaining a custom
handed down to them from an quity. Although their predecessors had
shared fellowship with them, Bishop Anacletus of Rome was unable to
convince Polycarp to put aside his custom of celebra ng Easter, which
differed from that of the Roman church.” Therefore Polycarp did not
recognize the bishop of Rome as his infallible head. Erasmus, Praefat. in lib.
Iren.: “Irenaeus, presbyter of the church at Lyons, was sent to Rome to
se le the dispute. He was very highly commended in the wri ngs of the
martyrs, and he censured Victor with great boldness.” Cornelius Agrippa,
De vanit. scient., ch. 59: “Pope Victor cut off all the Eastern and Southern
churches from fellowship at the same me. At that me he was resisted by
Polycrates, bishop of Asia, among other preeminent men. Also, Irenaeus
rebuked Pope Victor sharply as a disturber of the peace.” Therefore either
we must condemn Polycarp, Polycrates, Irenaeus, and the churches of Asia
Minor; or we must concede that unity with the Roman pon ff is not
essen al to the church.

The statement of Cyprian

(II) Bellarmine sets forth Cyprian, who acknowledges the Roman throne
as “the womb and root of the church catholic” and who claims that “the
priestly unity began with the principal church.”
Yet how would Cyprian assign to the Roman pope jurisdic on and
monarchical power over all other bishops when he did not even a ribute
to Peter that power over the other apostles? He writes (De simpl. praelat.,
trea se 3, p. 113): “Surely the other apostles were what Peter was; they
were endowed with both honor and power in equal fellowship.” The same
Cyprian by no means subjected himself to Cornelius, who claimed that
those whom here cs had bap zed are not to be bap zed. Rather, he set
the Council of Africa against the Council of Rome. Bellarmine, De verbo Dei,
bk. 3, ch. 6, § ter o seculo: “At the council held at Rome, Cornelius decreed
that those whom here cs had bap zed are not to be bap zed. Later Pope
Stephan commanded the same thing.” Bellarmine again, De pont., bk. 4,
ch. 7, § ter a ra o: “In a council of eighty bishops, Cyprian decreed that
here cs are to be rebap zed and stubbornly resisted Pope Stephan, who
was decreeing that here cs are not to be rebap zed. Cyprian (Le er ad
Pompeium) called Stephan ‘stubborn, stupid, and of a blind and corrupt
mind.’ ” Cassander, Consult., art. 7: “Stephan drove Cyprian out of
fellowship with him. He did not admit the bishops Cyprian had sent from
Africa to be delegates to the discussions in the open conference. He
commanded the en re brotherhood that no one should take them into
their homes and that not only the peace and communion but also a roof
and hospitality should be denied them if they came, etc. Yet Cyprian in that
disagreement kept his a tude peaceful and very steadfastly retained the
bond of peace and unity.” Cyprian therefore claimed that catholic unity is
possible outside of unity with the Roman pon ff. Cyprian’s affirma on that
“the priestly unity arose from the principal church” is explained as follows
by Polydorus (bk. 4, ch. 6): “Lest anyone make a mistake, the episcopal
order can be said to have arisen from the bishop of Rome in no other way
except that this be understood only of the Italians. A er all, it is very clear
that the priesthood had been correctly established in Jerusalem long
before Peter came to the city of Rome.” His statement that the Roman
church is “the root and womb of the church catholic” should be
understood in the same way, namely, because Rome was the chief city of
Italy and the seat of the empire. Otherwise, speaking simply and absolutely
about the church of the New Testament, Jerusalem is the mother of all
churches (Theodoret, bk. 5, ch. 9) because “out of Zion shall go the Law,
and the Word of the Lord from Jerusalem” (Isa. 2:3). Others add that
Cyprian’s “womb and root of the church catholic” means not Rome but
unity, for these words follow in the same le er: “that we may cling
harmoniously to the unity of the church catholic.”

The statement of Ambrose

(III) Bellarmine cites Ambrose, to whom “agreeing with the Catholic
bishops and agreeing with the Roman church are equivalent expressions.”
Yet Ambrose revered the Roman church, which at that me was holy
and orthodox, not as the lady of the faith but as an associate, for he
disagreed with her openly in the ques on of washing the feet. De sacram.,
bk. 3, ch. 1: “In all ma ers I wish to follow the Roman church, but yet we
men have understanding too. Therefore what is kept more correctly
elsewhere we also keep correctly.” The nature of the modern Roman
church, however, is far different from that of the ancient one because the
ancient church followed the faith that the modern one persecutes. As a
result, Ambrose would by no means a ribute that honor to the modern
church, seeing that it is oppressed by papal tyranny and has wandered very
far from the purity of apostolic doctrine, because he did not even wish to
follow the ancient one absolutely and in everything with no excep on.

The statement of Jerome

(IV) He sets forth Jerome, who wished “to be associated in communion
with the throne of Peter and who asked Damasus for the power to say
‘three hypostases.’ ”
Yet the ques on at that me was not about a doctrine but about the
use of an expression, for Jerome believed that some poison was hiding in
the word “hypostasis.” Therefore the fact that Jerome sought the judgment
and authority of Damasus before using this word is an argument for
brotherly concord, not for the dominion of the pope, because Jerome
writes (Le er ad Agen am) that he helped Damasus in ecclesias cal cases.
What claim he made regarding the primacy of the pope is clear from his
words in his Le er ad Evagrium: “If one is looking for authority, the world
is greater than the city” (of Rome). “Wherever a bishop is, whether at
Rome or Tanais or Gubbio, he is of the same merit and of the same
priesthood. The power of wealth and the humility of poverty do not make
a bishop higher or lower. Why do you men on to me the custom of a city?
Why do you reproach me with fewness, from which pride has come?”

The statement of Optatus of Milevis

(V) He quotes Optatus of Milevis, who teaches that “the first and
foremost gi to the church is the throne of Peter” and that “the Dona sts
do not belong to the church because they are not connected with Siricius.”
We respond. He wanted a connec on with the Roman church not as
with the mother and lady of all other churches but as with a guardian of
the apostolic faith. Concerning the idea that they cul vated a unity with
the Roman church because its bishop is the universal head and monarch of
all churches, there is not so much as a syllable of this in Optatus or others
of the ancients.

The statement of Augus ne

(VI) He brings forth Augus ne, who acknowledges that “the
preeminence of the apostolic throne has always flourished” in the Roman
church.
We respond. In the same place Augus ne declares that the other
churches were connected at that me with the Roman church through
le ers of fellowship. Today, however, it wants them all to be subject to it
through tyrannical oppression, which neither agrees with divine right nor
was it accepted by the custom of those days. Thus Cardinal Zabarella is
correct in wri ng (extra., de elect., c. licet): “The pope has invaded all the
rights of the lesser churches so much that prelates of a lower order are as
nothing. Unless God provides aid, the state of the churches is in great
peril.” Moreover, he declares in the same place that the church of
Carthage, of which Augus ne was then in charge, was connected through
le ers not only with the Roman church but also with the others. He writes
as follows: “When he” (Bishop Caecilianus) “saw that it was connected
through le ers of fellowship to the Roman church, in which the
preeminence of the apostolic church always flourished, and to the other
lands from which the Gospel came into Africa itself.” Besides this, it is clear
from the Acta of the Council of Carthage that Augus ne was by no means
conceding to the bishop of Rome supreme jurisdic on over all other
churches. The African bishops had removed Apiarius from his episcopate at
Sicca, and he appealed to the bishop of Rome. That bishop judged that
Apiarius should be absolved and restored to his church. He for fied his
ac on with a fic ous canon of the Council of Nicaea. The Africans then
sent messengers to the patriarchal sees of Alexandria, Constan nople, and
An och to bring back to Africa from their archives copies of the canons of
Nicaea, but they did not find in them a canon about appealing to the
Roman pon ff. As a result, in the Council of Africa of which Augus ne was
in charge with 202 other fathers, the conclusion was drawn that no one
was allowed to appeal to the Roman pon ff unless by chance (as they said)
“someone may believe that God is able to inspire in any one person the
jus ce of examining but to deny that to countless people gathered in
council.” From this it is clear that Augus ne and the African bishops did not
at all cul vate a union with the Roman pope as with their head and
monarch. In the third Council of Carthage (canon 26) and in the Council of
Hippo (canon 27) they decreed: “No bishop is to be called ‘high priest’
[summum sacerdotem] or ‘chief of priests.’ ” There is no one who does not
see that these canons are opposed to the primacy of the pope. And
furthermore, in the same Letter 162 in which the preeminence of the
apostolic throne is a ributed to the Roman church, he reports about the
Dona sts: “In the case of Majorinus they asked for a judge from the
emperor, not from the Roman pon ff. The emperor gave them as a judge
not only the Roman pon ff but also other bishops. Over this judgment of
the pope and the bishops, the Dona sts appealed to the emperor and
asked for other judges. The emperor did give them other judges to
examine the case a er the pope and prior judges.” All of this is extremely
opposed to the dominion of the pope.

The statement of Leo

(VII) Last, he brings forth Leo, who declares: “Christ placed the mystery
of the preaching of the Gospel especially in Peter, the highest of all the
apostles, so that from him, as the head, He might pour forth His gi s into
the en re body. In this way anyone who has dared to depart from the
solidity of Peter may understand himself as someone who has no share in
the divine mystery.”
We respond. The same Leo (Sermon 1 in nat. apost.) speaks as follows
about Peter and Paul: “The grace of God carried these men to such a
pinnacle among all the members of the church that it set them up in the
Body whose Head is Christ like the twin lights of the eyes. We should think
nothing different about their separate merits and virtues because their
elec on, work, and purpose made them equal, similar, and alike.” Here he
correctly assigns the honor and name “head” not to Peter but to Christ.
Much less did Leo claim, nor was he able to claim, himself as the head of
the church, for at this me the see of Constan nople had power equal to
the see of the more ancient Rome and “in churchly ma ers it was
esteemed just as highly,” according to the canon of the Council of Carthage
(which is found in [Ius canonicum,] dist. 22, c. renovantes). The fla erers of
the Roman pon ff later corrupted this canon, for where the fathers of
Constan nople say, “We define” (ὁρίζομεν), the former have subs tuted:
“We ask.” Where the fathers of Constan nople say, “In churchly ma ers it
is esteemed just as highly,” the former subs tuted: “Nevertheless not in
the business of the church it is esteemed just as highly.” The Papists
themselves are forced to admit this falsehood, for in the Gregorian edi on
the words “nevertheless not” [non tamen] have been replaced with “and
likewise” [nec non]. Aside from that, Leo did not yet have monarchical
power, as is clear from Letter 45, in which he begs Empress Pulcheria to
command that Eutyches be sent away to remote areas; and from his
Letters 73, 74, and 75, where he calls Anatolius of Constan nople his
“fellow bishop” [coëpiscopus]; and from Letter 24, in which he implores
the emperor to call a council in Italy; and from Letter 73, in which he begs
the emperor to command the people of Alexandria to elect another bishop
in place of Dioscorus.
§ 235. Bellarmine adds experience to the tes mony of the fathers. He
says: “We see that all those churches which have separated themselves
from that head” (the Roman pon ff) “have immediately dried up like
branches cut off from the trunk. Surely the churches of Asia Minor and of
Africa once were so flourishing that they held numerous councils and
always had many men who were very renowned either for their teaching
or their holiness or because of both of those excellent gi s from God. But
from the me when they created a schism from the Roman church, they
have celebrated no councils, they have had no men known to all the world
for their reputa on for holiness or teaching, and they are now in the
greatest ignorance.”
** See also Jacob Grasser, De ecclesia meridionali et occidentali. **
We respond. (1) We spoke earlier (§ 186) about the state of the
churches of Asia Minor and Africa, namely, that in some ar cles they have
a more pure and sound confession of faith than the Roman church and that
they certainly do not yield to it in dura on, an quity, and large size.
Bellarmine (De Christo, bk. 2, ch. 30) repeats almost the same words, that
“a er the schism the Greek church had no council, no holy man known for
his miracles, very few learned men.” Then he adds: “Many compare the
Greek church with the kingdom of Samaria because it separated itself from
the temple, and then was carried off into perpetual cap vity.” So, then, let
the Roman church be Jerusalem, and let her believe that Ezek. 16:[51]
was wri en about her: “Samaria has not commi ed half your sins, and you
have commi ed more abomina ons than they.”
(2) Not those who separate themselves from the pope but those who
separate themselves from Christ cease to be members of the church,
because the Head of the church is not the pope but Christ. John 15:6: “If
any man does not abide in Me, he withers like a branch.” Eph. 4:[15–]16:
“Christ is the Head from whom the whole Body, joined and held together,
grows.”
(3) There are many who have been separated from the pope but who
have s ll remained true members of the church.
** Lindanus (Panopl., bk. 4, ch. 98) writes: “Because of a nearly 100-
year separa on, the African church was schisma c for those hundred years
and was torn apart from the whole Body of Christ.” Bellarmine, De
matrim., ch. 15: “The Greeks have separated themselves from the Roman
church for a long me now.” Bellarmine again, De Roman. pon f., bk. 2, ch.
25, art. 46, in quadam object.: “From the le ers of Boniface II to Bishop
Eulalius of Alexandria, and of Bishop Eulalius of Carthage to the same
Boniface, we conclude that a er the sixth Council of Carthage, which was
held in AD 409, in the case of the presbyter Apiarius, the bishops of
Carthage were separated for a hundred years from the fellowship of the
Roman church. They were only then reconciled when Eulalius subjected
himself to the Roman see and anathema zed his predecessors.” (In their
century-long disagreement, those African bishops did not think that union
with the Roman pon ff was a mark of the true church.) Bellarmine
responds (loc. cit.) that that le er of Boniface seemed to him to be
spurious. Other Papists, however, prove with many arguments that it is
genuine. Bellarmine himself adds (last ar cle) that on this point he states
nothing with any certainty. **
Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor, which nevertheless
were true churches and which had many councils and orthodox bishops.
Marcellinus the idolater was condemned by a council of Rome. Therefore
he separated himself from the Roman church, which at that me was a
true church. Liberius condemned Athanasius, a very keen defender of the
catholic faith, because he agreed to his condemna on. Bellarmine, De
Roman. pon f., bk. 4, ch. 9: “Pope Liberius implicitly agreed to the
condemna on of Athanasius and allowed him to be condemned whom he
knew to be suffering persecu on for the sake of the faith.”
** Athanasius, Ad solit. vit. agentes: “A er spending two years in exile,
Liberius was moved and induced by threats of death to subscrip on.” **
Baronius, Annal., vol. 3, AD 357, p. 709: “Liberius subscribed to the
sentence passed against Athanasius and accepted the decrees of faith
wri en at the Council of Sirmium.” Liberius writes as follows Ad Ursacium
et Valentem (Arians): “Let your prudence be aware that Athanasius has
separated himself from the communion of the Roman church.”
** Compare also the Le ers of Liberius, one of which he addressed Ad
episcopos orientales Arianos; another of which is Ad Ursacium, Valen um,
et Hermium, also Arians, in Baronius, Annal., vol. 3, ad annum 359. **
Yet did Athanasius cease being a member of the church catholic
because of this? Certainly not! Rather, because of his disagreement with
the head of the church at Rome he retained a true union with the true
Head of the church catholic, Christ. The sixth Council of Constan nople
(Act. 13) condemned Honorius as a Monothelite: “At the same me, along
with these, we command that Honorius, who had been pope of Old Rome,
also be thrown out of the holy catholic church of God and be
anathema zed because he has followed the mind of Sergius” (a
Monothelite) “in all things and has confirmed his wicked dogmas.” By this
separa on of the head of the Roman church the fathers of Constan nople
retained their fellowship with the church catholic. We could supply more
examples of this sort, but they are discussed more suitably elsewhere.
Emperor O o I, famous for his praiseworthy piety, deposed John XII at the
persuasion of the clergy of Rome (Pla na, Vita Johan.). The clergy and
people of Rome took away the papacy from Leo VIII (Pla na, Vita Leon.).
The Council of Constance did the same in the case of John XXIII. The
Council of Basel cast down Eugenius from the papal throne. Therefore
either union with the Roman pon ff is not necessary for the unity of the
church catholic, or those who deposed the popes were separated from
catholic unity.
(4) No one is to have fellowship with a here cal pope, for he who is
a ached to a proven heresy and obvious here cs is separated from the
Body of the church. But now, the popes can fall into a heresy, something
that some of the Papists do not deny. Bellarmine, De pon f., bk. 4, ch. 2:
“The second opinion is that the pope as pope can be a here c and teach
heresy if he makes a defini on without a general council and that this
actually has happened at mes. This opinion is followed by Nilus in his
book Advers. primatum papae. It is also followed by some of the faculty at
Paris, such as Gerson and Almain, as well as by Alphonsus de Castro
(Contra haeres., bk. 1, ch. 2) and Adrian VI (Quest. de confirma one).”
Bellarmine does not dare to call this opinion here cal because “those who
follow it are tolerated by the church.” Yet if it is not here cal to claim that
the pope can fall into heresy, surely it will also not be here cal to claim
that union with the pope as with the head is not required for union with
the church catholic. The reason for the consequence is obvious, because
“the pope is a here c” and “fellowship with the pope is catholic” are
contradictory. Cusanus, De concord. cathol., bk. 2, ch. 17: “When a pope is
a here c, then every layman is obliged to separate from him. By that very
separa on [the layman] declares his anathema against him.”
(5) The pope can be removed from the church without destroying the
unity of the church catholic, as Gerson teaches in his book De auferibilitate
papae. The same thing is proved from the long vacancy of the Roman see
and from the schisma c disagreements of the Roman popes, twenty of
which Genebrardus lists and to which number Onuphrius adds. Once there
were three popes, none of whom was legi mate, it was evident. But now,
“a doub ul pope is considered as no pope,” as Bellarmine argues (De
Romano pon fe, bk. 4, ch. 14). Therefore either union with the Roman
pope is not necessary for the unity of the church catholic, or the unity of
the church catholic ceased at that me when there was no pope or a
doub ul pope.
(6) Bellarmine himself admits that “there can occur such a me when
people may resist the pope.” He should also admit, therefore, that there
can occur such a me when people may depart from unity with the pope.
The logical connec on is obvious because to resist is greater and to depart
from unity is less. But now, if the greater is permi ed, the less will also be
permi ed. The antecedent is proved from De Romano pon fe, bk. 2, ch.
29, § respondeo negando: “One may resist the pope when he a acks souls
or upsets the republic, and all the more if he were striving to destroy the
church. I say, one may resist him by not doing what he commands or by
hindering him from carrying out his will. Yet one may not judge, punish, or
depose him, for that responsibility belongs only to one who is superior.”
(7) A general council can depose a pope. Therefore union with the pope
is not essen ally necessary for the unity of the church catholic. Many
Papists affirm the antecedent, such as Cardinal Cameracensis, Cusanus,
Panormitanus, Gerson, Alphonsus de Castro, Occam, etc. This was also
defined in the Councils of Basel and of Constance. Although Bellarmine
claims that “the supreme pon ff is above a council,” he nevertheless is
forced to admit: “This has been defined in no general council, and thus this
ques on survives among Catholics even to this day” (De concil., bk. 2, ch.
13, § deinde). Aeneas Sylvius, who later became Pope Pius II (De gest.
concil. Basiliens., f. 5):
It is necessary that the pope be subject to a council. I dwell in the statement of Jerome as in
a very fer le field, where he says: The authority [of the world] is greater than the city. The
authority of the pope who is in charge of the Roman church is great. But the authority of the
church universal is greater. If the church universal is the mother of all, then she has the
Roman pon ff as her son. Otherwise, as Augus ne says, “He who does not have the church
as his mother does not have God as his Father.”

Whether there is a truly catholic unity in the Roman church

§ 236. The second sec on. Is there a truly catholic unity in the Roman
church? To prove this, Bellarmine provides these founda ons.

Regarding the agreement of holy writers

(I) He says: “In our church all the holy writers are marvelously agreed,
even though they were different men who wrote in different mes and
places and languages. Augus ne notes that this is something clearly divine
(De civitat. Dei, bk. 18, ch. 41).”
We respond. The agreement of the prophe c and apostolic writers,
rather, proves that today’s Roman church is not the true church, because
its doctrine in many major points has deviated from the unanimous
agreement of the prophets and apostles, as we demonstrate in each of the
controverted ar cles. We have far more honorable feelings about those
sacred writers than the Papists do, as we show in our commonplace On
Scripture [1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1; cf. 1625 Exegesis, Commonplace I].
We look for the founda ons of our case in those writers, and we are
content with their limita ons. The Papists refuse to prove their faith on the
basis of them alone, as they patch on human tradi ons and other foreign
material. Furthermore, just as that holy unity had a place among the
sacred writers even if they were not subject to any pope, so also for the
catholic unity of the church there is no requirement for a subjec on to the
Roman pope as the one visible head, as Bellarmine argues. Finally, that
unity among the holy writers comes from the Holy Spirit, whose secretaries
they were. So, then, only that is the true and proper unity of the church
catholic which has its origin with the Holy Spirit and which unites and binds
together people’s minds in Christ through the unity of prophe c and
apostolic doctrine.

Regarding the agreement of the fathers and councils

§ 237. (II) “All the decrees of lawful councils and popes agree with each
other even in all dogmas, though they were published by different people
at different places, mes, situa ons, and against very different and, in fact,
o en contrary heresies.”
We respond. We shall show in its own place [§§ 237–43] that councils
and popes can err and, in fact, have quite o en erred in publishing decrees
that are contrary to both Scripture and other lawful councils. The Council
of Ariminum, of Seleucia, the second of Sardica, etc., published decrees
contrary to the catholic faith and to the Council of Nicaea on
consubstan ality. The second Council of Ephesus established the heresy of
Eutyches. Canon 7 of the Council of Neocaesarea forbade “a presbyter
from being at the banquet of a second marriage.” Canon 12 of the Council
of Nicaea forbids “those to return to military service who had already cast
away the [military] belt.” Canon 2 of the second Council of Arles claimed:
“A man who has been established in the bonds of matrimony must not be
taken up into the priesthood unless a conversion has been promised.” This
conflicts with the decrees of the Council of Gangra (can. 4). The Council of
Laodicea (c. 1) decreed: “A er forgiveness, Communion may be returned
to those who have been joined together in a second marriage.” The first
Council of Constan nople, which was the second general council, decreed,
canon 5: “Ecclesias cal primacy must be a ributed to the Roman pope.”
But this conflicts with canon 26 of the third Council of Carthage, where it is
decreed: “No one ought to be called the ‘chief priest.’ ” Canon 47 of this
same third Council of Carthage lists in the canon the apocryphal books of
the Old Testament. But that conflicts with the last canon of the Council of
Laodicea, unless we take the word “canonical” broadly for a book that is
read in the church. The first Council of Toledo (c. 17) decreed: “A man who
has a concubine can be admi ed to Communion provided he is not
married.” The Council of Worms (c. 3) orders that “secret thieves be
searched out through their receiving of the holy Eucharist.” The third
Council of Constan nople (c. 2), which was the sixth general council,
accepts the decree of the African council under Cyprian regarding the
rebap zing of here cs. Canon 72 judges that “marriages of catholics with
here cs are void and should be dissolved.” The second Council of Nicaea
decreed that “images must be worshiped.” That conflicts with the decrees
of the Council of Constan nople, as the fathers of the Council of Nicaea
(Act. 6) admit, and with the decrees of the Council of Frankfurt. In the
Council of Rome under Stephan VII, Pope Formosus was condemned and
all his ac ons abrogated. Later, another council was held at Ravenna under
John IX, and there Formosus was restored and Stephan was condemned,
and all the acts of the council that was held under Stephan were
abrogated. And furthermore, Pla na writes in clear words about Stephan:
“A er Stephan, this custom was always preserved that subsequent popes
either invalidated or completely removed the acts of prior popes.”
** The same Pla na writes about those disagreements as follows:
“When Stephan VII became pope, he persecuted the name of” (Pope)
“Formosus with such hatred that he immediately abrogated his decrees
and rescinded his acts. When Romanus I became pope, he immediately
disapproved and abrogated the decrees and acts of Pope Stephan. When
John X became pope, he restored the case of Formosus to an unharmed
condi on, though a great part of the Roman people opposed this, etc. He
went to Ravenna, held an assembly of seventy-four bishops, disapproved
the ac ons of Stephan, and restored the acts of Formosus. When Sergius III
returned to Italy, he disapproved the acts of” (Pope) “Formosus in such a
way that it again became necessary to admit to the sacred orders those
whom Formosus earlier had decreed were unworthy of the priestly rank.
Not content with having heaped this insult upon a dead man, he had his
corpse taken out of the grave and inflicted capital punishment upon it as if
it were alive. Then he threw the cadaver into the Tiber as unworthy of
burial and of human honor.” **
More examples are provided in the ques on on the authority of
councils, where we also refute those points that Bellarmine—more
cunningly than truly—has contrived to cover the errors of councils.
Augus ne (De baptismo contra Donatist., bk. 2, ch. 2) writes clearly:
“Regional and provincial councils ought to yield to plenary councils, and
among those plenary councils earlier ones are corrected by later ones.” He
subjects the authority of all councils to Scripture (Contra Maximin. Arian.,
bk. 3, ch. 14): “I should not hold forth the Council of Nicaea, nor should
you the Council of Ariminum, as if to prejudge. I am not bound by the
authority of the la er nor you by the former. Let fact contend with fact,
case with case, reason with reason, on the basis of the authority of the
Scriptures as common witnesses for both sides, rather than those
belonging only to some.”

Regarding the agreement of papal decrees

§ 238. As far as the decrees of the popes are concerned, we assert the
same thing, that they o en are contrary both to the Scripture and to the
decrees of other popes. Zephyrinus was a Montanist; Marcellinus, an
idolater; Liberius and Felix, Arians. Anastasius was in fellowship with
Pho nus and wanted to call back the here c Acacius secretly. Vigilius was a
Eutychian; Honorius, a Monothelite. John XXIII denied eternal life, believed
that man’s soul died and was ex nguished with the body just like those of
brute animals, and said that once a soul had died, it would not rise up
again even on the Last Day. Therefore either all the popes were infected
with those heresies, or they did not all agree in their dogmas and decrees.
Gregory says of four councils, one of which was the Council of Chalcedon,
that he “embraces them as the four Gospels.” But Leo (Letter 59) says
about the Council of Chalcedon that he “always found fault with what was
decreed in this council.” Mar n claimed: “Anyone who falls a er his
ordina on cannot a ain any level of the priesthood” ([Ius canonicum,] dist.
50, c. qui semel). Siricius decreed the opposite (dist. 82, c. quia): “Those
who are ordered to be deposed because of their sins can be put back in
their rank a er worthy penance.” In a Le er ad Bonifacium, Gregory
claimed: “If a woman is seized by an infirmity and cannot render her
[marital] obliga on to her husband, the husband can marry another if he
cannot contain himself.” Other popes stated the opposite ([Ius canonicum,]
decretal., bk. 4, tle 9, de conjugio leprosorum, c. quoniam). Nicholas I
taught: “Bap sm carried out in the name of Christ without express
men on of the three persons is valid” ([Ius canonicum,] de consecrat., dist.
4, c. a quodam). Zacharias, also a pope, taught the opposite: “It cannot be
a true Bap sm if one person of the Trinity is not named” ([Ius canonicum,]
de consecrat., same dist., c. in synodo). Sabinianus ordered the books of his
predecessor, Gregory I, to be burned. Stephan VI abrogated the decrees of
Formosus. Romanus I abrogated the decrees and acts of Stephan. John
abrogated the acts of Romanus. The Roman popes Julius, Innocent, and
Celes ne decreed that “husbands should be separated from their wives
who, even unaware, have received their children from the washing of
Bap sm” ([Ius canonicum,] 30, q. 1, c. pervenit). This, however, is contrary
to Christ’s command (Matt. 19:6) and to that of the apostle (1 Cor. 7:10).
Alexander III says ([Ius canonicum,] c. licet, de sponsa duorum) that some
of his predecessors judged that marriage contracted with words in the
present tense [per verba de praesen ] but not consummated could be
voided by another marriage, but that he thought the opposite. Therefore
either he or his predecessors erred.
** See Empsychovius, who discusses the disagreements of the popes
extensively (Refutat. causae 6. Braunianae, pp. 607ff.). Here is a synopsis of
papal contradic ons. (1) They imagine that people are saved by grace and
good works at the same me, though the apostle places these two in
opposi on to each other (Rom. 11:6). (2) They violently a ack the
imputa ve righteousness of Christ and meanwhile apply works of
supereroga on to others. (3) They affirm that Christ suffered for us, and
yet they declare that we are jus fied by our good works (Gal. 2:21). (4)
They say that the guilt of sin is blo ed out by the merit of Christ, but not
the punishment of purgatory, though all the strength of guilt lies in
punishment. (5) They demand from the sinner sa sfac on for his sins, and
yet they say that God forgives sins freely. (6) They command various fasts,
though nowhere else is there greater glu ony and delicacies. (7) They
boast of their celibacy and meanwhile contaminate all things with the most
foul lusts. (8) They want to have learned priests, but they ordain the
unlearned. (9) They want to have honorable priests, but at the same me
they give them effectual causes of wickedness: excessive wealth, celibacy,
impunity, leisure, and the most foul examples of the prelates. (10) In
abuse, they honor the Gospel very highly, carrying it about on their necks;
but in its true use, they hold it in extreme contempt. (11) They pretend
that they want to learn the truth from Holy Writ, but they do not search
the sources. (12) They pretend that they have abandoned the world, yet
they live in the most pleasant places. (13) They take a vow of poverty, but
almost by themselves they possess the whole world. (14) Monks promise
obedience, though they remove themselves from obedience to parents
and magistrates. (15) As suppliants they implore the mercy of God and at
the same me they claim that such begging has great merit, and they make
a contract with God in like manner by coun ng up their Paternoster beads
[patriloquium]. (16) They teach that papal indulgences confer the most
certain forgiveness of sins, and yet they command us to have doubts about
forgiveness. (17) Through their doctrine of doubt, they overturn their
hypothesis of a sure salva on from works, concerning absolu on, hope,
and the love of God. (18) They teach that people can provide complete
obedience to God’s command as regards the substance of the command
but not as regards the intent of the One who gives the command, though
the intent of the command is nothing else but the full perfec on of the
command. (19) They boast of the efficacy of Masses in freeing souls from
purgatory. Meanwhile, they declare that the souls of most of our
forefathers, for whom so many Masses have been purchased, are swea ng
in purgatory. (20) They say that marriage is a sacrament; nevertheless they
forbid ecclesias cal persons to marry because it is thought to be less fi ng
for holiness. (21) They teach that the saints were very humble; but, on the
other hand, they make them so ambi ous, saying that the saints think
themselves to be worthy of churches and altars and want to be worshiped
as helpers and their relics and images to be adored. (22) They boast that in
their councils they are directed by the Holy Spirit, and yet they are not
concerned with the Scripture, which is inspired by the Holy Spirit. (23) They
blather about infused quali es, yet their en re Chris anity is placed in
external rituals. (24) They make religion too difficult, and impossible,
because they want a person to be jus fied before God by his own works.
But they also make it too easy, because they consider outward discipline as
a righteousness that avails before God; they deny that original sin in the
reborn is sin; they command us to have doubts about the grace of God,
something that is innate in all of us; they place all things in external rites
and ceremonies, which are easy to perform; they say that the sacraments
are salutary even without a good disposi on on the part of the user; they
say that all that one does with a good inten on is a worship pleasing to
God; as sa sfac on they command foolish works, for instance, to provide
for several Masses to be performed, to give alms for two or three days, to
mumble several Paternosters and Ave Marias, etc.; finally, they say that if
someone obviously has no good works, he can s ll be saved through
indulgences, the Masses of monks, the merits of the saints, and works of
supereroga on. (25) They entrust the concern for religion to pope and
bishops who care for nothing less than they care for religion and piety. **
Onuphrius writes that thirty schisms occurred among the Roman
pon ffs. Stapleton (Relect. princip. fid., contr. 1, q. 1, art. 3) lists twenty-five
schisms and adds: “All that I have counted include no more than 124 years
and ten months.” He writes this as if that were not enough me for the
Roman church to have been completely without a head [ἀκέφαλος],
because “a doub ul pope is considered as no pope,” as Bellarmine writes
(De concil., bk. 2, ch. 19, resp. ad 3. argum.). Glovianus acknowledges the
same thing when he writes (De schismate, p. 181): “An ambiguous schism
struck the Chris an world when one pope was created at Rome and
another at Avignon, because both performed their pon ficates with the
great approval of cardinals, bishops, priests, princes, and peoples. Then,
when three popes were inaugurated at the same me—John XXIII, Gregory
XII, and Benedict XIII—Christ’s church certainly was torn apart by a serious
schism and was cut into pieces.” In fact, Bellarmine himself does not dare
deny this, for he writes (preface to Controv. de Roman. pon f.): “You are
not unaware of the tragedies the emperors have s rred up in the church.
As if these had been insignificant, Satan again s rred up Roman pon ffs
against pon ffs.” And yet if pon ffs were s rred up against pon ffs, how
are all the decrees of the popes in agreement? With this point, the
disputa on of Erasmus (Annot. on 1 Corinthians 7, p. 327) should be
men oned.
 If that which some assert is true, that the Roman pon ff can never err
with a judicial error, what need would there be for general councils? What
need would there be to summon lawyers and learned theologians to a
council if the caller of the council cannot go wrong? Why is an opportunity
given to appeal either to a synod or to the same council more carefully
instructed, a er a pope has once made a pronouncement about a case?
What is the point of so many academies being tormented in trea ng cases
of faith when one may hear what is true from one pope? In fact, how does
it happen that the decrees of this pope conflict with the decrees of that
one? Not to men on Formosus, is it not true that Popes John XXII and
Nicholas fight against each other with all their decrees?—and that this is
true of those decrees which appear to pertain to the ma er of the faith?
One of them (Nicholas III) made his declara on “judicially,” to use their
word, “that Christ and His apostles held no property either in common or
privately” ([Ius canonicum,] de verborum significa one in sexto, c. exiit).
The other (John), on the contrary, declared that they did have property
([Ius canonicum,] extr., de verborum significa one, c. cum inter). We may
learn this from their own Extravagantes; but more appropriately for what
we are discussing here, it happens that Innocent III and Celes ne made
u erly conflic ng defini ons regarding the dissolving of marriage.
Celes ne gave the right to one of the spouses to remarry if the other fell
into heresy. Innocent denied this, as we read in the Decretal. (bk. 4, tle de
divor is, c. quanto). Innocent does not hide the fact here that a
predecessor of his made a different judgment—meaning Celes ne, as the
gloss appears to say, declaring that a cons tu on of Celes ne over this
ma er once existed in the Decretal., bk. 3, tle De conversione infidelium,
at the end. Therefore it is more likely that this tle consists of a very few
chapters so that you may understand it to have been mu lated. (In
connec on with this, Alphonsus de Castro, Contra haeres., bk. 1, ch. 4,
reports that he saw that decree of Celes ne.) Furthermore, as it stands in
the decrees ([Ius canonicum,] dist. 31, c. ante triennium), Pelagius had
decided that the subdeacons of Sicily should stay away from their wives
whom they had lawfully married before his decree. Gregory I, who
succeeded Pelagius, retracted and abrogated that decree as unjust and
conflic ng with the evangelical precept. Gregory decreed: “In the future,
no one would be allowed entry to this order unless he had vowed chas ty.”
Aside from that, he said that it was harsh and unjust to force into chas ty a
person who had taken no vow of chas ty and had not earned any guilt
such that he should be compelled to chas ty. Yet what here seems unjust
to Gregory did not seem unjust to Innocent III. In the place we just cited he
responded to those who objected: “It seems against what is just for an
abandoned spouse to be deprived of his right without fault, especially
because it is more insul ng to Christ for a bap zed person to fall back into
heresy than for a born heathen to refuse to be converted to the profession
of Christ.”
In addi on to this, for several centuries the church at Modena
embraced this judgment, that if someone had contracted marriage with
Barbara with legi mate words and sincerely but had not yet had
intercourse with her and later contracted with Cornelia and did have
intercourse with her, he would be compelled to leave the first and live with
the second. Innocent, the Roman pon ff, publicly rescinded this
“diametrically” [ex diametro], as they say, pronouncing a different
judgment, namely, that the first was the lawful wife and that what
happened in the case of the second was adultery, not matrimony (as is
clear from [Ius canonicum,] decretal. epistol., bk. 4, tle 4, c. tuas dudum,
and tle 4, c. licet). Alexander III indicates in his rescript that his
predecessors, that is, Roman popes, had at one me decreed and defined
what Innocent condemns in the church of Modena, etc., not to men on
that in a case of faith the University of Paris once publicly rejected the
decision of the Roman pon ff and forced him to recant, if we can trust the
histories. All of this comes from Erasmus, the “beloved son” of the Roman
pope, Leo X. The points that Bellarmine makes to cover and excuse those
palpable contradic ons of the decrees of the Roman pon ffs immediately
reveal their weakness at first glance. William Whitaker (Controv. de pon f.
Rom., q. 6) evaluates them carefully.

Regarding the agreement of the Papists

§ 239. (III) “All Catholics who are sca ered throughout the world now
think the same way about all the dogmas of faith. They cannot think
otherwise, because they subject their own understanding to the
understanding of one and the same supreme shepherd, who directs the
church from the throne of Peter with the counsel of other shepherds.”
Franciscus Costerus boasts with almost the same words (Ench. controvers.,
ch. de ecclesia): “All Catholics everywhere in the world steadfastly retain
the same faith under one head, the Roman pon ff, whom all princes and
kings obey as the vicar of Christ. They say the same thing, they think the
same thing, they believe the same thing in all ma ers. Not even in the
least ar cle of religion do they differ.”
We respond. ** Before the mes of Luther, learned and intelligent men
complained about errors of doctrine, about the many abuses and
supers ons that had crept into the church. See the wri ng of the
University of Paris, De periculis ecclesiae, that was composed around AD
1389; and the Specul. aureum papae, ejus curiae, praelatorum et aliorum
spiritualium, wri en almost two hundred years earlier; likewise, the works
of the Italians Franciscus Petrarch, Joh. Bap sta Mantuanus, Johannes
Picus Mirandulanus, Lauren us Valla, and Hieronymus Savonarola; the
Englishmen William of Occam and Robert Barnes; the Germans John
Wessel and the Abbot of Sponheim; the Frenchman Jean Gerson (De vita
spirituali animae, De potestate ecclesiae, and De auferibilitate papae);
Marsilius Patavinus (trea se De transla one imperii and his book De
defensione pacis); Antonius de Rosellis (De potestate papae et
imperatoris); Albericus de Rosate and Petrus Ferrariensis, at various places
in their commentaries; the Confuta o primatus papae, wri en by
Gregorius Heimburgensis 170 years ago; and countless others. **
We concede that in the pope’s kingdom today there is an external unity,
but we deny that the true internal unity in the catholic faith and in Christ
belongs to that external unity. Ma hias Flacius Illyricus wrote the book De
sec s, dissidiis et dissensionibus Pon ficiorum, and in it he sets up seven
kinds of papis c concord: (1) The first is satanic and stems from the devil,
who sees to it that by all means that kingdom of his vicar is not destroyed,
“for if Satan is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?” (Matt.
12:25; Luke 11:18). Consequently, though many cardinals and bishops
and even many orders of monks disagree vehemently among themselves
and become u erly hos le to each other, they nonetheless conceal and
hide their disagreements, lest any harm befall the pope’s kingdom, of
which they profess themselves to be subjects.
 (2) The second kind of concord is poli cal, when people agree because
they subject themselves to the command and will of one monarch. So also
Papist writers subject all their words to the judgment of one pope. In this
way they depart from the bright light of Scripture and go into his favor.
Thomas (Sent., 4, dist. 27, q. 3, art. 1) argues about the ques on: “Can a
learned, pious, and suitable man who is bigamous not properly but
canonically” (that is, “bigamous” by a Papist fic on because he married a
widow who was once married) “be elected and promoted to be a priest or
bishop?” A er offering sound reasons and clear statements of Scripture in
favor of the affirma ve side, he finally yields to the nega ve and adds this
reason alone: that “the pope has said and commanded the contrary in his
decretals.” Although Gabriel Biel (Lec ones super canonem missae, lect.
57) had confirmed with many arguments that “papal indulgences are of no
benefit to souls in purgatory,” nevertheless a er his book was published,
seeing the bulls of Popes Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII, which “were correctly
giving indulgences to the dead,” he retracted his prior opinion, according
to Molinaeus. All bishops are held bound to the Roman pon ff by the
ghtest bond of an oath because of which they do not dare to contradict
him even in the slightest ma er, nor do they have free tongues in councils.
As a result Aeneas Sylvius, called Pius II (as it is reported in the
Paralipomena of Urspergensis), wrote to the [cathedral] chapter of Mainz:
“A bishop sins against the oath sworn to the pope if he contradicts the
pope even in speaking the truth.” The same Sylvius (De ges s concilii
Basileensis) men ons an u erly true complaint of the fathers of that
council, one s ll worth repea ng today: “You see how few bishops there
are with us. They ought to be removing the corrup ons of the church, and
how greatly they dread the earthly face of the powerful” (pon ff)!
(3) The third kind of unity is bru sh or beastly, when people know
nothing about religion but mindlessly [instar gruum] follow the opinion of
others, saying that what is commonly accepted is true. Such unity belongs
to most of the laymen in the pope’s kingdom, for they accept without
examina on and inves ga on whatever the monks and sacrificers set
before them. A er all, they are not allowed to read the Scriptures but are
commanded to listen to their ordinary pastors, whatever they set forth.
Hence Bellarmine argues (De clericis, bk. 1, ch. 7): “Indeed, the people
ought to discern a true prophet from a false one, but not by any other rule
except by no ng whether the one who is preaching is saying things
contrary to what his predecessors said, contrary to what other ordinary
pastors are saying, and especially contrary to what the apostolic” (Roman)
“see and the principal church are saying.” In the same place he concludes:
“When the ordinary pastor and some other uncalled preacher teach
contrary ideas, the people surely should follow their own pastor rather
then the other one who is not their pastor, even if it should by chance
happen that their pastor was wrong.” Here we should men on the collier
whom Satan tested and asked about his faith. He answered, “I believe just
as the church believes.” When the devil became insistent and asked, “What
is the faith of the church?” he answered, “The church believes what I
believe.” We should also men on the merchant of Piacenza. (Gregorius de
Valen a commends this merchant so highly in his Analysis de eccles., p.
205, that he writes: “God would have absolutely nothing to be able to say
against him in that fearful judgment.”) This merchant claimed that he
wanted to embrace the Papist rather then the Lutheran religion especially
because there he could learn the truth by a kind of summary, namely, if he
would affirm what the pope affirmed and deny what the pope denied. But
here, on the other hand, if he wished to become a Lutheran, he would
have to learn the catechism and study Scripture, etc.
(4) The fourth kind of unity is Iscario c, when men who have been
corrupted with gi s and rewards believe the same thing. This cause keeps
many people in the papal unity. Sleidanus (Histor., bk. 7) reports that the
boast was once made in a proverb that “the poor and insignificant Luther
enriched many people because his a ackers received full honors from the
pope and bishops, and many defended oil and chrism with the result that
they departed richer [unc ores].” Who does not know that Eck was
persuaded by a bribe to write against Luther? Erasmus was also solicited to
turn his pen against Luther for bribes, but he answered: “Luther is too
great for me to wish to rise up against him.” Why do they s ll today
struggle so much against allowing the regula on of the Peace of Passau
(which permits any estate of the empire to cross over from the Papist faith
to the Augsburg Confession without harm to reputa on, dignity, and rule)
to be extended to bishops so that they, too, would retain their episcopates
if they embrace the teaching of the Augsburg Confession, unless they are
afraid that this would harm the pope’s kingdom? Aeneas Sylvius reports:
“Many fathers of the Council of Basel were induced onto the side of Pope
Eugenius with rewards and gi s.” Jacobus Almainus (in his books Contra
Cajetanum) writes among other things: “Very many men are preaching the
authority of the pope not because this is the way they believe but only to
gain the favor of the pope for themselves and draw ecclesias cal benefices
to themselves by this fla ery.”
** In the chronicle of a Carthusian monk of Cologne called Fasciculus
temporum and published many years ago in AD 1044, we read the
following:
In regard to the plurality of benefices that seem to have become so prevalent in these mes
and that have gone on and on con nually, there are so many wri ngs of the fathers that
bemoan the ambi on of the priests and their stain of simony, detes ng those abuses. Note
how easily we have found poor clergymen and doctors who censured the plurality of
benefices and the pomp of churchmen un l they were offered the opportunity to share in
them. Once they accepted these, their greed made them all blind. A story is told about a
teacher of great literature who argued very lo ily against the riches of prelates and their
arrogance as if it were not at all permissible to live in this way. When these things had been
reported to our lord the pope, he responded with applause: “Let us give him a good posi on
of oversight and this and that benefice, and that will please him.” And that is what
happened. And behold, he completely changed his opinion and said, “I have never
understood this ma er before now.” To be sure, he who was rich concerning poverty now
suddenly appeared boas ul concerning the contemp ble. **

(5) The fi h kind is a tyrannical and servile concord, in which people are
forbidden to think otherwise by threats, persecu on, and imprisonment.
Thus in the papacy one is not allowed even to mu er against the tyranny
and wicked deeds of the pope, against his abuses, supers ons, and
idolatry. (See the German book about the tyrannical mystery of the Spanish
Inquisi on, published in Hamburg in 1611 by Joachim Beringer, and the
trea se of Petrus Asilus the lawyer, De tyrannide Romanorum pon ficum,
published in Frankfurt in 1594.) In 1523 in the Diet of Nuremberg, the
estates of the Roman Empire zealously begged and urged that a free,
Chris an council be called in Germany; that the pope free all the bishops
and prelates from the binding of their oath, by which, otherwise, they
were being held as slaves, having been bound to it; that, on the other
hand, a contrary oath to promote the truth and the public good without
respect for any person would obligate them very severely. The papal legate
took this very hard, completely refused, and said, “This is nothing else than
binding the hands of the pope.” In an Ora o synodica Trident. on
September 4, 1562, given before the fathers of the council in the name of
the king of France, the following points were listed:
We know that councils were called in the memory of our fathers and grandfathers, that the
bishops assembled, that very great assemblies convened in Germany and Italy. Hardly any or
very li le benefit came to Chris anity from them. I do not wish to inquire too subtly into the
reasons. I do not want to gather rumors and breezes. Surely I cannot pass over what, I am
afraid, is very per nent to the subject, that those councils are said to have been less
legi mate and less free. Those who were present always spoke—or, rather, nodded—to the
will of another; and in ma ers of judgment, nothing can be more destruc ve, nothing more
deadly, than this.

Yet despite this very serious admoni on of the French orator, that papal
tyranny s ll dominated the Council of Trent. In regard to this, let us listen
to a conspicuous witness, Vergerius, who writes in a Le er ad regem
Poloniae, p. 119:
I was cast out of that mee ng [synagoga] for no other reason except this one. I had been in
Germany for some me as the mediator for the two popes and somehow learned of this
case. The suspicion then arose that I was properly acquainted with the en re situa on and
was of such a way of thinking that I would easily permit some bishops to persuade me to go
ahead and speak against the pope as if preparing the way. Only because of that suspicion
was I thrown out, etc. A er me, another man was also ejected, Jacobus Nachiantes, bishop
of Chioggia. When the decree of the third session was being read, he said with piety and
great modesty that the words seemed harsh to him and were borrowed from [Ius
canonicum,] dist. 11., c. ecclesiast., in which it was said that people must accept and respect
those things that the Papists call tradi ons with the same affec on of piety and with the
same reverence as the Gospel itself. He said that there was nothing that could be compared
with the Gospel by any means. Merely because of this the legates commanded him to leave
Trent and to go to Rome to determine if perhaps the pope might forgive him for having been
so rash as to have dared to speak against a decree established by the very pope of Rome.

Page 122:
There was no decree nor canon read in the Council of Trent that had not been sent from
Rome. As soon as they heard one read, those wretched creatures were compelled to nod
their mitered heads and to declare humbly: “I agree,” even though they might feel that their
conscience was being wounded either because at mes they did not understand what it was
that they were approving, for most of them were quite ignorant and unlearned, or because
some were not even aware that it was against the Word of God.

(6) The sixth kind of unity is a Herodian concord, since the Papists do
not agree in all things but are agreed in that one extreme when they must
act against Protestants. In just this way Herod and Pilate once disagreed
with each other as greatly as possible but were in agreement about killing
Christ. It is evident from the histories that there were many dissensions
among the popes, cardinals, bishops, monks, etc. The other orders of
monks a ack the Jesuit Society with extreme hatred, and this not unjustly,
because “the genera ng of one is the corrup on of another.” At the same
me the Jesuits expel the other monks just as a lazy swarm expels bees
from their pris ne hives and takes their place, or just as foxes drive out
badgers from their burrows with the fe d stench of their dung. My very
illustrious prince, Lord John Casimir, the most senior of the dukes of
Saxony, at mes used this comparison in conference with Johann Philipp
von Gebsa el, bishop of Bamberg.
(7) The seventh and final kind of unity is extrinsic and accidental and
consists not of an inner unity of religion but of a conformity of ceremonies,
rituals, and external worship. You see, though the Papists carry on bi er
conflicts and disagreements about various ar cles of faith, yet they
somehow show an appearance of unity with their similarity of ceremonies.
Because of this Luther was correct in wri ng in his book Contra regem
Angliae (La n, vol. 2, f. 513): “Under the pope there is indeed an outward
display of unity, but within there is nothing but the most confused
Babylon.”

The general disagreements of the Papist faith

§ 240. Flacius, in the book cited earlier, divides the Papist disagreements
that destroy the unity of faith into general and specific. He calls those
“general” that concern the actual body of Papist doctrine which was
modified and changed quite o en at various mes and did not always have
the same appearance. He lists five such diverse and varying forms of Papist
theology. (1) The first, Lombardic theology, began around 1150. In its
ar cle on jus fica on, the main thing was a chaos mixed together from
grace and our works. In many points this Lombardic theology was purer
than today’s Papist theology, as can be demonstrated from the four books
of the Senten ae. Consequently, even the men of Paris note very o en in
the margin: “Here the master is not held.”
(2) The second is Scholas c theology, which began almost a hundred
years a er the Lombardic theology. In its ar cle of jus fica on, the main
thing was that by bare human works—yet works that are done according
to God’s commandments—one obtains jus fica on and salva on. There
are different orders of Scholas cs who differ very much from each other.
Among these, the Thomists, Sco sts, Occamists, etc., are prominent.
** The theologians of the Sorbonne condemned quite a few dogmas in
Thomas, which is clear from those things that are added at the end of the
Magister senten arum about the errors of the men of Paris that had been
condemned. See the edi on of Lombard printed with the privilege of his
majesty, the emperor (Colon.: apud viduam Johann. Bircmanni, 1576), ff.
479–83. Here the contradic ons in ar cles of faith as well as the erroneous
and here cal dogmas of Thomas Aquinas are condemned. **
Wesselus, a theologian of Paris, complains: “The Senten arians differ
and disagree among themselves so much that you can scarcely find one or
two of their number who steadfastly agree on one and the same
sentence.” The same thing is admi ed by Roffensis (Contra Lutherum) and
by Archbishop Ambrosius Catharinus, the assessor of the Council of Trent,
in his wri ngs published Contra Dominicum a Soto. Ludovicus Vives,
Comment. de civitat. Dei, bk. 18, ch. 18:
Theologians debate whether the power to create can be communicated to a creature, about
which Thomas has much to say, whose arguments Scotus tries to weaken to strengthen his
own, which Occam tries to undermine to set up his own. But those, too, were displaced by
Pierre d’Ailly. Thus they are either playing around in a serious ma er, or they are forcing a
heavenly ma er to be in service to their own emo ons and fac ons.

Lombard and the Scholas cs do not conceal this, for Lombard writes as
follows (Sent., 2, dist. 30, le er E): “In regard to original sin, the Scholas c
doctors have thought in different ways.” Dionysius Carthusianus, Sent., 1,
dist. 2, q. 2: “The ques on regarding the dis nc on of the divine a ributes
is one of the foremost difficul es of the theological faculty. Concerning it,
we find among the renowned doctors dissent, inquiry, conten on. Aegidius
lacerates Thomas viciously, and the others take sides.”
(3) The third is monas c theology. In its ar cle of jus fica on, the main
thing was that the hope of salva on is based on papal indulgences, works
of supereroga on, and self-chosen services. From this they indoctrinated
the people to worship images, put their confidence in saints, undertake
pilgrimages to holy places, pay for monas c brotherhoods, funeral Masses,
vigils, etc. They extolled the legends of their saints and their fic ous
miracles in their sermons.
 (4) The fourth is interimis c theology. When the light of the Gospel
made those palpable errors obvious, the pope-worshipers began to be a
li le more cau ous. They either rejected or covered the more crass of
these dogmas. As a result, the book Metaxycus admits that we are jus fied
by faith in Christ, but only by a faith formed through love. It concedes that
we are saved through the merits of Christ alone but adds that good works
are necessary for salva on. It admits that the Mass is not a propi atory
sacrifice but adds that it is an applicatory [sacrifice] through which the
already acquired merit of Christ is applied to us.
(5) The fi h is the modern Jesuit theology, which in many points
contradicts the Scholas cs and Papist writers of earlier mes. In fact, it
does not even agree with itself in all the ar cles of faith. In its doctrine of
jus fica on, the main thing is that the habitual righteousness which avails
before God consists of an infused habit, while actual righteousness consists
in the merits of works.

Their specific disagreements

§ 241. The specific disagreements of the Papists and Jesuits can be
reduced to these two main points: some concern the principle of religion,
while others concern the other ar cles of faith deduced from that
principle.
The only principle of theology is the Word of God set forth in the
canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. But what the truly
canonical books are is not yet agreed on among Papists. The Council of
Trent, session 4, adds Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesias cus, and the two
books of the Maccabees to the canonical books. Cardinal Cajetan, however,
follows Jerome in excluding them from the canon. Benedictus Arias
Montanus, whom Pope Gregory XIII calls his “son” (in the Bibl. Hebraic.
published with an interlinear transla on and approved by the theologians
of Louvain), passes the following judgment about those books: “The
orthodox church has followed the Hebrew canon and lists them among the
apocryphal wri ngs.” The same claim is made by Archbishop Antoninus
(part 3, tle 18, ch. 5), Dionysius Carthusianus (commentary on Genesis),
Fransiscus Picus (De fide et ordine credendi, theor. 5), Erasmus (Symb.
catech. 4, p. 153), etc. Consequently, Pererius writes clearly (commentary
on Daniel, preface to bk. 16, p. 742): “Many Catholics claim with us that
those controversial books are apocryphal.” Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth., bk. 1)
and Stapleton (Princ. fidei doctr., bk. 9, ch. 6) call some Old Testament
books “protocanonical” and some “deuterocanonical.” Therefore they
surely must not all be of equal authority. Pope Adrian ([Ius canonicum,]
dist. 16, c. sextam) canonized the sixth Council of Constan nople. But this
council confirmed the Council of Laodicea, which removes those books
from the canon. Pistorius (Apostasia Badensis, first mo ve, p. 34) accuses
Luther of “having torn the last two books of Esdras out of the Bible.”
Genebrardus (Chronol., p. 90) contends that “the fourth book of Esdras
belongs to the canon.” But Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 20) admits:
“Third and Fourth Esdras are apocryphal.” In fact, he even adds: “In 4
Esdras are contained some fables and dreams of the talmudic rabbis.” (He
repeats this in De verbo Dei, bk. 2, ch. 1.) Thus Johannes Driedo (Catalog.
script., bk. 1, ch. 4, ad difficult. 11) admits that the book of Baruch is
outside the canon. Canus, too, says (Loci, bk. 12, ch. 6): “The church has
placed it in the number of the sacred books, but not very carefully nor
firmly.” But Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 8) contends that it is
canonical. Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth., bk. 1, sect. 3) follows Lyra and rejects
the supplement of Esther from the canon. But the rest of the Papists
a ribute canonical authority to it. Following Jerome, Johannes Driedo
(Catal. script., bk. 1, last chapter), Ludovicus Vives (In August. de civ. Dei,
bk. 18, ch. 31), and Sixtus Senensis (Biblioth., bk. 1, sect. 8) reject the
apocryphal chapters of Daniel, namely, the account of Susanna and of Bel
and the Dragon. But the rest of the Papists accept them as canonical.
Almost all the Papists admit that 3 and 4 Maccabees are outside the canon,
but Franciscus Turrianus (Pro canonibus apostolorum, bk. 1, ch. 11) urges
strongly that “Third Maccabees be taken into the canon.” In fact,
Bellarmine even contradicts himself strongly in the ques on of the
canonical books of the Old Testament, for he admits (De verbo Dei, bk. 1,
ch. 7): “Ezra established the Hebrew canon,” and he numbers him with the
prophets (De verbo Dei, bk. 2, ch. 2). Therefore those who, under the
thunderbolt of an anathema, command that those books which Ezra did
not accept into the canon be considered as canonical contradict prophe c
authority. The fathers of the Council of Trent, as well as Bellarmine, do this.
Therefore.
 The fathers of the Council of Trent—and the Jesuits follow them—deny
that one can appeal from the La n Vulgate version to the Hebrew text in
the Old Testament and to the Greek in the New. But in the Ius canonicum
(dist. 9, c. Ut veterem) that is commanded expressly. This very thing is
approved with many arguments by Ludovicus Vives (In August. de civ. Dei,
bk. 14, ch. 8; bk. 15, ch. 13); Benedictus Arias Montanus, one of the
fathers of the Council of Trent (preface to his Opus biblicum); and by
Erasmus, called “beloved son” by Leo X (in his transla on and Annot. of the
New Testament). Maldonatus, commentary on Matthew 8: “I think that
our La n Vulgate should be corrected here from the Greek.” Franciscus
Lucas, preface to his Annot. in Bibl.: “This response of some people is
ridiculous, that the La n Vulgate is authen c and must not be corrected
according to the Hebrew and Greek texts.”
Some claim that the Hebrew sources are corrupt: Lindanus (De opt. gen.
interpr., bk. 1, ch. 2) and Canus (Loci, bk. 2, ch. 13). Johannes Isaacus,
Benedictus Arias Montanus, and Andrada show the opposite.
Bellarmine argues and, indeed, correctly (De verbo Dei, bk. 3, ch. 3):
“Efficacious arguments can be taken solely from the literal sense of Holy
Scripture, because it is certain that the sense that is gathered immediately
from the words is the meaning of the Holy Spirit.” But Cardinal Cusanus
(Le ers 2 and 3 de communione sub una specie ad Bohemos) contends:
“The Scriptures were adapted to their me and have been understood in
various ways so that it would be explained at one me according to the
universal ritual then current; and when that ritual was changed, the
judgment of the church and even of God was changed.”
The Jesuits commonly deny that Scripture is perfect, that is, that it
contains all things that pertain to faith and behavior. But in addi on to the
very clear statements of the Scholas cs from Thomas, Scotus,
Cameracensis, Durandus, Bonaventure, Biel, etc., cited in favor of the
perfec on of Scripture, even more recent Papists cast their vote for our
posi on. Cajetan, commentary on 2 Timothy 3: “Scripture is useful for the
reproof of doctrine, etc., that the man of God may be perfect, that is, it is
whole, being composed of all the requirements to perfect the man of
God.” Costerus (Enchir., p. 48): “We do not deny that those chief dogmas of
faith necessary to all for their salva on are contained clearly enough in
Scripture.” Bellarmine (De verbo Dei, bk. 4, ch. 11): “I say that the apostles
wrote down all those things which are necessary to all people and which
they preached to all people openly and commonly.” In the Colloquy of
Regensburg (Speyer edi on of 1602, § 216), at the passage of Augus ne
(De unit. eccles., ch. 16) that our people cited, the Jesuits openly noted
that “they were prepared to demonstrate their church on the basis of
Scripture alone against the Lutherans and, in fact, that they could defend
their ar cles of faith sufficiently on the basis of Scripture alone against
those who do not accept the authority of the church and of councils.” In an
equal manner, Pistorius boasts: “I want to debate with the Lutherans and
convict them of their errors on the basis of Scripture alone.” This is
contradicted by Eck, however, who confessed at the Diet of Augsburg
before Duke Wilhelm of Bavaria: “We can refute the Lutheran religion in
some way from the fathers, to be sure, but not from Scripture” (as it is
reported in Luther’s works, German, vol. 5, f. 35). From this, Albertus
Pighius (De eccles. hier., bk. 1, ch. 4) disapproves of that contest. He says:
“If we had been mindful of this doctrine” (namely, that one must not argue
with the Lutherans on the basis of the Scriptures), “our situa on certainly
would have been be er. But when we went down to a contest of the
Scriptures with Luther for the sake of showing our abili es and learning,
this blaze was s rred up that—alas!—we now see.”
The Council of Trent (sess. 4, c. 1) decreed that tradi ons pertaining to
both faith and behavior “must be accepted with an equal affec on of piety
and with reverence as the wri en books [are accepted].” But Jacobus
Nachiantes, archbishop of Chioggia, said in the very Council of Trent:
“Those words seem quite harsh to me, for there is nothing that can be
compared with the Gospel.” Vergerius (Le er ad reg. Polan., f. 119) and
Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius argue: “The wri en Gospel holds first place, but
next are tradi ons.”
Most Papists claim that laypeople should be forbidden to read Scripture,
but it seemed otherwise to Claudius Espencaeus, theologian at the
Sorbonne (commentary on Titus 2 and 2 Timothy 3): “There are some
who believe that the Scriptures are too difficult to be put into the hands of
the laity, but it seemed otherwise to the fathers of the Old and New
Testaments.”
§ 242. The Papists do not admit that Holy Scripture is the only and
proper principle of theology. Rather, as their principle they have the
authority of the church, that is, as the final analysis shows, of the Roman
pon ff. But, indeed, they do not agree even in this. Bellarmine (De pon f.
Rom., bk. 4, ch. 2) argues about the judgment of the pope as to whether it
is sure and infallible, and he lists four different opinions: “First, that the
pope as pope, though he may define something with a general council, can
be here cal in himself and can teach heresy to others—and that this, in
fact, has some mes happened.” He a ributes this idea to us (whom this
man, who is so completely saturated with heresies, calls “here cs”).
** But Tostatus himself (Defens., part 2, ch. 30) writes: “The pope can
err in faith and works and can become a here c, as is apparent in the cases
of Marcellinus, Liberius, and John XXII. Furthermore, it does not follow that
if the pope condemns some proposi on as here cal, it is therefore
here cal.” **
The second opinion he a ributes to those who claim “that the pope
even as pope can be a here c and teach heresy if he defines something
without a general council—and that this has some mes happened. This
opinion,” he says, “is supported by Nilus (in his book Adversus primatum
papae) and is followed by several men of Paris, such as Gerson and Almain
(in their books De potestate ecclesiae), and by Alphonsus de Castro (Contra
haereses, bk. 1, ch. 2) and Pope Adrian VI (Quaes o de confirma one). All
of these set infallibility of judgment concerning ma ers of faith not in the
pope but only in the church or in a general council.”
“The third opinion is that the pope can by no means be a here c nor
teach heresy publicly, even if he is the only one to define something.” This
is how Albertus Pighius writes (Hier. eccles., bk. 4, ch. 8).
“The fourth opinion is that whether or not the pope can be a here c, he
cannot in any way define something here cal to be believed by the en re
church.”
A erward he adds a judgment about each of these opinions. He says:
“The first is here cal. The second is not properly here cal, for we see that
the church is s ll tolera ng those who follow that opinion. Yet it seems to
be completely erroneous and very close to heresy. The third is probable
but not certain. The fourth is most certain, and it should be asserted.” Yet if
it is not here cal to claim that “the pope even as pope can be here cal,”
what happens to the certainty of that principle toward which the Papist
faith is ul mately directed, that the judgment of the Roman pon ff is
infallible?
Here we should men on what Bellarmine writes in clear language (in
the same book, ch. 7, § 2): “It is not completely certain” (in the Roman
church) “whether or not the pope can be a here c,” as well as what he
debates laboriously (in De pon f., bk. 2, ch. 30): “… whether a here cal
pope can be deposed,” where he lists five opinions of Catholics. Yet if it is
impossible for the pope to become a here c, for what purpose does he
argue “whether a here cal pope can be deposed”? This is exactly as if a
person were arguing whether holy angels who have fallen into sin can be
driven out of heaven, though a er their confirma on in goodness they
cannot fall into sin. Therefore the ques on as to whether they can be
thrown out of heaven is a vain one.
Furthermore, just as they do not yet agree on the infallibility of the
judgment of the pope, so also they do not yet agree on his authority over a
council. Many claim that the authority of a council is greater than that of
the pope, such as Cameracensis and Gerson (in their books De potestate
ecclesiae), Occam (bk. 6, part 1), Cusanus (De concord. Cathol., bk. 2, last
chapter), Alphonsus (Contra haeres., bk. 1, ch. 8), and the Sorbonne at
Paris. In fact, Aeneas Sylvius himself, who later became Pope Pius II, writes
clearly (De ges s concil. Basil., bk. 1, f. 5): “It is necessary that the pope be
subject to a council. I dwell in the statement of Jerome as in a very fer le
field, where he says: The authority of the world is greater than the city. The
authority of the pope who is in charge of the Roman church is great. But
the authority of the church universal is greater. If the church universal is
the mother of all, then she has the Roman pon ff as her son. Otherwise he
will not have God as his Father, because he does not have the church as his
mother.”
** Nauclerus (anno 1409): “In the year 1409 some cardinals and
bishops, 134 theologians, and 300 lawyers assembled a council at Pisa.
Because there were two popes at that me—one of whom was si ng in
Avignon, France (namely, Benedict XIII), and the other had established his
see at Rome in Italy (namely, Gregory XIII)—the Council of Pisa deposed
both as here cal and sedi ous and selected in place of them Alexander V,
whom the earlier popes, who had been deposed by the council, declared a
here c.” Now this difficult ques on arises: Was either of the two whom
the council had deposed, or Alexander V, the genuine pope? If the former,
Alexander V must be here cal and schisma c, and his successors must
have had their ordina on from a here c, and moreover, the succession
must have been interrupted. If the la er, a council must be above the
pope. The Council of Basel likewise “deposed two popes who were
contending fiercely over the Roman see like vultures.” In their place it
elected Felix V in 1431. At the me of Emperor Sigismund the Council of
Constance “deposed three popes”: John XXIII, Gregory XII, and Benedict
XIII. Then, a er a two-and-a-half-year period had elapsed, they selected
Mar n in their place. **
On the other hand there are those who try to prove that the pope is
above a council, such as Canus (Loci, bk. 5, ch. 5), Pighius (De eccles.
hierarch., bk. 6, ch. 13), Cajetan (Pecul. tract.), and Turrianus (Defens. locor.
script., p. 294), where he writes: “To claim that a council is above the pope
is to revolt against nature and is nothing else than to put the part ahead of
the whole.” From this, Bellarmine (De concil., bk. 2, ch. 13) admits in
express words: “The ques on about this ma er survives among Catholics
un l this day.” Yet if the judgment of the pope is the principle of faith, if
infallibility is to be sought formally and principally in the pope, it surely
ought to be certain that he is above a council, inasmuch as he alone grants
and communicates his infallibility to it. But if it is not yet certain that the
pope is above a council, then surely the judgment of the pope cannot be
the principle of faith.
Finally, some denied that ul mate jurisdic on and power in temporal
ma ers belong to the pope: Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor pacis); the
author of Onus ecclesiae (ch. 20, § 6); Albericus de Rosate (Lexicon, on the
word elec o); Petrus Ferrariensis (in forma libelli Act. confess. verb.
plenam); Petrus de Vineis, chancellor of Frederick II (in his Le ers); Michael
Ulcurunnus Pampilonensis (in his trea se De regim. mundi, for Emperor
Charles V); Hieron. Venderamus (Assert. contra detractores reipubl.
Venetae); etc. The contrary is claimed by Franciscus Bozzius (who wrote De
temporali ecclesiae monarchia quinque libri and published it at Cologne in
1602); Mariana (De rege, bk. 1, ch. 2); and Mar nus Becanus (in his
wri ngs Contra regem Angliae, which were condemned by a public decree
of the University of Paris). Bellarmine (De pont., bk. 5, ch. 6) uses this
dis nc on: “Although the pope as pope has no merely temporal power, yet
he does, in rela on to spiritual good, have the supreme power of making
decisions over the temporal ma ers of all Chris ans.” Barclay, however,
refuted this opinion of Bellarmine in his published wri ngs. Barclay writes
(De potestate papae, ch. 13, p. 101): “I learned from the fathers of the
Jesuit order that Sixtus V was not at all pleased to learn from Bellarmine
that temporal power belongs to the pope only indirectly. Thus it had
almost reached the point that all his works, which a ack heresy today with
great success, were hidden by papal censure to the great harm of the
church.” Surely, Sixtus himself openly refuted Bellarmine’s dis nc on when
he declared (in his bull Contra Henricum III. Franciae): “I hold the supreme
power over all kings and princes of all the earth and over all peoples,
tribes, and na ons. It has been handed down to me not by human but by
divine ins tu on.”
§ 243. There is no less disagreement in the other ar cles. In the ar cle
on the person of Christ, almost all the Jesuits have followed the Scholas cs
and claim: “Christ is the Mediator only according to His human nature.”
Lombard (Sent., 3, dist. 19), Bellarmine (De Christo, bk. 5, ch. 3), and
Pistorius (Hodeg., p. 161) call it “blasphemy if Christ is thought to be
Mediator according to both natures.” But Bishop Claudius Espencaeus
(commentary on 1 Timothy 2; trea se De Christo mediat., chs. 2 and 5)
extensively and carefully refutes this error and the arguments that are
offered to establish it. Also Suarez (In Thomam, vol. 1, q. 1, art. 2, disp. 4,
sect. 5) shows: “I am not at all pleased with the way of speaking that
denies that Christ made sa sfac on to Himself and to the en re Trinity for
us because that is openly contrary to Scripture.” He cites the apostle’s
statement: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” [2 Cor.
5:19]. He says: “Here, just as God is said to be in Christ by reason of His
divine nature, so by reason of the same nature He is said to have
reconciled the world to Himself.”
In the ar cle on elec on, Bellarmine (De grat. et libr. arbit., bk. 2, ch. 9),
Franciscus Suarez, and some others deny “that predes na on to glory was
done on the basis of foreseen merits.” Consequently, they also make a
dis nc on between the predes ning and the execu ng will. But Becanus
(Theol. scholast., part 1, tract. 1, ch. 14, p. 146) argues extensively against
that opinion and concludes: “God has efficaciously elected some to glory
on the basis of foreseen merits.” In favor of this opinion he calls on not
only the ancients, but he also cites Pighius, Osorius, Ruardus, Driedo, Eck,
Turrianus, Stapleton, Ludovicus Molina, Gregorius de Valen a, Vasquez,
etc. In 1614 Jacob Hacker, professor of theology at the University of
Freiburg, published a trea se on predes na on in which he refutes the
disputa on of Andreas Urcianus on the same ma er and to which thirteen
brothers and fathers of various orders had subscribed. He divided it into
four elementary parts: lies, heresies, contradic ons, and foul language.
Bellarmine (De grat. et lib. arbit., bk. 1, chs. 12 and 13) tries to prove from
the Scriptures, the fathers, and reason that “God bestows on some people
grace sufficient for their conversion, but it is not effectual to convert
them.” But Paulus Bennius (in his book De efficac. gra ae, dedicated to
Clement VIII, ch. 14) argues extensively against that dis nc on. He says:
“Through lack of reflec on some of our na ve theologians allowed those
things to the Jesuits and incau ously fell into various rough spots. To say
that we can only have the possibility of conversion through sufficient grace
but that to be actually converted is considered as coming from effec ve
grace is nothing else than gran ng possibility without possibility and
speaking things that conflict with each other.” In favor of his opinion he
also cites Osorius and Johannes Antoninus Delphensis, who was present at
the Council of Trent.
In the ar cle on the image of God, Bellarmine (De gra a primi hominis,
ch. 2) and almost all the Jesuits claim: “The image of God consists of the
essen al facul es of the soul: mind, will, and memory. The likeness of God
consists of the quali es of the soul: the intellect illumined by faith,
memory strengthened by hope, and will strengthened by love.” But
Pererius (on Genesis, bk. 4, p. 474) refutes this opinion. On the basis of the
immovable founda ons of Scripture he proves that the words “image”
[imago] and “likeness” [similitudo] mean the same thing.
In the ar cle on original sin they foster many disagreements. Jacobus
Faber (commentary on Romans 5) teaches: “We draw nothing from Adam
except an obliga on to die.” Albertus Pighius (Controv. de pecc. orig.) and
Ambrosius Catharinus (De laps. hom. et pecc. orig., ch. 6) claim: “Original
sin does not have what is truly sin but is only guilt, by which the
descendants of the first parents are held bound because of their primeval
transgression, but without any defect of their own and depravity inhering
in their nature.” Ruardus Tapperus (Art. de pecc. orig.) writes: “I find
nothing in a newborn baby that truly and properly has what is sin.”
Cornelius, a canon of Cologne, argues (Animadv., vol. 2): “Original sin is not
properly sin because it is not a defect of the perfec on necessary for
blessedness,” etc. On this point they follow some of the Scholas cs, for
Durandus (Sent., 1, dist. 30, q. 2) argues: “Original sin is mere guilt [reatus]
and by no means can and should be called fault [culpa].” Occam (Dial., ch.
2) says: “If I were not restrained by the authority of the fathers, I would say
that original sin is nothing else but divine nonaccepta on because of
preceding demerit in another.” Bellarmine (De amiss. grat et statu pecca ,
bk. 5, ch. 6) refutes that Pelagian opinion, calling this, as gently as he
possibly could, “less correct.” Andrada (Defens. Trid., bk. 3) admits:
“Illustrious” (Papist) “theologians are s ll working very hard on the
explana on of original sin because, though the Council of Trent defined
that original sin was truly sin, it deliberately covered its proper nature in
silence.” As to whether original sin consists of a posi ve quality, Bellarmine
(De amiss. gra ae et statu pecc., bk. 5, ch. 15) admits that “there is s ll
disagreement about this among Catholics” (Papists).
As to whether blessed Mary by a special privilege was free of the taint
of original sin, there is great disagreement among them. We see this from
the controversy between the monks of the Dominican and Franciscan
orders in the year 1370. Antoninus (part 3, tle 24, c. 11, § 3, p. 315)
asserts: “St. Brigi a had a revela on that the Virgin Mary was conceived
without original sin. Blessed Catharina de Senis, of no less saintliness, as is
believed, and who was canonized, had the opposite revela on.” Catharinus
tells us that, when the Council of Trent was delibera ng over this ques on,
it seemed one way to some, the other way to the rest. Meanwhile, as the
fathers were consul ng over this ma er, the book of Cardinal de
Turrecremata was published by the master of the sacred palace and by
other theologians. It had been wri en against the immaculate concep on
of the blessed Virgin. A li le later Catharinus refuted that book with a
harsh and verbose wri ng. Jodocus Clichtovaeus published two books De
immaculata puritate concep onis B. Mariae, which purity he strives to
prove with seventeen arguments. Bellarmine (De amiss. gra ae et statu
peccat., bk. 4, ch. 15): “That the blessed Virgin was conceived without sin
is not considered among Catholics as a definite and established ma er
worthy to be held by the Catholic faith.” But this is opposed by the
determina on of the Council of Basel, which Biel (Sent., 3, dist. 3, q. 1, art.
2) pushes so hard.
In the ar cle on actual sins, they do not yet agree in all points. The
common school of the Jesuits claims: “Some sins are venial by their own
nature.” But this is rejected by Gerson (De vita spirit., lect. 1), Biel (Sent., 4,
dist. 16, q. 2, art. 1), and Roffensis, Luther’s most piercing adversary.
In regard to the ar cle on free choice, they are not agreed on the
doctrine of the efficacy of grace. Becanus (De auxil. gra ae, part 2, ch. 3,
thesis 6) argues:
The reason why the grace of God is not always effectual and why not all are converted lies in
free choice, for it is within human power to assent or not assent to grace. Whoever accepts
that grace by the power of his free choice is converted. On the other hand, whoever does
not accept it is not converted. Consequently, if one is asking for the first root for why this
grace is effectual and that grace is not, we must have recourse to the free coopera on of the
will.

But Bellarmine (De grat., bk. 1, chs. 12 and 13) openly disagrees with
Becanus. There he refutes those who claim “that grace is allo ed an effect
because the human will is coopera ng. This reason is also added, that in
this way a faithful person would be dis nguished from the unfaithful
through free choice, and the faithful could boast before the faithless,
which is contrary to 1 Cor. 4:6.”
In the ar cle on jus fica on they disagree in many ways, whether you
look at theory or prac ce, as we revealed extensively in our trea se On
Jus fica on [Commonplace XIX], § 218, toward the end of vol. 3 of our
Loci. Concerning doubt, Ambrosius Catharinus and Dominicus de Soto
disputed in public wri ngs. Almost all the Jesuits deny the imputa on of
righteousness and call it “puta ve righteousness.” But Stapleton (De
jus fic., bk. 7, ch. 9) and Vega (De jus ficat., bk. 15, ch. 20, p. 712) are
forced to admit: “Some pious Catholics and learned men have claimed that
there is no other way of preserving righteousness than if Christ’s
righteousness is imputed to us.” They almost all support the merit of
works, but Vega (Opusc. de meri s, q. 4) admits: “Many Catholics have
denied all merit.”
They commonly defend the number of the seven sacraments. But
Gregorius de Valen a (De num. sacr., chs. 3 and 7) admits: “There is no
universal consensus of Papists concerning this. Some Catholics deny that
confirma on or marriage, others that extreme unc on, are a sacrament
univocally.”
** Archbishop Ambrosius Catharinus of Minori and Domingo de Soto,
the Spanish theologian and confessor of Charles V, ba led savagely for
many years with books published partly at Rome, partly at Venice, partly at
Antwerp, about primary and completely necessary ar cles, namely, on the
certain confidence of the grace of God or doubt, on predes na on, on
original sin, on free choice, and on the hardening of a sinner. The same
Archbishop Catharinus also wrote against Cardinal Cajetan and refuted 204
errors in his works as wicked and an -Chris an. Franciscus Turrianus
reproached Catharinus, saying “that he denied that the Law of Moses is
God’s Law and that he denied that the precepts of Paul were Christ’s
precepts, and that he had this in common with the heresy of some ancient
misleaders.” In turn, Catharinus (Adv. Torrensem) accuses Turrianus of,
among other things, “declaring that the celibacy of the ministers of the
Catholic church is a commandment sanc oned by the wri en divine Law;
that bishops, presbyters, deacons, subdeacons must keep themselves
forever from their wives whom they had before; and that this was by the
command of Christ, preached by Christ and the apostles, and wri en by
Him. Therefore” (Catharinus declares) “the en re assembly of Scholas cs
was wrong, as was also Thomas, who taught that con nence was owed
only on the basis of a statute of the church,” etc. **
How many contradic ons occur in the ar cle on the Supper! The same is
true in the ques on on transubstan a on, Communion under one kind,
consecra on, etc.
Some claim that celibacy is connected by divine command to holy
orders: Clichtovaeus (De con nent. sacerd., ch. 4), Franciscus Turrianus,
Pererius, Michael Medina, etc. But others argue the contrary, that celibacy
is “not by divine command but from the custom and decree of the church”:
Cajetan (Opusc., vol. 1, tract. 27), Dominicus de Soto (De jus t., bk. 7, q. 6,
art. 2), Joh. Caspar. Rulandus ( tle 16), Bellarmine (De cler., bk. 1, ch. 18;
De matrim., bk. 1, ch. 21), Costerus (Enchir., ch. 15), Petrus a Soto (Confut.
confess. Wirtemberg.), etc. Aeneas Sylvius, who later became Pope Pius II,
le this dictum: “Marriage is taken away from priests for a great reason,
but it appears that it should be restored for an even greater reason”
(according to Pla na and Sabellicus). Also, some claim that marriage is
dissolved by adultery, even with regard to the bond: Erasmus (Annot. on 1
Corinthians 7), Cajetan (in lib. proprio and in his comments on Matthew
19), Ambrosius Catharinus (Annot., bk. 5), etc. The Council of Trent (sess. 8
under Pius IV, canon 7) and Bellarmine, its protector, claim the contrary.
** Catharinus (Contra Torrensem) declares: “The Lenten fast is not a
ma er of divine Law.” He quotes Thomas, who says universally that the
determina on of a fast has been made on the basis of a statute of the
church, etc. But Turrianus (De residen a ministrorum) decrees that the
Lenten fast is a ma er of divine Law. **
What serious dissensions they foster in the other ar cles and how,
either unknowingly or compelled by the force of the truth, they fight in
favor of our belief in almost every controversy has been explained in its
own place and will also be shown in the following ar cles. See the book of
Flacius De dissensionibus, sec s ac disidiis Pon ficiorum, in which he shows
extensively:
Many popes quarreled with the Eastern and African churches, not a few established
contrary decrees, some retreated from the faith, several schisms occurred in the Roman
church, many councils opposed each other, the monas c orders rarely agree. The Thomists,
Sco sts, and Occamists disagree on many points; the mendicant monks have s rred up great
controversies. Lombard and Gra an disagree, the former of whom wrote a theology of the
conscience, while the la er wrote a judicial theology. The popes have promised
reforma ons, which are witnesses of conten ons and corrup ons. Papist doctrine
contradicts itself in many places, etc.

All this is from Flacius.

** Almost every bishopric had its own breviary, missal, peculiar
ceremonies, agenda, in fact, even its own saints, feasts, cults, and idols,
and they s ll have them. According to their diversity, they exercise
prac ces of religion in a different way from others. How many orders of
monks and nuns there are! And each order has its own saviors and
mediators, its own prescribed vestments, rules, ceremonies, par cular
saints, missals, breviaries, agendas, and ceremonial books. **
About this theme one can also see: the book of Dr. Pappus, in which he
has gathered the contradic ons of the doctors of the Roman church from
Bellarmine; Osiander’s Papa non papa; Morton’s Apologia catholica; and
Dr. Hunnius’s De papatu se ipsum destruente.
Bellarmine responds in some way to the objec on about the
disagreements of the monks and Scholas cs: “The names of the
Benedic nes, Franciscans, and Dominicans have been taken not from the
author of a doctrine but from the person who established a more severe
discipline.” He says that “the Thomist and Sco st Scholas cs do not
disagree in ma ers related to faith” and that “all Catholics subject
themselves and their statements to the defini on of the Roman church;
therefore they all agree in ma ers of faith.”
We respond. (1) We have shown earlier that the Dominicans and
Franciscans disagree about the concep on of blessed Mary. Furthermore,
monks of their own order observe their rules under an opinion of worship
and merit, and in those self-chosen works of theirs they seek righteousness
and salva on. Therefore there are as many different opinions about
jus fica on among them as there are orders. Moreover, all the other
orders disagree very much with the doctrine and behavior of the Jesuits.
(2) It can be shown with many examples that the disagreements of the
Scholas cs also do involve ma ers of faith if not directly, then indirectly.
(3) Although Papist writers do subject themselves and their statements
to the judgment of the Roman church, this certainly does not cause them
not to think what they think, that is, not to disagree with each other in
their opinions. Instead, this proves their preposterous allegiance to the
Roman pon ff: to gain his favor they reject and condemn those things that
they have learned from the bright light of Holy Writ.

Whether there is true unity in the Evangelical churches

§ 244. The third sec on. Is there true unity in the Evangelical churches?
Bellarmine denies this (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 7, § denique) especially with
two arguments. (I) He says, “It is evident from the book of Fridericus
Staphylus (De concordia discipulorum Lutheri) that Lutherans, so recently
born, have begun to be divided into Anabap sts, Confessionists, and
Sectarians. These individual sects again have begun to divide into others
and s ll others, so that there were thirty-four already at the me of
Staphylus; but at this me we count almost 110 very different sects, all
coming from one Luther.” Canisius (preface to Vega’s book De jus f.)
accuses us of the same thing: “The Protestants reveal themselves as a
hydra, nor are their lips the lips of one, to use the words of the prophet.”
 We respond. (1) Bellarmine should not again have foisted upon us the
false accusa ons and insults of the apostate Staphylus, because our people
responded solidly and vigorously almost as soon as they were printed.
** But if, against the scandal of so many sects, there could not be agreement in all ma ers
even among the foremost leaders of the Reforma on, why are we surprised? Surely these
were men, and the way on which they walked and where they were eagerly seeking the
truth was narrow. A narrow road s rs up quarrels among those who travel it, while the
broad and open road, condemned by the statements of the Scriptures, does not bring even
en re peoples into collision. What? Can we not observe something similar in the history of
the church of all ages? Have not Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen, not to men on
others, filled their le ers and other wri ngs with complaints of the same kind? etc.
(Casaubonus, preface to Exercit. ad annal. Baronii) **

(2) In clear language the Augsburg Confession separates our churches

from the Anabap sts and other sectarians. With what kind of seriousness,
then, can Bellarmine join their errors and sects to our fellowship?
(3) In regard to sectarians we speak with the apostle in 1 John 2:19:
“They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had been of us,
they would have con nued with us.”
** See especially Luther, Jena German, vol. 6, f. 315b, where he teaches
that here cs stem from the church itself, and Jena, vol. 7, f. 127, where he
uses a comparison taken from the human body. **
(4) The heathen could have made—and, indeed, did make—this
objec on against the apostolic church, that is, against the church
established by the apostles, about which Paul says to the bishops of
Ephesus in Acts 20:30: “From among your own selves will arise men
speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples a er them.” Clement of
Alexandria reports (Stromat., bk. 7, f. 155): “Both Jews and Gen les at that
me were seriously disturbing the Chris an church especially with this
false accusa on: that Chris ans disagreed among themselves and that
there was no concord among them,” etc. At that me there were more
than twenty heresiarchs, each of whom had his own ecclesias cal and
scholas c assemblies in whose number the most learned men were found.
Clement says (loc. cit.):
The Jews cite this against us, saying that one should not believe because of the
disagreements of the fac ons [haereses]. The truth is being hindered while some teach one
thing and others teach something else. To this we say that there were very many fac ons
among you Jews and those Greeks. Yet others did not hesitate to surrender themselves to
philosophical discipline. The Lord prophesied that there had to be fac ons [cf. 1 Cor. 11:19],
 and it cannot happen that what was prophesied would not take place. The reason for this is
that Momus follows whatever is beau ful, etc.

Later he responds to that objec on with some comparisons: “If someone

sets forth both genuine, ripe fruit and other fruit of wax as much like the
genuine fruit as possible, we should not abstain from both because of their
similarity, should we? If there is but one royal road and many others—
some of which lead over a precipice, others into a river, and s ll others into
the depth of the sea—no one will hesitate, because of the disagreement,
to enter upon a road, but he will look for the royal road. So also one must
not depart from the truth because of disagreements, but seek it out more
carefully and diligently.” The same thing is apparent from Chrysostom, who
writes (on Acts, homily 33, p. 679, Gr. edi on):
What shall we respond to the heathen? A heathen comes and says: “I want to become a
Chris an, but I do not know to what fac on I should belong. Among you there are many
ba les, sedi ons, uproars. I do not know which doctrine to choose, which to prefer. Every
one says, ‘I speak the truth.’ I do not know whom I should believe because I am ignorant of
Scripture, and each side puts forward the same thing as their pretext.” Of course, this is a
worthy ques on for us to answer. If we indeed said that we believe reason, you would
rightly be upset. But because we accept the Scriptures, and because they are simple and
true, it will be easy for you to pass judgment: If anyone agrees with them, he is a Chris an. If
anyone fights against them, he is far away from the standard [canon].

Later: “Would anyone be devoted to absolutely no dogma, even if he says

that which you say about Chris ans? There is so great a number of people,
and they have various dogmas, for one is a heathen, another is a Jew, and
s ll another is a Chris an. One will have to embrace no dogma, because
they conflict with each other,” etc. A er the Creed was published there
were at Nicaea those who, though they professed to be enemies of the
Arians, nevertheless were tearing apart not a li le of the unity of the faith
with their internal dissensions. Emperor Constan ne restrained them with
a very serious speech (in Theodoret, bk. 1, ch. 7). Augus ne, who
flourished in the fourth century a er Christ, men ons (in Ad
Quodvultdeum) eighty-eight heresies that had been s rred up in the
church. Philastrius and Epiphanius did the same thing before Augus ne.
Bellarmine himself admits this, for he writes (De concil., bk. 1, ch. 10):
“Isidore teaches that Christ’s church had been divided into different sects
before the days of Constan ne the Great.”
 But if the unity of the apostolic and early church was not undermined
because out of it came Hymenaeus, Philetus, Cerinthus, the Nicolaitans,
Simonians, etc., how will the origin of sects be able to be a crime of our
churches? This is the fortune of the church of all mes: “that there will be
schisms in it” and that heresies will arise from it (1 Cor. 11:19). Where
there is good seed, there the devil will plant over it the tares of errors and
corrup ons (Matt. 13:25). Where the sheepfold is, there will also be
ravening wolves (Acts 20:29).
Bellarmine declares:
This is the difference between the separa on of here cs from the church and the separa on
from some heresy: that in the church we find a definite rule for se ling controversies, that
is, the judgments of the supreme pon ff or of a plenary council. Therefore either dissension
does not arise from the teaching of the church, or, if it may arise, it will soon be cut out and
patched up again. On the other hand, among here cs there is no rule for ending
controversies, for everyone wants to be the judge of others and to put himself ahead of
others.

We respond. Chrysostom (on 2 Corinthians 7, toward the end of

homily 13) says: “We have an accurate yoke and arbiter and rule for all
things, the decree of the divine laws.” Holy Scripture is the only, unmoving,
and adequate rule of faith, as we have pointed out extensively elsewhere
[On Holy Scripture (1610 Loci Theologici, locus 1), §§ 84–97; cf. On Holy
Scripture (1625 Exegesis, Commonplace I), §§ 437–80]. Whatever dogmas
agree with this rule, we accept. What does not agree, we reject. The fact
that here cs and schisma cs do not subject themselves to that rule and to
the judgment of the Holy Spirit by no means proves that this rule is
imperfect and insufficient, because they also do not subject themselves to
the sentence of the pope himself or of a council. In this life, the sort of
judgment by which all heresies would be abolished cannot be expected, for
that will not come un l the last Day of Judgment. In fact, not even by the
sentence of a pope or council can heresies be completely se led, as
Bellarmine himself admits. To the objec on: “If the church has a bad pope,
there will be no remedy for the situa on,” he responds (De concil., bk. 2,
ch. 19, col. 129): “It is not strange if the church remains without an
efficacious human remedy, because indeed its safety does not depend
chiefly on human industry but on divine protec on, because God is its
king,” etc. Therefore just as by a miracle a great mul tude of fish was
gathered in a rent net (Luke 5:6), so also in these rendings of heresies the
unity of the church militant is preserved and people are brought to the
gate of eternal life. We are deservedly surprised that Bellarmine here
removes the sentence of pope and council, because elsewhere he argues:
“Infallibility of judgment resides in the pope alone. Even general councils
have no authority unless the pope confirms them.” Therefore if he had
wished to be consistent with himself, he ought to have established, as the
only rule of faith, the sentence of the pope as he judges either in or
outside of a council. But we have shown in its own place how irregular,
uncertain, and false that rule of his is [§ 238].
§ 245. (II) [Bellarmine says:]
The same here cal authors do not agree with each other, and this is the most certain mark
of false doctrine. Johannes Cochlaeus (in his Sep ceps) has collected countless
contradic ons of Luther. There, at the end, he added thirty-six different ideas of Luther
alone about one ar cle: on Communion under both kinds. Also, they have changed the
Augsburg Confession, which they all consider sacrosanct, and have published different
versions of it so that they themselves do not know what the genuine confession is,
according to Andreas Fabricius Leodius (Harmonia).

And later:
Among the Confessionist Lutherans, the rigid and the so argue very harshly, as is apparent
from the books of Wigand and Illyricus against Georg Major and Philipp Melanchthon, and
from the books of the la er against the former. Furthermore, among the rigid themselves,
the harshest dispute has arisen about original sin, for Illyricus contends that original sin is a
substance, and he is contradicted by Wigand, Hesshusius, and others. Finally, from this same
province of Saxony within ten years there were published contradictory opinions in the
public name. For in the Council of Dresden in 1571, the opinion of Brenz, Illyricus, and
others about the person of Christ was rejected. Yet that very opinion that it rejected was
publicly accepted in the Book of Concord in the year 1580, etc.

We respond. (1) Most of those contradic ons with which people

reproached Luther are corrup ons of his true and constant belief, as our
people have shown in detail against the calumnies of Cochlaeus, Nasus,
Pistorius, Ungersdorffius, etc. Surely, one cannot deny that Luther
remained steadfastly un l the end of his life in that belief which he
explained about the ar cles of faith in his Delinea o Augustanae
confessionis, in the Smalcald Ar cles, in the Small and Large Catechisms, in
the Confessio major, etc. If some things occur in his earlier wri ngs that do
not at all agree with his later wri ngs—about purgatory, Communion
under one kind, the invoca on of the saints, etc.—we would men on that
Luther himself long ago sa sfied this mockery (preface to vol. 1 of his La n
works). He says:
Above all I implore the pious reader for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ that he read these
things with judgment and, in fact, with much pity. He should also know that I was once a
monk, the most insane of Papists. When I began that cause, I was so drunk, so submerged in
the dogmas of the pope that I was ready to kill everyone if I could or to cooperate with and
help those who were killing those who would detract from obedience to the pope even with
a single syllable, etc. Thus you will find in those earlier wri ngs of mine so many important
points that I humbly conceded to the pope, which in my later wri ngs and at this me I
consider as the greatest blasphemy and abomina on and which I curse. Therefore, pious
reader, you will a ribute this mistake—or, as they falsely charge, this contradic on—to my
age and lack of experience.

And later: “Good reader, I tell you these things so that, if you are going to
read my works, you will remember that I was one of those who, as
Augus ne writes about himself, advanced by wri ng and teaching, not one
of those who suddenly from nothing become very great, though they have
done, tried, and experienced nothing.” Nicolaus von Amsdorf points out
the same thing (preface to vol. 1), wri ng:
Because the dissimilarity of the wri ngs of Dr. Luther not only affords the opportunity to his
foes to bring false charges against him but some mes even offends pious and pure readers,
we must state this admoni on here: Enemies of the Gospel should stop collec ng
contradic ons from the wri ngs of Luther. The devout should read them with greater
judgment and candor. As far as dawn is from noonday sun, so great is the difference
between the books of Luther wri en at the beginning, which are contained in the first
volume, and those that were published some me later, etc.

To this he applies Solomon’s statement in Prov. 4[:18]: “The path of the

righteous is like the light that the dawn sca ers,” and he adds: “The light of
the Holy Spirit then became brighter and stronger in Luther’s mind,” etc.
Surely, Luther was so immersed in the deep filth of papal supers ons and
errors that in his first years he could not be pulled out of it completely.
Whoever wants more should read Luther’s grave response (Smalcald
Ar cles, Jena German, vol. 6, p. 510; De concil. et eccles., Jena German, vol.
7, p. 234), which he opposes to those gatherers of his contradic ons.
(2) The objec on about the altera on of the Augsburg Confession is
solidly refuted in the Formula of Concord, wri en in the name of the
Evangelical electors, princes, and estates and subscribed by them. They
say:
 In order that no persons may permit themselves to be disturbed by the charges of our
adversaries spun out of their own mind by which they boast that not even we are certain
which is the true and genuine Augsburg Confession, but that both those who are now
among the living and posterity also may be clearly and firmly taught and informed what the
godly confession is which both we and the churches and schools of our realms at all mes
professed and embraced, we empha cally tes fy that a er the pure and immutable truth of
God’s Word we wish to embrace the first Augsburg Confession alone, which was presented
to the Emperor Charles V in the year 1530 at the famous Diet of Augsburg—this alone (we
say), and no other. Copies of this, deposited in the archives by our predecessors, of excellent
memory, who presented it in the Diet to Charles V himself, we caused to be compared by
men worthy of confidence (lest we should be found wan ng in most accurate regard for
diligence) with the copy that was presented to the emperor himself and is preserved in the
archives of the Holy Roman Empire, and we are sure that our copies, both the La n and the
German, in all things correspond to it, etc.

We do not deny that the Augsburg Confession was altered. But that change
by no means happened either by decree or consent of the electors,
princes, and estates devoted to it, but by the private daring of one man. In
fact, the elector of Saxony through Dr. Pontanus refuted Philipp
Melanchthon with this charge (as is told in the Historia Augustanae Conf.,
p. 220, published at Magdeburg in 1584). In the Colloquy of Regensburg in
1541 (at which Melanchthon himself was present), those words that had
been omi ed in the changed Confession—“and they reject those who
teach otherwise”—were restored. Accordingly, the Evangelical confessors
in all the diets of the empire publicly tes fied that they embraced no other
confession except the unaltered Confession that was offered to Emperor
Charles V at Augsburg. (Concerning this ma er, tes mony is given to them
in Burckhard’s Autonomia, p. 286.) Also, in the Conference of Naumburg in
1561 they subscribed and offered to Emperor Ferdinand not the private
confession altered and interpolated by Philipp Melanchthon, but the public
Confession offered to Emperor Charles V in the common name of the
Evangelical estates. Therefore let the false accusa on depart, which says
that not even the confessors themselves know what the true Confession is.
(3) Controversies that once had been s rred up among the theologians
of the Augsburg Confession have by the grace of God been s lled and
removed by the Formula of Concord. Even the deceits of the Calvinists,
which they employed in the Synod of Dresden, have been exposed by the
singular providence of God. For this, people should thank God rather than
wan ng to reproach us hatefully because of old conten ons and because
the condi on of the church was once in turmoil.
The threefold unity of the Evangelical churches
§ 246. We can indeed boast truly that we are s ll persevering in that
unmoving and unaltered doctrine which we learned from Holy Writ since
the beginning of the Gospel’s new dawning. In addi on, we can claim a
threefold unity of the Evangelical churches. The first is canonical unity, by
which—namely, with the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments
—it agrees in everything with our doctrine that we profess, for no Papist
has ever been able to convict us of any error in the ar cles of faith on the
basis of Holy Scripture. In fact, the foremost Papist writers are forced to
admit that they cannot overturn our confession at all on the basis of Holy
Scripture.
The second is ecclesias cal unity, by which—namely, with the church
writers whom they call “fathers” and especially with those who were
closest to the mes of the apostles—it agrees with our doctrine. For we
are ready in every ar cle in controversy to provide clear and manifest
tes monies from the fathers in favor of our posi on.
The third is symbolical unity, a unity in which we embrace by common
consent the doctrine contained in the symbolical books of our churches: in
the Augsburg Confession and the Apology of the same, in Luther’s
catechisms, in the Smalcald Ar cles, and in the Formula of Concord. If
anyone refuses to give his name to this, we do not recognize him as a
brother in the ma er of faith and confession.
This unity of our churches is, in many ways, to be preferred to the unity
of the Papists. Ours is internal and essen al and consists of a unity in faith
and doctrine. Theirs, for the most part, is merely external and ceremonial
and consists of a conformity of ceremonies, while in the mean me very
serious disagreements about ma ers of faith thrive. Ours is Chris an and
free because no one among us is driven by threats and persecu ons to
accept our doctrine. Theirs, on the other hand, is pretended and coerced,
for no one can deny that under the papacy many, because of fear of perils,
profess something other than what they think in their heart. Ours rests
upon the immovable founda on of God’s Word and therefore is stable and
immovable. Theirs, on the other hand, rests on the changeable judgment
of the pope and on the unstable sand of tradi ons; therefore it is unstable
and uncertain.
 Bellarmine himself cannot deny that we preserve a unity and consensus
in the fundamental dogmas over which a controversy exists between our
churches and the papal throng. Let him listen to his own words. De verb.
Dei, bk. 1, ch. 10: “All Protestants deny that those six books that they call
apocryphal, such as Tobit, Judith, etc., are to be considered canonical.” De
verbo Dei, bk. 2, ch. 10: “There is a marvelous agreement among them as
they deny that the La n Vulgate transla on should be considered as
authen c.” Same book, ch. 2: “They all want us to inves gate everything
according to the Hebrew and Greek texts.” De verb. Dei, bk. 4, ch. 3: “They
all teach that the Scriptures expressly contain everything necessary for
salva on.” De verbo Dei, bk. 1, ch. 15: “They all are agreed on the fact that
that Holy Scripture should be given for reading in all the vernacular
languages.” Preface to De Roman. pon f.: “They all shout that the Roman
pon ff as pon ff has fallen into heresy.” De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 12: “The
Protestants agree with one another when they say that jus fica on is
apprehended by means of nothing else except faith alone.” De confirm., ch.
1: “Almost all Protestants deny that confirma on is univocally a
sacrament.” De euch., bk. 5, ch. 20: “They are all very pleased by this
ar cle: that the Eucharist is to be given to the laity under both kinds.” De
sacr. extrem. unc onis, bk. 1, ch. 1, and De matrim., bk. 1, ch. 1: “All
Protestants deny that extreme unc on and marriage are sacraments in the
proper sense of the word.” De sacram. in genere, bk. 5, ch. 2: “They all
teach that the sacramental character is proved neither by Scripture nor by
reason.” De amiss. gra ae, bk. 1, ch. 8: “All Lutherans teach that no sin is
venial on the basis of its own nature.” Preface to De eccles. triumph.: “All
Protestants oppose the worship of images.” De amiss. grat., bk. 5, ch. 5: “It
is their common belief that concupiscence is by its very nature a sin in the
reborn.” De clericis, ch. 19: “They all disagree with the vow of con nence
that has been a ached to holy orders.” Preface to De monachis, bk. 1:
“They all with one mouth a ack the monas c life.” De purgat., bk. 1, ch. 2:
“They all rebuke the invoca on of the dead.” De poenit., bk. 4, ch. 4: “They
all with common consent deny purgatory, as well as prayers and
indulgences for the dead.” Bellarmine admits that in these and other
ar cles we all completely, unanimously, with one mouth, by common
consent, vigorously and miraculously agree. Why, then, does he take away
the unity of faith from our churches here?
What should be thought about the disagreements in our
churches
§ 247. We do not deny that the malice of the devil and the brazenness
of people have at mes s rred up and s ll can s r up disagreements in our
churches. These, however, do not undermine the unity of faith in the
hearts of the devout, nor do they make suspect the truth of doctrine. In
fact, the unity of faith and the truth of doctrine are actually confirmed
from them. (1) For from the fact that the devil assails this doctrine through
various heresies so savagely, we have good cause to conclude that it is very
much opposed to the devil and thus is u erly true. From the fact that the
devil has been unable to overwhelm our doctrine, which he has a acked
with such force, we have good cause to conclude that it is of divine and
immovable truth. The devil keeps all here cs and idolaters bound with his
chains (2 Tim. 2:26). Why, then, should he s r up discord among them and
undermine his own kingdom? Instead, he uses discords to try to draw the
devout away from the knowledge of the truth, to hinder the progress of
the Gospel.
(2) From the fact that pious and faithful teachers fight against false
doctrines with such zeal, it is quite right for us to conclude that they are
the instruments of the Holy Spirit and that their doctrine is u erly true.
This is the characteris c of faithful teachers: that they have their hands full
making the church as clean as possible from all the excrement of the devil,
regardless of who may have recently brought it into the church or is
bringing it into the church. Consequently, they do not overlook the
slightest corrup ons, even for an hour, if they catch any. Tiny specks of dust
are seen in the light, but in the darkness not even massive beams can be
seen.
(3) Because of human weakness and the imperfec on of this life, it can
happen easily that someone may wander a li le from the path of truth, or
that because of a misuse of words and the perverse understanding of
others he may appear to have wandered from the truth. Then, by this
charge other sincere teachers may be moved with bi er zeal against him.
Because Satan’s chief endeavor is to contaminate and corrupt the purity of
doctrine and to cause division among teachers of the church, it surely can
happen easily that some bi erness and sharp disagreement, and even a
sad fire of conten on, may suddenly arise among them.
(4) The cause of some disagreements in our churches must be
a ributed not so much to our teachers as to the Papists themselves. A er
all, just as we should not accuse physicians who disagree somewhat in the
healing of a wound, but rather those who caused the wound, so also the
disagreement among theologians, which arose concerning the restora on
of apostolic doctrine and healing the wounds of the church, should be
a ributed not so much to those theologians as to the Papists, who have so
grievously afflicted the church and contaminated its doctrine with so many
errors. Vergerius (Dial. 1 contra Card. Hosium, f. 154) uses the following
comparison to illustrate this ma er:
A man cut down a huge forest, pulled out the roots, again and again plowed and thoroughly
broke up the ground. Then he sowed good seed there, and it took hold well; it grew and
matured. But then what happened? Weeds grew up along with the grain (as generally
happens, especially if they are plowed for the first me). These can be pulled out and
separated from the grain, but that takes labor and effort. Nonetheless the praiseworthy man
who with his great efforts and hardships has created good fields where there used to be a
forest and has sowed good crop should not be blamed because he seems to have been the
cause and origin for the weeds to have grown. Yet with every effort he takes care to
separate them from the grain. In the same way we are worthy of praise, not of blame.
Helped by God with the axe of the Word we have cut down and uprooted the forest of
supers ons, idol-madness, and blasphemies that had been growing in our churches, and
we sowed there the pure Gospel. But if, among them, some evil doctrines have sprung up in
the perverse minds of some people, we are not the ones who should be faulted.

Ibid., f. 155: “Do you want me to tell you the source of sects and heresies?
The pope and his clients. When he with his tyranny impedes the
reforma on of churches everywhere according to the norm of the Gospel
from being able to happen by the authority of princes and magistrates, and
when the peoples meanwhile are hungering for the good Word of God,
that is when many fall in with secret instructors from whom they draw—
alas!—bad doctrine.”
Section VIII: On the Eighth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Holiness of Doctrine:
Whether holiness of doctrine is a mark of the church
§ 248. The first sec on. Is holiness of doctrine a mark of the church?
Bellarmine (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 11) affirms this with the following
reasoning: “The true church not only is catholic, apostolic, and one, but is
also holy, as the Creed of Constan nople has it. But it is evident that the
church is called holy because its confession is holy, containing nothing false
as regards the teaching of faith, nothing unjust as regards the teaching of
behavior.”
We respond. The holiness of the church depends neither alone nor
principally on the holiness of its confession. Rather, it depends: (1) On its
principal efficient cause, Christ, who “sanc fies” it (Eph. 5:26). (2) On its
instrumental cause, both offering and presen ng (that is, on the Word and
Sacraments), and receiving and apprehending (that is, faith). You see, she is
called with “a holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9); she is “sanc fied in the truth of
the Word” (John 17:17); she is “cleansed by the washing of water in the
Word” (Eph. 5:26); and she is “purified by faith” (Acts 15:9). (3) On its
formal cause, namely, the holiness imputed through faith in Christ (1 Cor.
1:30). (4) On its final cause, because she is directed toward holiness, which
is begun in this life and is perfected in the life to come (Luke 1:75; Eph.
1:4). Augus ne (on Psalm 85) says that the church is holy “because she
accepts the grace of holiness, the grace of Bap sm and of the forgiveness
of sins.” (See above, § 34.)
As far as the holiness of confession or of doctrine is concerned, we must
evaluate that on the basis of its conformity with the holy Word of God or,
what is the same, with Holy Writ. Because here cs, no less than the
orthodox, claim for themselves holiness of doctrine as well as in life in such
a way that even in doctrine they counterfeit external holiness, one cannot
learn except from the Holy Scriptures which doctrine is truly holy and has
come from the “Holy of Holies,” that is, from God Himself. So, then, we
must always return to the mark that we assigned earlier. A er all, if
holiness of doctrine is a mark of the church, all the more will its doctrine
be a mark. Therefore every ques on goes back to doctrine, and about its
purity and sanc ty nothing can be stated except from Holy Writ. And in this
regard we do not deny that holiness of doctrine, that is, holy and pure
doctrine that agrees with Holy Writ, is a mark of the church. But
Bellarmine, provided that he wishes to be consistent, cannot set up
holiness of doctrine as the proper and infallible mark of the church, for he
writes (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2, § sed dices): “There can be doctrine free of
error in a false church, for pure schisma cs, as once were the Luciferians
and Dona sts, have sound doctrine and yet are outside the church.” In
accordance with that, I argue as follows: Doctrine free of every error is also
holy, which is quite clear. Yet doctrine free of every error can be in a false
church. Therefore holy doctrine, or, to say the same thing, holiness of
doctrine, can be in a false church. Furthermore, whatever is common to
the true church and to a false church cannot be a genuine and proper mark
of the true church. And yet holy doctrine, or, to say the same thing,
holiness of doctrine, is common to the true church and a false church
according to Bellarmine’s hypothesis. Therefore holy doctrine is not a
genuine and proper mark of the true church.

Whether the doctrine of the Roman church is holy

§ 249. The second sec on. Is the doctrine of the Roman church in the
disputed ar cles holy? Bellarmine is confident in declaring that it is. He
says: “Our Catholic church” (that is, the Roman church) “teaches no error,
nothing shameful, nothing against reason, though it does teach much that
is above reason. Consequently, it alone is absolutely holy. What we say in
the Creed, ‘I believe there is the holy church,’ fits it alone. This has been
proved against the pagans by Jus n (in both his Apolog.), Tertullian
(Apolog., ch. 36), Arnobius (Contra gentes, bks. 1–3); Minucius Felix
(Octavius), and Augus ne (De civitate Dei). Thomas has shown the same
thing very carefully against all heathen and here cs in his books Contra
gentes.”
We respond. We readily concede that the doctrine of the church
catholic (in the true sense of this word) is holy, and that the ancients
proved this clearly against the heathen. But what does this have to do with
the Roman church, which long ago departed far from the integrity and
purity of the apostolic and early church? Bellarmine defines holiness of
doctrine as containing no error, nothing shameful, nothing contrary to
reason. We will not make a rigid examina on of that defini on this me,
which is something it could scarcely endure, because properly and directly
it is not error but shamefulness that is opposed to holiness and because he
says “teaches … nothing contrary to reason” ambiguously, as will soon
become apparent. Rather, from the hypothesis of that defini on we shall
demonstrate that this mark, namely, holiness of doctrine, cannot be
a ributed to the Roman church of today because it contains a mul tude of
errors, sins, and paradoxical statements.

Errors of the Roman church

§ 250. From the immovable founda ons of Holy Writ we have
elsewhere [e.g., § 125] enumerated and refuted the errors in individual
ar cles of the Roman church or of the Papist church (for that is what we
take the phrase “Roman church” to mean, but not the assembly of the
faithful that Christ s ll gathers to Himself in the midst of the papacy and in
Rome itself). Here we shall use only our index finger to point out the chief
errors according to the ar cles of the Apostles’ Creed.
The first ar cle is: “I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of
heaven and earth.” The Papist church fights against this ar cle: (1) When it
denies that faith is confidence in divine mercy that forgives us our sins for
Christ’s sake and embraces us with the love of the Father, and when it, on
the other hand, defends doubt (Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 12). (2) When it
declares that “it is evident to us not from faith but from decep ve
conjectures that the Holy Spirit is the one moving us” when we call God
our Father (Bellarmine, De jus f., bk. 3, ch. 11). (3) When it claims that
“faith should also be placed in the saints” (Council of Trent, sess. 25, de
invocat.). (4) When it teaches that “love is the form of faith” (Cens. Colon.,
p. 85). (5) When it denies that “faith is knowledge and assent” and, in fact,
claims that “it is be er to define faith as ignorance than as knowledge”
(Bellarmine, De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 7). (6) When it denies that “the promise of
the Gospel about the mercy of God in Christ and about the free forgiveness
of sins is the proper object of jus fying faith” (Ruardus Tapperus, Explic.
art. 9, p. 75; Pistorius, Disp. de jus f., th. 19). (7) When it claims that “true
faith in Christ can remain with mortal sins” (Council of Trent, sess. 16, c.
15). (8) When it teaches that “the heathen were able to have jus fying
faith from the natural knowledge of God” (Andrada, Explicat. orthod., bk.
3, p. 290). (9) When it supports “general and implicit faith,” by which
anyone may confess with the collier that he believes what the church
believes (Gregorius de Valen a, Anal. de eccles., p. 205). (10) When it
denies that man is jus fied by faith alone without the works of the Law
(Council of Trent, sess. 6, de jus ficat., c. 9). (11) When it depicts the Trinity
“in the form of one man who has three faces,” as is evident from its
prac ce. (12) When it denies that “the name of God is proper to God”
(Cornelius Mussus, vol. 2, p. 545). (13) When it argues that “the mystery of
the Trinity cannot be proved unless tradi ons are admi ed” (Emanuel a
Vega, Oppugna o Samosat., p. 10; Pistorius, Epit. colloq. Emmering.). (14)
When it denies that “God alone is the Creator,” because, according to Peter
Lombard (Sent., 4, dist. 5, § 3): “The power to create can be communicated
to a creature,” and the sacrificers in the Mass are called “creators of their
Creator” (Gabriel Biel, Sup. can. missae, lect. 48). (15) When it declares
that “something outside of God can be eternal,” because, according to
Thomas ([ST,] part 1, q. 46, art. 2) and Gregory of Rimini (Sent., 2, dist. 1,
art. 1, q. 3): “There is no conflict if any created thing is from eternity.” (16)
When it denies “the perfec on of divine righteousness and mercy,” for that
righteousness is not perfect if it yields to imperfect human sa sfac ons,
nor is that mercy perfect if it supplies only what human merits lack. (17)
When a pupil of the Roman church, Augus nus Steuchus (Cosmopol.),
teaches: “Heaven has existed from eternity and was not created in me.”
The second ar cle is: “And in Jesus Christ, His only-bego en Son, our
Lord.” The Papist church corrupts this ar cle: (1) When it denies that
“Christ according to His humanity, through and because of the personal
union, is God” (Gregorius de Valen a, Defens. disput. contra fundam.
ubiquit., p. 42). (2) When it destroys “the real communica on of divine
proper es” to the assumed nature (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 3; Busaeus,
Contra Gerlachium; etc.). (3) When it denies that “Christ is the Mediator
according to both natures” (Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 5, ch. 2). (4) When
it denies that “Christ is our only Mediator,” to whom it adds the saints and
especially the blessed Virgin (Duraeus, Confut. resp. Witak. ad rat., p. 641;
Bellarmine, De sanct. beat., bk. 1, ch. 20). (5) When it denies that “Christ is
our perfect Savior,” to whom it adds the merits of human works (Council of
Trent, sess. 6, c. 16), and claims that Christ is indeed the universal cause of
our salva on but is “not the total nor complete” cause, because other
causes must be added to this genus of cause (Biel, Sent., 3, dist. 19,
conclus. 5). (6) When it in many ways undermines the prophe c, priestly,
and royal offices of Christ. It detracts from Christ’s prophe c office: when it
makes the tradi ons of men and the decrees of popes equal to the Word
of Christ and, on the other hand, denies that the perfect doctrine of
salva on can be sought from the wri ngs of the Old and New Testaments
(Council of Trent, sess. 4, de can. Script.); when it makes Christ a “new
Lawgiver” (Council of Trent, sess. 6, can. 21). It detracts from Christ’s
priestly office: when it claims that the sacrificers in the Mass s ll offer Him
daily to God the Father (Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2; Catech.
Rom., part 2, ch. 4); and when it associates the saints with Christ as
mediators of intercession (Eck, Enchir., prop. 15, p. 155). It detracts from
Christ’s royal office when it sets up the pope as His vicar and a ributes to
him monarchic dominion over the church (Bellarmine, De Rom. pon f., bks.
4 and 5).
The third ar cle is: “who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the
Virgin Mary.” The Roman church contaminates the integrity of this ar cle:
(1) When it claims that “Mary was conceived without the stain of original
sin” and thus shares the honor due Christ alone (Council of Trent, sess. 5,
in append. ad can. 5; Bellarmine, De statu pecca , bk. 4, ch. 15). (2) When
it teaches that “the body of Christ was formed not just once in Mary’s
womb, but the bread through the consecra on in the Mass is s ll
transubstan ated into that body every day” (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 4
and can. 1).
The fourth ar cle is: “suffered under Pon us Pilate, was crucified, died,
and was buried. He descended into hell.” The Papist church undermines
this ar cle: (1) When it claims that Christ with His suffering and death
made sa sfac on “only for original sin” (Thomas Aquinas, vol. 17 of his
works, Opusc. 58, de sacram. altar., ch. 1). (2) When it denies that “in His
suffering Christ truly felt the wrath of God and the pains of hell
(Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 4, ch. 8). (3) When it asserts that “sa sfac on
through sufficiency” (which is what it calls Christ’s sa sfac on,
dis nguishing this from “sa sfac on according to efficiency”) “does not
deserve the name of perfect sa sfac on” (Tapperus, vol. 1, Art. 6. de
sa sfac one, p. 241). (4) When it claims that “Christ made sa sfac on only
for guilt but not for punishment” (Bellarmine, De poenit., bk. 4, ch. 1). (5)
When it denies that “the fathers and faithful of the Old Testament were
immediately transferred a er death into paradise by virtue of the suffering
and death of Christ.” On the contrary, it claims that they have been thrust
down into limbo (Catech. Rom., part 1, ch. 2; Petrus a Soto, Meth. confess.,
f. 28). (6) When it declares that “with His suffering and death Christ earned
for us only first grace, that is, the infusion of love” (Gabriel Biel, Sent., 3,
dist. 18). (7) When it claims that “with His death Christ merited that our
works may be meritorious and sa sfactory” (Council of Trent, sess. 6, can.
32; Coster, Enchir., ch. 7, de merit. oper., p. 293). (8) When it divides the
work of redemp on “between the suffering of Christ and the pains of
Mary.” Tauler (Libellum pass., published at Lyon by Laur. Surius, p. 158):
“Here, two altars were prepared for the Father: one in the body of Christ,
the other in the heart of Mary.” (9) When it denies that Christ’s sa sfac on
through His suffering and death was “absolutely necessary” for us to gain
forgiveness of sins and salva on (Petrus Tataretus, Sent., 4, dist. 15, f. 524).
(10) When it teaches that “Christ descended into hell according to His soul”
to free the fathers from limbo (Fabius Incarnatus, Scru n. sacerdot., part 1,
tract. 5, f. 81; Bellarmine, De Christo, bk. 4, ch. 7).
The fi h ar cle is: “On the third day He rose again from the dead.” Their
teaching conflicts with the purity of this ar cle: (1) They say that Christ
rose again for our jus fica on, and Bellarmine (De jus f., bk. 2, ch. 6)
explains this as follows: “Christ’s resurrec on is an example of internal
renewal and regenera on. Through it, our jus fica on is established in an
internal renewal rather than in the forgiveness of sins.” (2) The doctrine of
the merits of human works actually hides and denies Christ’s resurrec on.
Because the fruit of Christ’s resurrec on is our righteousness before God,
which consists of faith in Christ, all who support the merits of human
righteousness are actually denying Christ’s resurrec on, just as the apostle
declares in Phil. 3:18 that the false apostles who denied that our
righteousness before God must be sought in Christ alone are “enemies of
the cross of Christ.” (3) It is supers ous that pilgrimages to the tomb of
Christ are established in the opinion that this is worship and sa sfac on.
 The sixth ar cle is: “He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand
of God the Father Almighty.” The papal church detracts from this ar cle: (1)
When it denies that only Christ, si ng at the right hand of the Father, is
our Mediator and Intercessor but connects the saints to Him (Peter
Lombard, Sent., 4, dist. 45, le er F). (2) When it denies that through His
being placed at the right hand of the Father, Christ according to His human
nature has been given “all power in heaven and on earth to be present
with all creatures and have powerful dominion everywhere” (Bellarmine,
De Christo, bk. 3, ch. 16).
The seventh ar cle is: “From thence He will come to judge the living and
the dead.” The Roman church strikes against this ar cle: (1) When it
teaches that Christ will judge according to the merits of works (Ruardus
Tapperus, vol. 2, Art. 8, p. 17). (2) When it defines precisely the very day of
His coming to judgment as exactly three and a half years a er the coming
of the An christ (Bellarmine, De pont., bk. 3, ch. 8). “There are forty-five
days from the death of the An christ un l Judgment Day” (Vega, Apolog.;
Gregorius de Valen a, vol. 4, Oper., disp. 11, q. 2).
The eighth ar cle is: “I believe in the Holy Spirit.” The Papist church
undermines this ar cle: (1) When it does not yield to the judgment of the
Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures but prefers the pope’s judgment to
His, and, in fact, when it explicitly denies that the Holy Spirit can judge
here cs through the Scriptures (Gretserus, Colloq. Ra sbon.). (2) When it
pretends that the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit has been promised
to the Roman pon ff, and thus the pope cannot err in his decrees (Catech.
Rom., part 1, ch. 10). (3) When it erases the internal tes mony of the Holy
Spirit and His sealing of the grace of God in the hearts of the faithful by
establishing the dogma of doubt (Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 9). (4) When it
calls Holy Scripture, the authen c and public documents of the Holy Spirit,
“imperfect, insufficient, obscure, ambiguous, a Lesbic rule, a dead le er, a
wax nose,” etc. (Censura Colon., p. 221; Petrus a Soto, Defens. de uno
praesente judice eccles., p. 1087; etc.).
The ninth ar cle is: I believe there is “the holy catholic church, the
communion of saints.” The Roman church contaminates the purity of this
ar cle: (1) When it denies that the church properly is the gathering of the
saints (Council of Constance, sess. 15). (2) When it assumes the tle
“catholic church” for itself alone (Costerus, Apol. contra Gomar., p. 224).
(3) When it declares: “The church is an assembly of people just as visible
and palpable as is the assembly of the people of Rome, the kingdom of
France, or the republic of Venice” (Bellarmine, De ecclesia milit., bk. 3, ch.
2). (4) When it claims that the Roman pope is the head and bridegroom of
the church (Bellarmine, preface to De pon f.). (5) When it takes the word
“church” to mean the Roman pope alone (Thomas Bozius, De eccles. lib. et
potest., bk. 1, ch. 6). (6) When it teaches: “That assembly which does not
acknowledge the Roman pope as its head is not the church nor part of the
church.” Bellarmine, De eccl., bk. 3, toward the end of ch. 5: “No one is
able, even if he were willing, to be subject to Christ and be in fellowship
with the church militant who is not also subject to the pope.” (7) When it
denies that the preaching of the Gospel and the administra on of the
Sacraments are the true marks of the church but, on the contrary,
subs tutes other common and accidental marks. (8) When it teaches that
the authority of the church, that is, of the Roman pope, as analysis shows,
is greater than that of Scripture, that is, of God Himself, who speaks in the
Scriptures ([Hosius,] Conf. Petricov., ch. 15, f. 18). (9) When it teaches that,
at the me of the apostles, the church was unlearned, unformed, and
established in infancy, but now it is much more splendid (Costerus, Enchir.,
p. 71). (10) When it denies that the church can err (Bellarmine, De eccles.,
bk. 3, ch. 14).
The tenth ar cle is: “I believe there is the forgiveness of sins.” The
Roman church corrupts this ar cle: (1) When it denies that the devout can
be certain about the forgiveness of sins (Council of Trent, sess. 6, c. 13).
Bellarmine writes (De jus f., bk. 1, ch. 9, § deinde): “The ar cle on the
forgiveness of sins in the Apostles’ Creed does not teach a specific and
absolute benevolence but a general benevolence, one that does not lack
its own condi ons, for it depends on receiving Bap sm.” And later:
“Therefore the sense of the ar cle is not ‘I believe or I am confident that
my sins have been forgiven’ but ‘I believe and confess that in the catholic
church there is the gi of the forgiveness of sins.’ ” (2) When it teaches
that a er this life some sins are forgiven in purgatory (Costerus, Enchir.
controv., ch. 16, prop. 5). But a sin is forgiven where it is commi ed. (3)
When it states that punishment is not forgiven, though guilt is forgiven
(Catech. Rom., part 2, ch. 4, p. 54). (4) When it requires our own
sa sfac ons and merits for the forgiveness of sins and even claims that
good works and the sacraments confer forgiveness of sins just by doing the
work [ex opere operato]. (Fabius Incarnatus, Scru n. sacerdot., part 1,
tract. 1, f. 31). (5) When it a ributes to priests a judiciary power to forgive
sins (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 1). (6) When, from the merit of Christ and
the merits of the saints, it prepares a treasury of indulgences, the
dispensa on of which it assigns solely to the pope, etc.
The eleventh ar cle is: I believe there is “the resurrec on of the body.”
This ar cle was completely denied by John XXIII, the Roman pope, head
and bridegroom of the Roman church and infallible in his decrees (by
witness of the fathers of the Council of Constance, sess. 11, vol. 2, Concil.,
p. 60). Costerus denies that the faithful have a specific faith of resurrec on
unto life (Apol. 1. contra Gomarum, p. 228).
The twel h ar cle is: “And” I believe there is “the life everlas ng.” Pope
John XXIII denied this ar cle too. The Papists undermine it: (1) When they
deny that the faithful can and should be certain about a aining eternal life
(Cens. Colon., p. 92). (2) When they boldly determine which halos will be
given to which of the elect in eternal life. They assign the “thirtyfold fruit”
[Matt. 13:23] to married people who live chastely, the “sixtyfold” to
con nent widows, and the “hundredth” to virgins, as is evident from the
Scholas cs. (3) When they take the kingdom of heaven away from the
infants of the devout and faithful who have been kept from Bap sm
because of some necessity, and thrust them down into a limbo next to hell
(Sonnius, Demonstrat., bk. 2, tract. 4, ch. 2).
The Papist church does embrace these errors against the ar cles of faith
set forth in the Apostles’ Creed. But if we wanted to run through the other
ar cles of heavenly doctrine in the same way, we would perceive the huge
chaos of Papist errors. (See the book of Hesshusius, De sexcen s erroribus
Pon ficiorum; Wolff. Platzius, Lucus succisus errorum papalium; Gabriel
Povelus, De An christo, bk. 2, chs. 19ff.; yet this last one should be read
with discre onary judgment.)

The sins of the Roman church

§ 251. We shall enumerate the sins that the doctrine of the Roman
church promotes according to the Commandments of the Decalogue.
People sin against the First Commandment in the papacy, ** and, indeed,
in regard to the love of God. Toletus, De instruct. sacerd., bk. 4, ch. 9: “As
far as intent is concerned, which consists in a fervor and eagerness of the
very act, we are not bound by the commandment to love God above all
things.” On the contrary: Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37; Luke 10:27. Then, in
regard to trust in God. The Thesaurus praeconiorum Mariae (ch. 52, from
Anselm, De excell. Virg., ch. 6): “At mes there is a swi er salva on in
dangers by remembering the name of Mary than by invoking the name of
Christ.” Also: “God has transferred half of His kingdom, which consists of
mercy and judgment—that is mercy—to Mary. The other part of the
kingdom, which consists of judgment and severity, He has either kept for
Himself or has transferred to the Son. In this way, if someone is perhaps
terrified by the Father because He is severe or of the Son because He is the
judge, he may look upon the mother and flee for refuge to her, because
she is medicine and is merciful.” (See also Cassander, Consult., art. 21, ch.
de merit. intercess. sanct.; Robertus Holco us, Sent., lect. 36). Bernard (in
his Mariale, dedicated to Alexander VI, part. 3, serm., le er V): “May
everyone appeal to her” (Mary) “with confidence, for one may appeal to
her if he feels that he is burdened by the jus ce of God. This was signified
in Esther 5, where it says that, when King Ahasuerus was angry with the
Jews, Queen Esther went to placate him. The king told her: ‘If you would
ask me for half of my kingdom, I would give it to you.’ Therefore that queen
prefigured the queen of heaven with whom God divided His kingdom.
Although God has jus ce and mercy, He kept jus ce for Himself to exercise
in this world and gave mercy to His mother. Thus if anyone feels that he is
burdened by the forum of the jus ce of God, he should appeal to the
forum of the mercy of His mother.” (See Gabriel Biel, In can., lect. 80, le er
C.) On the contrary: Heb. 4:14; 7:25; 9:11; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:18; 1 Tim.
1:5; 1 John 2:1. And who would deny that these sins reign in the papacy:
**
(1) Atheism, not obvious atheism, of course, but secret. It is a secret
atheism when someone acknowledges three persons in one divine
essence, yet overturns that which he has well confessed through the
necessary consequences deduced partly from other ar cles of doctrine or
of faith and partly from the manner of worshiping God. Stapleton, Orat.,
part 1, p. 418: “Atheism is not only no worship of God or the worship of
many gods but also is a worship of the one true God Himself that is not
true and not legi mate.” We accuse the Papists of this atheism, for, while
they contend for human merits and sa sfac ons, they obliquely deny the
perfec on of divine mercy and righteousness, as we have shown earlier [§
250]. Furthermore, “whoever denies the Son does not have the Father” (1
John 2:23). But the Papists deny the Son: when they are afraid to relate
the communica on of the divine proper es, given to Christ in me, to the
flesh, and thus “they are carried off into fellowship with Arius,” as Leo
teaches (Letter 11). They deny the Son when they deny that Christ is
Mediator according to both natures and in this way take away the infinite
efficacy of His merit. They deny the Son when they connect the pope with
Christ in His prophe c and priestly offices, calling the pope “the head and
bridegroom of the church” and a ribu ng to him the power to pass laws
throughout the en re church, to se le controversies infallibly, to command
the angels, to free subjects from the oaths by which they are bound to the
magistrate, etc. They also deny Him when they connect to Christ in His
priestly office a huge crowd of priests who daily offer Christ in a bloodless
manner in the sacrifice of the Mass for the sins of the living and the dead.
They do this when they connect to Christ, the one Mediator and
Intercessor, many saints in whose merits and intercession they teach we
must trust. With the merit of Christ they add the merits of the saints and
works of supereroga on, and they imagine that this treasury is dispensed
through papal indulgences. They teach that Christ is the new Lawgiver, etc.
All of this proves that the Papists deny the Son; that is, they horribly
corrupt the doctrine of the office of Christ. Hence they do not have the
Father.
(2) Idolatry, and indeed many kinds of it. You see, they invoke the saints
not only as intercessors but also as helpers. At mes they do this more
ardently than they invoke God Himself. In this way, they commit saint-
worship [ἁγιολατρεία]. Bodinus, Meth. histor., ch. 5: “Many in Italy and the
Narbonne region of France worship St. Anthony with a more ardent vow
and surely with greater awe than the immortal God.” Ludovicus Vives,
commentary on De civ. Dei, bk. 8, ch. 27: “Many Chris ans sin very much in
a good thing, because they venerate saints no differently than God. In
many cases I see no difference between their opinion of the saints and
what the heathen thought about their gods.”
 Cassander, Consult., art. 21: “Many people place confidence in the
intercession of the saints more than in the merits of Christ, placing Christ
under His mother.” In their prayers they call Mary “our Lady, the Queen
who rules the Son, Mediatrix, our life and hope.” They call upon her to
“protect us from the enemy and to take us at the hour of our death.” In
this way, they commit Mariolatry [Μαριολατρεία].
They worship some images with the worship of latria (Thomas, [ST,]
part 3, q. 25, art. 3). Thus they commit image-worship [εἰκονολατρεία].
Cornelius Agrippa, De vanit, scient., ch. 57: “One cannot tell how much
idolatry is nourished among the ignorant people through the worship of
images.”
They worship the eucharis c bread in processions even outside the use
that Christ ins tuted, and they worship the whole sacrament, which
consists not only of the heavenly thing, namely, Christ’s body and blood,
but also of an earthly thing, the bread and wine. Thus they commit bread-
worship [ἀρτολατρεία].
They give the angels the honor of adora on, and in this way they
commit angel-worship [ἀγγελολατρεία].
They give to the wood of the cross the worship of adora on, and thus
they commit cross-worship [σταυρολατρεία].
They fix the confidence of the heart and the hope of salva on on good
works, pilgrimages, fasts, giving of alms, indulgences, works of
supereroga on, self-chosen services, Franciscan garb, monas c cowls, etc.
In this way they, too, commit idolatry, for the confidence of the heart and
the hope of salva on must be placed solely in the mercy of God and the
merit of Christ.
They religiously venerate the relics of the saints by kissing them, falling
down before them, making pilgrimages to them to earn grace from God. In
this way they commit corpse-worship [σκελετολατρεία].
They confer both the name “God” and heavenly honors upon the
Roman pon ff. In this way they commit pope-worship [παπολατρεία].
Augus nus Steuchus, De donat. Const. contra Valla, vol. 3, bk. 2, f. 230:
“You hear that Constan ne has called the supreme pon ff ‘God’ and
considers him as God. This happened when he adorned the pope with that
illustrious edict; worshiped him as God, as the successor of Christ and of
Peter; bestowed divine honors upon the pope to the extent that he could,
as if venera ng the living image of Christ.”
** P. Aemilius (bk. 7) reports that, when Sicilian ambassadors were on
the ground, about to venerate the pope, he allowed them to exclaim: “Holy
Peter, you who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. You who
take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.” **
Bellarmine (preface for De summo pon fice) transfers the statements of
Scripture about “the precious stone,” which apply to Christ alone, to the
pope. Joh. Andradius (c. Ad honor. de aut. et usu pallii), Hos ensis (c.
Quanto de transl. episc.), and Panormitanus (c. licet de elect.) write: “The
pope and Christ make one consistory, and, with the excep on of sin, the
pope can do nearly all things that God can do and can be judged by no
one.”
Furthermore, it is idolatry not only when that which is not God is
worshiped in the divine manner but also when the true God is worshiped
not in the divine manner (that is, as prescribed in the Word). For whoever
decides to worship God in a way different from the way that the Word has
prescribed does not worship the true God but is adoring and worshiping an
idol of his heart. Therefore it is right to refer the various self-chosen
services, which make up the largest part of worship in the Papist kingdom
according to Durandus, to Papist idolatry.
(3) Apostasy from the faith. 1 Tim. 4:1–3: “Now the Spirit expressly says
that in the last mes some will depart from the faith (ἀποστήσονται τῆς
πίστεως), giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of demons who
speak lies in hypocrisy and whose consciences are seared, who forbid
marriage and command to abstain from foods that God created,” etc.
Living prac ce shows that this is being fulfilled in the papacy.
(4) Heresies. For, as we have shown earlier [§ 230], the papacy is the
sewage, the epitome, the summary, of various heresies.
Against the Second Commandment many sins flourish in the papacy: (1)
Magic, and indeed many kinds of it. For it fosters divining magic [magia
divinatrix] (μαντική) by which future and secret things are learned by the
revela on of the devil. They seek and receive answers from statues,
answers that they a ribute to certain saints. Sylvester II had the figure of a
bronze head that he consulted like an oracle in doub ul ma ers. Gregory
VII, called Hildebrand, asked for answers against his opponent, the
emperor, from the consecrated bread. Once, when it did not give him
answers, he threw it into the fire. Alexander VI became deathly ill because
of drinking poison by mistake, which at his order was to be served to some
of his nobles. He secretly sent his assistant to his chamber in Modena to
bring to him a gilded book in which magic had been wri en in order to
consult his god about the end of his life. The assistant came across Satan
si ng on the papal throne, wearing the pope’s clothing, and saying, “I am
the pope.” Lipsius writes about the idols of the Virgin of Halle and the
Virgin of Scherpenheuvel, that they gave responses to people who asked
for their advice and instructed them. Here we should men on the
Steganographia of Trithemius, by which those who know it can secretly
communicate concealed messages to each other through conveying spirits.
Likewise, Wierus (De praes giis daemonum, bk. 1, ch. 13, from Jacobus de
Chusa) teaches the adjura on of spirits or apparent souls: what, how, and
with what ceremonies it is to take place.
Next, deceiving magic [magia praes giatrix] flourishes in the papacy.
This consists of enchantments and illusions. When they adjure the
apparent souls of the dead, then those souls complain about their torment
that they are enduring in purgatory, and they ask for intercessory prayers, a
certain number of Masses, fasts, alms, etc. All of these are nothing but
decep ons of the devil. When the possessed are sprinkled with lustral
water or exorcisms are chanted above them, the devil deludes the
watchers and pretends that he is tortured by those incanta ons. Here we
should men on the illusions and enchantments of Satan through
pretended miracles, of which many have been told in the papacy.
Finally, working magic [magia operatrix] flourishes in the papacy. This
produces miraculous results with the help and collusion of the devil. This is
how the sacrificers cast the devil out of the possessed, drive ghosts out of
houses, perform some miracles: by means of the devil, who willingly allows
it and produces those miraculous effects in order to confirm people in their
idolatry and supers on. Isengrinius (De Maria in Veteri Oe nga) reports
that P. Canisius freed a possessed girl of a demon in a very unusual way. He
ordered that ro en statue of the Virgin Mary in Altö ng to be brought and
placed on the back of the girl’s head. Then Satan called out immediately:
“Let me go, you whore. Why are you stepping on me so roughly?” Canisius,
however, forced the demon to take back this insult, to speak the praises of
Mary, to kiss the ground seven mes, to worship Christ, to recite the Lord’s
Prayer five mes and the Angelic Saluta on also five mes. When the
demon had done all this correctly and had been commanded to leave, it
complained quite o en: “Woe, woe, woe to poor me! Over a space of
twenty years no demon has been subjected to such great torments as have
I!” Hasenmullerus (Hist. Jesuit., ch. 8, p. 296, from Turrianus) reports that
there once was a woman at Rome possessed by the devil. She followed
Igna us Loyola and cried out to him: “You alone can free and help me.”
Then Loyola recited this line from Vergil: “Dido and the Trojan leader went
down to the same cave.” When the demon heard this, he knocked the
woman down, came out and shouted: “O my son, Loyola, like a lion you
force me to go out to the cave of hell, but I beseech you not to throw me
into the eternal cave.” Later Igna us told it: “Go wherever you want, but no
longer a ack any human!” It immediately le with the great noise of
demons. In the expelling of demons from the possessed, they use the sign
of the cross, the sprinkling of blessed water, the ringing of bells, the
ligh ng of candles, the touching of relics, etc. But who does not see that
this way of driving out demons differs much from the apostolic way, and
the collusion, or at least the illusion, of the devil is in the midst of these
expulsions?
(2) The misuse of the divine name through exorcisms and adjura ons of
many kinds, as well as through the consecra on of oil, salt, water, herbs,
and other things. All of this is nothing else than a horrible misuse of God’s
name and Word, for they pretend—without any mandate, promise, and
example—that with their consecra ons and exorcisms they are conferring
a new spiritual power on created things, as is taught by the forms of
consecra ons in the Pon ficale and Ceremoniale. Oil for the sick is blessed
with these words:
I exorcise you, O most unclean spirit and every incursion of Satan and every phantom, in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; that you depart from this oil, so
that it can be made a spiritual anoin ng to strengthen the temple of the living God, so that
the Holy Spirit can dwell in it through the name of God the Father Almighty and through the
name of His most beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.

And later:
O Lord, we beseech You, send out the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, from heaven into this fat of
the olive, which You have deigned to produce from a living tree for the refreshment of mind
 and body, that by Your holy benedic on, protec on of mind and body may belong to all
anoin ng with this ointment of heavenly medicine, to lay aside all pains, all weaknesses, and
every ailment of mind and body. For this reason You anointed priests, kings, prophets, and
martyrs. May Your perfect chrism, blessed for us by You, O Lord, remain within us in the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Chrism is blessed in this way:

I exorcise you, O creature of the olive, through God the Father Almighty, who made heaven
and earth and all that is in them, that all the power of the adversary, every army of the devil,
and every incursion and phantom be uprooted and caused to flee from you, so that for all
who are to be anointed with you, you may be made for the adop on of sons through the
Holy Spirit, in the name of God the Father Almighty, and in the love of Jesus Christ, His Son,
our Lord, who lives and reigns with Him, God, in the unity of the Holy Spirit.

And later:
We beseech You, O Lord, holy Father, omnipotent, eternal God, through Christ, our Lord,
that You would deign to sanc fy the fatness of this creature with Your blessing and to mingle
the power of the Holy Spirit with it through the coopera ng power of Christ, Your Son, from
whose holy name chrism took its name, whence You anointed Your priests, kings, prophets,
and martyrs; that for those who are to be renewed with the Bap sm of spiritual washing,
You may confirm the creature of chrism to be a sacrament of perfect salva on and life; that
by the infused sanc fica on of the anoin ng—the corrup on of their first birth being
swallowed up—the holy temple of each one may give off the acceptable fragrance of an
innocent life; that according to the sacrament of Your arrangement they may be filled with
royal, priestly, and prophe c honor and be clad in the robe of uncorrupted duty; that for
those who have been reborn of water and the Holy Spirit this may be the chrism of salva on
and make them sharers of eternal life and partakers of the kingdom of heaven.

Lest there be any wickedness and supers on missing, the bishop bows his
head, and then greets the chrism by saying, “Hail, holy chrism.” (See more
examples of these exorcisims and incanta ons in the Apol. Confess.
Wirtenb., p. 1, ch. de bap smo, p. 478. Here we should also men on the
consecra on of bells, with which we dealt extensively in our Loci, vol. 4, ch.
On Bap sm [Commonplace XXIII], § 166. Likewise, the Gospel of John,
wri en on paper, is hung around the neck as a cure for fevers, epilepsy,
and other illnesses; they abuse sacred le ers and words as medica ons for
diseases; they try to prove their supers ons, ceremonies, and errors by
badly twis ng Scripture passages; etc. Here we must especially men on
that Franciscan monks sell their tongues for u ering curses. Hired by those
who have an enemy whom they want to destroy, they recite Psalm 109,
and thus they profane the most holy oracle of the prophet with accursed
malice.
 (3) Perjury. The pope claims for himself the right to free subjects from
the oath given to the magistrate and the right to rescind true and
legi mate oaths. But since he holds this power, which certainly has not
been granted to him by God, he becomes a teacher and ins gator of
perjuries. Azorius, Ins t. moral., bk. 5, ch. 15, p. 127: “A capitular a acked
Pope Gregory with words, because at a me of the Great Schism, before he
had been elected pope, he had sworn in a solemn public ritual that he
would abdicate papal power. Later, when he was elected pope, he was
unwilling to put aside his pon ficate. But the Roman pope can free himself
from a vow and from the religion and law of swearing, as long as there is
due cause.” Therefore the pope can free not only others but also himself
from an oath in such a way that he is actually playing with oaths just as
children play with dice. The outcome shows, however, that being released
by the pope from an oath made even to an enemy does not at all meet
with God’s approval. Agrippa, De vanit. scient., p. 61: “Pope Eugenius
threw the Chris an republic into many destruc ve wars because he
violated an oath he had given to the Turks, as if a promise given to an
enemy did not have to be kept.”
As the pope is the ins gator of perjuries, so his bishops take a er their
father very well in this ma er. Those tular bishops who are ordained for a
foreign bishopric swear that they will go to that place as quickly as possible
and convert the people of that place, but soon the pope releases them of
that oath. This game is examined in the book that contains the Caus.
recusa concilii Triden ni, p. 38:
They hurried to where they were ordained with diligence. But when they reached the first or
second milestone, couriers met them. They brought le ers from very trustworthy men of
that place. Those le ers indicated that the task which they were a emp ng was completely
impossible and filled with extreme peril. So, what should those fathers, clad in hun ng boots
and mitres, do in such an unexpected and tragic situa on? Completely upset, they go back
again to the most holy father, who can provide a prompt remedy for all difficul es from his
fullness of power and from the sacred shrine of all laws of his heart. The unfortunate men
bow their heads, explain their most excellent intent, their most beau ful a empt, and the
journey they had just taken. They explain, too, what they discovered about the dangers and
impossibility of the task. They cite the laws that say no one is bound to do the impossible. In
this way they eventually persuade the pope to release them from the oath they had taken.

From this it is clear that those tular bishops knowingly and willingly
commit perjury, for they swear to do what they never took seriously in
their heart. Flacius reports (Refut. invect. Bruni, p. 38): “The bishop or
suffragan bishop ini ally examines all the ordinands, or those who are to
be consecrated. Once the examina on has been concluded, the examiner
advances to the altar and solemnly swears that all those who are to be
consecrated are of suitable age, behavior, and knowledge, though,
according to Erasmus, most of them are u erly uneducated, u erly corrupt
in their behavior, and o en s ll immature in age.” So, then, those Papist
examiners are not ashamed to perjure themselves knowingly and willingly
for a small profit. They teach that a promise made to a here c need not be
kept, even one confirmed with an oath, as the prac ce of the Council of
Constance reveals. In this way they again become ins gators of perjuries.
They demand of monks and nuns an oath by which they bind themselves
to perpetual con nence, though not even one in a thousand is equipped
with that gi . They teach people to use equivoca ons in oaths; that is, they
profess the art of perjury. Toletus, De instruct. sacerd., bk. 4, ch. 21:
Some mes a man is bound to swear according to the understanding of others, that is, to use
the common meanings of words, though he is not always bound to this. At mes he may
employ equivoca on and deceive his hearer, not always, but when a judge asks for an oath
that is contrary to jus ce, then he may use equivoca on and swear according to his own
understanding, against the understanding of the judge. For instance, when the judge asks:
“Did you do that?” he may respond: “I did not.” By that he understands in himself “so as to
tell you” or “at this me” or something like that. If a man asks his wife if she has commi ed
adultery, she can answer: “I have not,” though it would be true by taking it to mean “so as to
reveal it to you.” Thus whoever is forced to swear to take another as wife could understand
it as “later, if it pleases me.” If someone has been caught by robbers and has sworn that he
would later give them a hundred gold coins if they freed him, he may swear equivocally,
saying to himself that, if he were freed later, he is not bound to pay. In the same way, if
someone is unjustly held by a guard, he may, in order to be released, swear that he will
return later. He can use equivoca on and is not bound to return.

Molanus, tract. 2, ch. 4, concl. 3: “If a magistrate asks someone if he has

sung or heard a Mass in this or that place, he can respond: ‘No.’ In fact, he
can even swear to that because there is no reason there to disclose this to
the judge.” Gregorius de Valen a (vol. 3, p. 346) calls those equivoca ons
“a prudent defense.” Mar nus Azpilcueta of Navarre says, “They are
founded upon that great deed of Francis.” (He recites this in his
commentary on c. humanae aures, c. 22, q. 5, c. 2, no. 11, p. 348; and in
the Manual. confess., vol. 3, ch. 12, no. 8, p. 58; etc.). The priests of Visby
(Le er ad Catholicum Generosum): “It is an art of our Jesuits to mock the
magistrates with their oaths. When the magistrates ask: ‘Are you a priest?’
then the priest will be allowed” (they say) “to answer: ‘I am not.’ But he
adds this inten on, not given orally but conceived in his mind: ‘… the sort
of man you wish me to be’ or ‘… the sort of man to tell you’ or something
like that,” etc. Behold, the teachers and ins gators of perjury!
(4) The transferral to creatures of the honor due only to the name of
God. When giving oaths to the magistrate, they use not only God’s name
but also the names of dead saints. In this way they a ribute to them the
divine honor of being able to punish the perjurer. They make confessions of
their sins not only to God but also to the Virgin Mary, angels, apostles,
martyrs, and all the saints. They defend that bap sm which is done “in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and of the blessed
Virgin Mary” (Guido, Manipul. curatorum, ch. 3; Costerus, Apolog. 1.
contra Gomarum, p. 231).
** In addi on, they sin against the Second Commandment by teaching
that prayers that are not understood are stronger for devo on and do
more for edifica on than prayers that are understood. The Englishmen of
Rheims, on 1 Cor. 14:13: “We have no doubt that in all the necessi es and
assemblies of the Chris an people, praying in La n is more pleasing to God
and more advantageous than praying in the vernacular. Even though no
one may understand what he is saying in par cular, yet it is clear that such
prayers take place with no less comfort of the Spirit, no less burden, no less
devo on and affec on, and, in fact, more o en with greater than those
others that they pray in a known language.” This conflicts with 1 Cor. 14:2–
20. Here we men on that statement of Azorius: “We should pray for those
who are stubbornly evil and wicked, but we should not pray for here cs
and schisma cs” (Ins t., bk. 9, ch. 31, § sexto quaeritur). On the contrary: 1
Tim. 2:1; Matt. 5:44: “Pray for those who persecute you.” Christ prayed for
His enemies (Luke 23:34), but there are no greater foes and enemies of
the church than here cs. **
Against the Third Commandment many sins flourish in the papacy: (1)
The profaning of the Sabbath. They do not define “hallowing the Sabbath”
as the hearing, reading, and medita ng on the Word, as the Eucharist
administered according to Christ’s ins tu on, and as the internal sabbath
of the heart. Rather, they define it as ludicrous and supers ous external
ceremonies, namely, watching Masses, mu ering prayers in an unknown
tongue, processions, the burning of candles, venera ng statues and relics,
etc. Furthermore, they teach this profaning of the Sabbath not just in
prac ce but also in theory. Toletus, Instruct., bk. 4, ch. 24: “A man is bound
under mortal sin to hallow a feast day, but he is not bound to hallow it
well.” Chapter 25: “A er hearing a sacred service, one may travel or sell, he
may pursue li ga ons because of money, he may sell meats, he may kill
animals for food because of money, during solemni es he may build places
for spectacles when they cannot be made except on a feast day. Finally, he
may work on a feast day by the permission of the pope or a bishop.”
Azorius, Ins t. moral., bk. 7, ch. 7: “One should not disapprove of the
custom by which a widow, due to the dignity of her person, keeps herself
at home for a year a er her husband’s death because of her grief and does
not hear Mass.”
(2) The mul plica on of feasts that are established in honor of saints
and in which they invoke the saints, carry around their statues, display
their relics for religious venera on, etc.
(3) Baalism and the roaring in temples, chapels, basilicas, and the
cloisters of monks by which they very frequently chant psalms they do not
understand in a language they do not know. They a ribute service and
merit to this chan ng, which they restrict to certain hours, though it does
not proceed from faith, is not established to honor God alone, and does
not have serious a en on joined to it. Aquinas teaches (Sent., 4, dist. 5, q.
4, art. 2): “It is enough for one saying the prayers of the hours to have the
general intent to speak a divine service. Aside from that, however much his
mind may wander off to other subjects is of no significance.”
(4) Contempt for Scripture, for they call it “imperfect, obscure, material
for quarrels, a dead le er,” and they compare it with “a wax nose, a
Delphic sword, an empty sheath,” etc. They prevent the laity from reading
it. In this way not only are they insul ng God Himself, the author of
Scripture, but also they are hindering the hallowing of the Sabbath, which
consists especially in medita on on the Word, as well as the advancement
of piety. As a domes c witness of this situa on, let us call forth Bishop
Claudius Espencaeus, a theologian of Paris, on 1 Timothy: “When the Word
is neglected and not heard, then faith must perish, something we see—
alas!—in all places today. Consequently, we are coming close to the days
about which the Lord says, ‘Do you think that when the Son of Man comes
He will find faith on the earth’ [Luke 18:8]? It is quite clear how the canon
of Scripture is read in this tempest: due to disuse and impiety, holy things
have become disgus ng to the ministers of the church.”
(5) The distor on of heavenly doctrine. The pope, cardinals, and bishops
nearly all abstain from the responsibility of teaching. On the other hand, if
any of these, especially Jesuits and some monks, presume to teach, they
do not hold forth the living u erances of God but old wives’ tales about
the lives of saints, human tradi ons, outcries against the doctrine of the
Gospel. They commend supers ons and idolatrous worship, etc.
Against the Fourth Commandment, in the papacy they teach: (1)
Contempt for parents. They teach that children can undertake monas c life
without consul ng their parents and even against their parents’ will; can
abstain from visi ng them, from mee ng and speaking with them; and in
this way they teach them not to render du es of recompense and devo on
due them by natural and divine Law. To this they apply the statement of
Jerome (Ad Heliodorum): “Although your li le nephew may hang around
your neck, though your mother may sprinkle her hair and rend her clothing
to show the breasts with which she nursed you, though your father may lie
on the threshold, trample your father underfoot and go. The only kind of
piety in this ma er is to be cruel.” Bellarmine, De monachis, bk. 2, ch. 36:
“Even if their parents are unwilling, children are permi ed to go over to
religion” (monas c life) “a er they have reached puberty, that is, fourteen
years of age, unless their parents are in such need that they cannot live
without the assistance of their children.” This doctrine ins lls a lack of
natural affec on in the hearts of children toward their parents. See
examples of this in Hasenmullerus (Hist. Jesuit., ch. 5).
In addi on, they teach that marriages of children contracted without,
and even against, their parents’ wishes are valid. Toletus, Instruct. sacerd.,
bk. 5, ch. 1: “A son can marry a worthy wife, even if his parents are
opposed to this, without mortal sin.”
The pope not only releases children from obedience toward their
parents but even arms children against their parents. Paschal II ordered
Henry V to draw his sword against his father, Henry IV, whom Henry V put
into chains at the promp ng of the pope and in a detestable crime kept
him in prison un l death.
 (2) Contempt for the magistrate. Along with his bishops and clergy, the
pope has removed himself from obedience to the poli cal magistrate
wickedly and against the express Word of God (Rom. 13:1) and has taken
for himself poli cal dominion, which is against the rule of Christ (Luke
22:26). Thus he declares that he is above the emperor, kings, and princes
and claims for himself the highest right of the Roman Empire. He demands
an oath of fidelity from the emperor and, in fact, denies that anyone can
take over the governance of the empire without his consent and
inaugura on (Ceremoniale Romanum, bk. 3, sect. 7, tle de reveren is
quae papae exhibentur). “As soon as the emperor sees the pope, he
uncovers his head, touches the ground with his knee, and venerates him.
Again, when he approaches the steps of the throne, he genuflects and
kisses the pope’s feet” (sect. 5, tle de ingress. urbis). “The emperor holds
the s rrup as the pope dismounts, takes the reins, and for several steps
leads the pope’s horse. If the pope is riding a sedan chair rather than a
horse, then if the emperor or king are present, they should carry the chair
on their shoulders” (Cerem., bk. 1, sect. 2, tle Ordo processionis). So,
then, the highest magistrate on earth is compelled to perform the duty of
an orderly or officer of the stable for the pope.
(3) Sedi on against the magistrate. They teach that a pope can release
subjects from the oath by which they are held bound to their magistrate,
especially if the magistrates are unwilling to comply with the command
and choice of the pope. Bellarmine, De Romano pon fice, bk. 5, ch. 6: “By
his own right the Roman pope can excommunicate secular princes and at
mes deprive them of their kingdoms if it seems right to him.” They have
demonstrated this quite o en by actually doing it. Gregory VII ([Ius
canonicum,] 15, q. 6, c. nos sanctorum): “Holding to the statutes of our
holy predecessors, by apostolic authority we release from their oath those
who have been bound by fidelity or an oath of allegiance to those who
have been excommunicated. In every way we forbid them from observing
faithfulness to him.” Pius V, Bulla adversus Elisabetham Angliae reginam:
“It is our will and command that her subjects take up arms against their
here cal and excommunicated queen.” Accordingly, most Scholas cs
[communis schola] conclude: “Subjects owe no obedience to princes whom
the pope has excommunicated.” Dominicus Bannes, commentary Super
Thomam 2. 2., q. 12, art. 2: “A er a declara ve sentence has been
rendered on a charge of heresy, a prince unjustly keeps his kingdom or
principality and exercises jurisdic on over his subjects; his subjects are
obligated to remove themselves from obedience to him” (Note this!) “and
to wage war against him if their strength allows this. From this conclusion it
follows,” Bannes goes on, “that we must first excuse the faithful
Englishmen and Saxons who are not removing themselves from the power
of their superiors nor waging war against them because altogether they do
not commonly have the ability to wage such wars against princes and
because serious perils threaten them.” Note especially, here, that on the
basis of the hypothesis of Papist teaching, subjects are not only permi ed
but are even obligated to remove their obedience to their lawful
magistrate, if the pope excommunicates him. Wilhelmus Rossaeus (De
vindiciis reipublicae Christ. adversus reges impios et haere cos, p. 156)
argues: “Subjects can rightly resist a tyrant,” and he adds: “Every here cal
king” (who does not acknowledge the orders of the Roman church in all
things) “is at the same me a tyrant.” (The Jesuits of Paris, Contra
Henricum III.) Valesius declared: “The people may, with unharmed
conscience, arm themselves against a here cal magistrate to whom they
are bound by religion, to join together and to persecute him and his
followers, according to the cons tu on of Innocent IV in the Council of
Lyon” ([Ius canonicum,] in 6, de homicid., c. 1, and de poen., last c.). It is
well-known what applause was s rred at Rome, what paeans were
chanted, when the message was brought concerning the murder of the
French king who was killed in ambush by the poisoned dagger of a
Dominican (or, rather, “demoniac”) monk. Sixtus V, in an assembly of
cardinals on September 2, 1589, offered a sacrifice in his honor by making
a speech in which he exalts that horrible crime with praises to heaven, or
even above heaven, prefers it to all the famous deeds of heroes of every
age, and finally compares it with the adorable mystery of the incarna on.
And why not? According to Immanuel a Saa (Aphorism. confessorum, on
the word clericus), “The rebellion of a clergyman against a king is not a
crime of lèse-majesté because he is not a subject of the kingdom.”
Immanuel again (on the word princeps): “A republic can deprive a king of
his realm because of tyranny if he does not perform his duty and when
there is a just reason. The majority of the people can elect another. Yet
some think that can happen only because of tyranny.” On the basis of the
Jesuits’ hypotheses, the author of the Ora o ad regem Chris anissimum
(who calls himself “Catholic” and “The Assessor of Parliament”) says (p.
31): “If the pope can excommunicate kings, and if it is a good and
meritorious deed if anyone kills them a er the papal thunderbolt has been
brandished against them, then it immediately follows that it is necessary to
endure martyrdom calmly rather than to be in a situa on in which those
are handed over to death who have shown the way to eternal life. These
proposi ons are connected with each other by a kind of chain.” The
prac ce of the Jesuits is also related to this. The assassins who ambushed
the kings of France and England confessed that the Jesuits instructed and
taught them that the murder of here cal kings whom the pope had
excommunicated was meritorious. (See the Catech. Jesui cum and the
book of Mariana.) Whitaker (Respons. ad epist. Campiani, at the beginning)
men ons a similar example: “In earlier days a sacrificer named Everardus
was suspended from the seminary at Rheims and was sent to England.
There he declared in prison affirma vely and clearly to sixteen very
honorable men who were standing nearby and listening that treason
against a” (here cal) “prince is not a sin against God.” Becanus supports
the same idea, though obliquely and indirectly, in his books published
Adversus regem Angliae, which consequently were banned by a decree of
the Sorbonne at Paris. As a remarkable praise, the lawyer Petrus
Ma haeus men ons that the Jesuits “claim that they can kill here cal
kings and princes.” In his book containing the papal decretals from Gregory
IX to Sixtus V, he writes under the decretals of Paul from the year 1545:
“When the enemy sows tares, the fathers of the Society of Jesus have been
summoned by the Holy Spirit and are near. They illumine the throne of
Peter, they prepare the weapons of divine eloquence against Luther, they
a ack tyrants, uproot weeds from the Lord’s field,” etc. Merc. Gallo-
Belgicus, vol. 2, bk. 20: “Arnoldus, whom the University of Paris selected
for this responsibility, directed against the Jesuits a court case, the second
ar cle of whose accusa on was that for them to take the oath of
obedience to their general was the same as if someone had said, ‘Kill the
king of France!’ ” In public addresses they praised the ac on of Jacobus
Clemens, the assassin of King Henry III.
(4) The disturbance of the duty by which parents and children, masters
and servants, husband and wife are bound to each other. The Papist church
not only permits but even praises it if wife, children, and servants abandon
their voca on and make pilgrimages to the places of the saints. Erasmus,
on 1 Timothy 5, p. 473: “Paul says that if any person lacks a concern for his
own people, he is worse than an infidel because he has not performed that
part of his obliga on to those who are joined to him by the bond of nature,
which obliga on even the heathen perform at the impulse of nature.
Today, however, it is considered the height of piety if a person abandons
his wife and children or even his aged parents at home to go off to
Jerusalem or to hide in a monastery to conquer himself with regard to
himself, or perhaps even to live easy with regard to his belly.”
Against the Fi h Commandment they defend many sins in the papacy:
(1) The insidious assassina ons of kings and princes, that is, of those who
are unwilling to comply with the command of the pope, as the prac ce of
the last century proved with many examples.
(2) The murder of those who have separated from the Roman
synagogue. How many wars have been fought over that since the
beginning of the Reforma on! How many rivers of Chris an blood have
been shed because of religion!
(3) The torment of consciences through their laws of confession and of
the enumera on of every sin, and through their doctrine of sa sfac ons,
doubt, and purgatory.
(4) The slaughter of infants, who are killed either in the womb or just at
birth, which is perpetrated by monks, nuns, and clergymen. Tertullian, De
vel. virg., ch. 14, p. 195:
It is a difficult thing for one to become a woman once for all, who fears to do so. A er
having already become one, can she pretend to be a virgin under God? Likewise, how much
will she dare to do concerning her womb so that she may not be found to be a mother? God
knows how many infants He has now perfected and brought to birth unharmed a er long
being fought against by their mothers. “Virgins” of this sort always conceive very easily and
deliver their children most happily, and the children are most like to their fathers. A forced
and unwilling virginity allows these crimes.

Barle e, formerly a preacher in France, Serm., f. 262, col. 2: “So many

luxuries! So many sodomies! So many fornica ons! The hiding places of the
bath where children have been drowned cry out. Oh, that our ears were
open to hear the cries of children who have been drowned in baths and
streams!” etc.
 (5) Pharisaic perversion of the law of not killing. Toletus, De instruct.
sacerdotal., bk. 5, ch. 6, § ter a causa: “If anyone is seized by a sudden
urge to the point that he is not ra onal and kills another person, he is free
of mortal sin.” Chapter 9: “When someone u ers an insult without full
delibera on, it is not a mortal sin. Even if there is full delibera on, it is s ll
not a mortal sin among persons of li le significance, such as among low-
class women [mulierculas].” Book 4, ch. 13: “When out of an anger or deep
emo on of his mind someone does not pay a en on to the words he is
u ering and speaks blasphemy, it is not a mortal sin unless he blasphemes
habitually.”
Against the Sixth Commandment, in the papacy ** there are various
sins. How many vulgar people, catamites, adulterers, fornicators, and
sodomites in the monasteries of England were discovered and caught
when Henry VIII made his visita on in 1538! How many bones and heads
of wretchedly slain infants were pointed out to him! How many crimes too
wicked to men on and too horrible to think about were discovered!
(Concerning this, see the preface to the reader by Johannes Balaeus,
prefixed to his Acta Rom. pon ficum.) Erasmus, on Matthew 19: “They are
allowed to fornicate but not to marry. If they admit openly that they have a
concubine, they are Catholic priests. If they prefer to have them called a
wife, they are thrown into the fire.” Pope Clement publicly approved of
fornica on and wanted women [to be had] in common (Epist. decret. 5,
which is in [Ius canonicum,] 12, q. 1, c. dilec ssimis fratribus). They count
adultery among the lesser crimes. They sin in par cular when: **
(1) They permit houses of pros tu on against the explicit command of
God (Deut. 23:17). In fact, the pope demands an annual tax from
pros tutes (according to Sleidanus, Comm., bk. 12). When they were
holding the Council of Trent, 24,000 pros tutes were enrolled at Rome.
(2) They permit priests to have concubines rather than wives.
Campegius, legate to Strasbourg, said at the Diet of Augsburg: “I know that
it is the custom of bishops, having received money, to allow their people to
fornicate. But it is a much more serious sin for priests to become husbands
than if they support many pros tutes in their house” (according to
Sleidanus, Histor., bk. 4, anno 1524). (This wicked saying is repeated by Eck,
Pighius, Hosius, and Costerus.)
 ** (Costerus, Enchir., art. de coelib., § nona proposi o.) Armandus
(Le er ad Chamierum) says: “This proposi on of Costerus is very much in
harmony with the teaching of Christ, of the apostles, and of all the councils
and fathers.” **
Claudius Espencaeus, commentary on Titus 1: “It is very disgraceful
that officials allow priests to cohabit with concubines, whores, and
mistresses. They allow them to procreate children a er receiving a certain
annual tax from them and even from the celibate, for they say, ‘Let them
have them if they want.’ ” Cassander complains bi erly about the same
injus ce (Consult., art. 23):
We must admit that the descendants sinned gravely. They turned the law of celibacy, which
is temporarily useful, into a snare for many when they rashly admi ed to the ministry of the
church young men who had not yet tested themselves. When such men felt that the burden
of chas ty was too great for them, they hid some impure copula ons and somehow
approved them rather than allowing the human rule to be changed for the sake of those
who were unable to observe it without offending God’s Law. We see, therefore, that
abominable scandals have developed in the church because of the excessively rigid demand
of this rule, etc.

(3) By the snares of vows they provide many people with the
opportunity for uncleanness, masturba on [mollicies], and other
abominable sins. Carlstadt (preface to his book De coelib. et monach.,
published at Wi enberg in 1521): “Oh, that some voice could speak into
your ear from above! You would certainly be horrified over those things
that the hearers and judges of sin, whom they now call ‘confessors,’ have
learned from those who confess to them and that they have taught me.
They should be unlearned rather than learned!” Later: “They believe that
they are not doing anything wrong when in their tunnels and cells and
solitude they accomplish who knows what with their masturba on
[confrica o], etc. They commit the sin of spilling their seed, which is
incomparably worse than fornica on and adultery.”
** Bellarmine, De monach., chs. 30 and 34: “He who marries a er his
vow sins more than one who fornicates, for it is a greater evil to marry
a er the vow than to fornicate constantly.” The Jesuit Fabricius said to
Hasenmullerus at Rome: “I would prefer to prac ce sodomy than to enter
matrimony against the pope’s command.” **
(4) They permit marriages in grades [of rela on] that the Law of God
prohibits (Leviticus 18). (Bellarmine, De matrim., bk. 1, ch. 27.)
 (5) They judge that marriages contracted a er a vow are invalid.
Maldonatus, Summ., q. 12, art. 5: “Whatever many ancient authors have
believed as to whether a marriage a er a vow is a real one, we are now
sure of this, that marriage contracted by those who have made a solemn
vow of chas ty is not true. In the Council of Toledo, virgins who married
a er their vow are called not only adulterous but also defiled [incestae].”
Yet Augus ne and Cyprian assert the contrary in clear words.
(6) They claim that marriage is divided through the solemn vow
(Bellarmine, De matrimonio, bk. 1, ch. 21). Also, Pope Celes ne III claimed
that a marriage is dissolved because of heresy.
(7) In many ways they insult marriage, God’s holy ordinance. The Cens.
Col., p. 71: “The doctrine of matrimony opens the door of indecency and
submits minds to the torches of passion.” Bellarmine, De clericis, bk. 1, chs.
18 and 19: “The conjugal act makes the whole human being carnal and
unsuitable for divine things. Not even the marriage of saints can be
exercised without some defilement and shamefulness.” Costerus, Enchirid.,
ch. 15: “The conjugal union is so filthy and unclean of itself that it lacks the
sanc fica on of a sacrament by which to be sanc fied.” Also: “Through it a
human soul is brought down to lower things so that it is less suitable to
meditate on and deal with heavenly things.” [Ius canonicum,] dist. 34, can.
7: “If anyone does not have a wife and has a concubine instead, he should
not be rejected from Communion.” Here a gloss notes: “At mes
wantonness [luxuria] has more right than chas ty because a chaste man
would be driven out, but not a fornicator.”
(8) Sodomy, that accursed crime, was preached in a published wri ng of
Johannes de la Casa, archbishop of Benevento, published at Venice in 1550
by Troiano Navo (according to Carolus Molinaeus in Orat. Tubingae habita
in 1554). At the insistence of some cardinals, Sixtus IV gave them three
summer months to prac ce sodomy.
Against the Seventh Commandment, many sins in the papacy are
excused: (1) The and fraud. Maldonatus, Summ., q. 8, art. 3: “Paupers do
not commit the when they are pressed by extreme necessity and take the
property of another, because the property then is not properly that of
someone else but is the common property of endangered life, nor is that
necessity extreme which can barely admit of a remedy, as when a pauper
breathes his last, but when he can be supported by hardly any other
means.” Molanus (tractat. 2, ch. 7, conclus. 1, prop. 6) claims: “The is not
commi ed in an insignificant ma er.” Toletus, Instruct. sacerdotal., tractat.
de septem peccat., ch. 49: “A man who cannot sell wine for a fair price
because of the injus ce of a judge or because of the wickedness of his
customers, who agree among themselves that few will buy in order to
bring down the price, I say, this man could reduce the size of his measuring
vessel or add a li le water and sell it as pure wine or as full measure and
demand a fair price. He should, of course, not tell a lie; but if he does, it
will not be a mortal sin.”
** On the contrary: Rom. 3:8; 1 Thess. 5:15; Prov. 20:22; Rom. 12:16.
**
(2) The pope has taken for himself the largest part of the empire. He
claims for himself supreme power over all kingdoms and the right to
transfer them from one person to another. He has appropriated bishoprics
and abbacies to himself in such a way that he forces their administrators to
buy the pallium, the sign of inves ture, with a huge amount of money. He
sells indulgences for much money and prac ces simony in many ways.
(3) Papist clergymen in their greed exploit their people with false words
(2 Pet. 2:3) by selling Masses, vigils, indulgences, etc. They delight and
luxuriate in the alms of the church, and they do nothing that is worthy of
ecclesias cal office. Monks, the fat bellies, consume the sweat of the poor.
(4) They support the sacrilege of stealing the cup [ποτηριοκλεψία] from
the Holy Supper, and they foster the spiritual thievery of the clergy. They
have, a er all, taken away “the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52). They have
taken away from the laity the comfort and instruc on that one can expect
from reading and medita ng on the Scriptures.
Against the Eighth Commandment, in the papacy many sins are
defended: (1) Public and notorious lies. The Dona on of Constan ne is
mere fic on, and it has been rejected already by Cardinal Cusanus,
Archbishop Antoninus, Pope Aeneas Sylvius, etc. The legends of the saints
are filled with fables and lies, so that Ludovicus Vives says their author was
“a man of iron lips and a lead heart.” For the most part, the relics of the
saints are fic ous and false, so that Erasmus writes: “So much wood of
the cross has been shown in different places that a cargo ship could not
carry its weight.” Cassander (Consult.) also complains bi erly about the
same sin commi ed in the case of relics. Most miracles are pretended and
consist of deceit. (See the Centuriae mendaciorum papis corum in
Rauscherus, and Flacius, Contra invec vam Bruni.)
** Toletus, Instr. sacerd., chs. 21–23: “At mes one is permi ed to use
equivoca on and to deceive his listener with an oath. For example, if a
man asks his wife if she is an adulteress, she can say and swear: ‘I am not,’
though it may have been true, by understanding: ‘I am not one who will
tell you.’ ” This is against Heb. 6:16. Maldonatus himself comments on
Luke 24:36: “Whoever tries to deceive another by pretending, even if he
wants to signify something else in addi on” (that is, to use equivoca on),
“is undoubtedly lying. Otherwise, there would be no lie that one could not
defend in this way.” That woman is twice established and proved to be an
adulteress in this way: by the unchas ty of the body and by the lie of the
mind. Augus ne teaches (Enchir., ch. 22): “Virginity is truth of the mind,
just as chas ty of the body.” Just as she is corrupted by commi ng
adultery, so also she is corrupted by lying. **
(2) They commend false and spurious wri ngs as genuine, for instance,
the liturgy of James, the canons of the apostles, the decretal epistles of the
popes, the books of Dionysius the Areopagite, of Hippolytus, of Abdias of
Babylon, etc.
(3) They corrupt the genuine wri ngs of the ancients by adding to some
and taking away from others (as is evident from the Indices expurgatorii).
They falsified the canons of the Council of Nicaea to establish their own
primacy, as is evident from the Acta of the Council of Carthage.
(4) They hurl abuse and u erly false accusa ons against the confessors
of the Gospel. Luther, preface to the Smalcald Ar cles: “There was a doctor
sent here to Wi enberg from France who said publicly before us that his
king was sure and more than sure that among us there is no church, no
magistrate, no married life, but that all live promiscuously as ca le, and
each one does as he pleases.” Alphonsus, Spanish chancellor to the
emperor, said to Melanchthon at the Diet of Augsburg: “Philipp, in Spain
we heard a much different report concerning you all than we have
understood from your Confession. Many people persuaded us that you
deny the Trinity, that you speak wickedly about Christ and Mary, that you
corrupt the sacraments, administer the Lord’s Supper like a secular feast,
hold the magistracy in contempt, for fy lusts.” In fact, at that very Diet,
some malicious Papists were trying to persuade Emperor Charles V and the
rest of the estates of the empire that “in our churches discipline and the
mor fica on of the flesh were simply forbidden and that the heresy of the
Jovinians was publicly defended.” Johannes a Daventria wanted to renew
that false accusa on later when he wrote in his Refutat. Augustan.
confess.: “The Lutherans claim that they then are truly and fully using their
Chris an freedom if they never afflict the flesh, if they never fast, if they
stuff themselves and bloat their bellies beyond measure and the powers of
nature with all kinds of foods, even on fast days.” You can see this in the
Harmonia of Andreas Fabricius, p. 435. Gregorius de Valen a (Anal., p.
213) makes the false accusa on: “Among the Lutherans everything is
arranged in such a way that in the account of their religion scarcely any
sign of Chris an discipline has been le by which you could discern them
from heathen, who are imbued with no knowledge of the true God.”
Bellarmine (De jus fica one, bk. 4, ch. 1) tries to prove, against the witness
of his own conscience, that we deny the necessity of works. They spread a
rumor about Luther a whole year before he died that “he had a wretched
death and the devil carried off his body.” Luther himself refuted this lie
(Jena German, vol. 8, f. 206 and 207).
(5) They indirectly approve of the injus ce of judges. Toletus, Instruct.
sacerdotal., bk. 5, ch. 56: “When in a trial some person is judged guilty,
whom the judge knows in his private person to be innocent, though there
are various opinions in this ques on, yet it is the more common and true
to hold that the judge can lawfully condemn the innocent person.”
Maldonatus, Summa, q. 7, art. 3: “A judge does not sin if he condemns
someone according to law, even if he himself knows that the condemned is
innocent.”
Against the Ninth and Tenth Commandments the Papist religion teaches
that inner concupiscence is not a sin. In this way, they establish their
pharisaic persuasion about the perfect fulfillment of the Law and the
merits of works. Johannes a Daventria (Refutat. secundi ar culi Augustan.
Confess., as recorded in Fabricius’s Harmonia, p. 22): “ ‘You shall not covet
[concupisces]’ has been commanded not to the flesh nor to the sensi ve
soul but to the intellec ve soul, because the former cannot stop cove ng
carnal things. If the flesh were commanded ‘You shall not covet,’ this would
surely be as if God had commanded the sun and moon not to shine, fire
not to burn, water not to flow, a stone shot by a sling not to fall.” Toletus,
Instruct. sacerd., bk. 5, ch. 13: “If anyone wishes to defile himself for a
good purpose, such as for his health or to alleviate the tempta ons of the
flesh by which he is some mes afflicted, it is not a sin.”
** This is against Exod. 20:17; Deut. 5:21; Rom. 7:7; 1 Cor. 6:9.
According to Toletus: “Molli es is the voluntary emission of semen without
copula on. When a person is caught up by a sudden mood and kills
another even with the inten on of killing, he is free of mortal sin” (Toletus,
Instruct. sacerd., bk. 5, ch. 6, § ter a causa). Likewise: “When someone
impelled by sudden wrath u ers insul ng words against his neighbor, if no
premedita on is involved, it is not a mortal sin, nor is it mortal sin even if
there is premedita on, provided it is about an insignificant ma er or
between persons of li le importance or among low-class women who
quarrel and get into arguments with each other o en, or among slaves and
servants” (Toletus, ibid., ch. 9, § primus est and ff.). Likewise: “When a man
is moved by some anger or emo on to blaspheme God, he does not always
commit mortal sin” (ibid., bk. 4, ch. 13, § circa peccatum). On the contrary,
Matt. 5:22: “He who says to his brother ‘Raca, you fool’ will be liable to
hellfire.” Exod. 20:13: “You shall not kill.” Lev. 24:16: “Whoever
blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death.” **
But why do we list the sins of the Papist church and religion against the
individual commandments of the Decalogue? They insult the whole
Decalogue in many ways, namely, when they teach: (1) That the Law of
God commands the sort of obedience that a reborn person can give
perfectly and through which he can earn eternal life (Council of Trent, sess.
6, c. 7).
(2) That the precept to love God with all our heart, all our mind, all our
soul, etc., is doctrinal and not obligatory in this life (Stapleton, De
jus ficat., bk. 6, ch. 10; Bellarmine, De monach., bk. 3, ch. 13).
(3) That God’s Law does not forbid all sins but that there are some sins
—enormous ones—about which the Law is completely silent (Andrada,
Explicat. orthodox., bk. 5, p. 381).
(4) That prayers specifically for enemies are not commands but
counsels; that no one is bound to greet an enemy for the sake of
friendship; and that we should not pray publicly for here cs and
schisma cs (Azorius, Ins t. moral., bk. 9, ch. 31).
 (5) That man can love God above all things on the basis of his natural
purity [ex puris naturalibus] (Gabriel Biel, Sent., 3, dist. 27, q. unic., art. 3;
Cochlaeus, In confess. August., art. 18).
(6) That man can do more than God commands and, therefore, can
perform works of supereroga on (Bellarmine, De jus f., bk. 4, ch. 13).
(7) When they completely remove the greatest dis nc on between Law
and Gospel: that the Law promises life under the condi on of perfect
obedience but that the Gospel offers believers salva on freely for Christ’s
sake (Cens. Colon., p. 195).
(8) When they deny that the Law accuses original sin (Ruardus
Tapperus, vol. 1, Art. 2, p. 37).
(9) When the pope boasts that he can make dispensa ons against the
commandments of the Decalogue (Angelus de Clavisio, Summa, in the
sec on that begins with papa; Nicholas Boerius, Cons. 20, no. 26, etc.).

Whether anything should be believed against reason

§ 252. Up to this point we have been showing that Bellarmine’s boas ng
is false when he says that the Roman church teaches no error and no
shamefulness. Now concerning his third boast, that “nothing in it is taught
against reason,” we respond: (1) The norm of faith and truth in the church
is not principles of reason or rules of philosophy but Holy Scripture.
(2) What Bellarmine plainly declares here is false, that “the mysteries
and ar cles of faith are merely above reason but not contrary to reason.”
Surely, if reason keeps itself within its own sphere and does not meddle in
the secrets of the divine mysteries but reverently applies this rule to the
highest mysteries of faith: “The things that are placed above my
comprehension, concerning them I shall not presume to judge on the basis
of my principles,” I say, if reason behaves in this way, we admit that the
ar cles and mysteries of faith are not contrary to reason. But if—and this
happens o en—reason is so presumptuous as to pass judgment on and
make declara ons about the mysteries of faith on the basis of its own
principles and according to the rules of philosophy, if it exalts itself above
its lady, theology, like stubborn Hagar—then surely the mysteries of faith
are not only above but even contrary to reason. This is very obvious from
the ar cle on the Trinity of persons in one divine essence, on the
resurrec on of the dead, on the presence of Christ’s body in the Supper,
etc.
(3) Therefore a dis nc on must be made between reason le to itself
without restric on, which runs about unbridled and is carried around by its
reckonings, which judges and decides on the basis of its own principles,
which are common no ons, percep ons, experience, etc., and reason
restrained by God’s Word and kept in obedience to Christ. This judges and
decides on the basis of the proper principle of theology, that is, on the
basis of God’s Word, which has been set forth in the Holy Scriptures. The
mysteries of faith are not contrary to reason considered in the la er
respect, but they are contrary to reason considered in the former respect.
(4) Some express this in such a way that a dis nc on is to be made
between reborn and unreborn reason. But in order for this dis nc on to be
complete, we must necessarily add that when reborn reason, on the basis
of its own principles, assails the ar cles of faith explicitly handed down in
the Scriptures, to that extent it is no longer ac ng as reborn reason. In the
same way, when a reborn man follows the kindred corrup on of his flesh
and indulges in sin against his conscience, to that extent he is no longer
ac ng as a reborn man. In fact, he ceases to be reborn. We have discussed
this in greater detail in our On the Interpreta on of Scripture ([1610] Loci,
vol. 1, [locus 2]), § 174.
(5) Therefore just as reason in the ar cles of faith can be considered in
two ways, so also we can establish two kinds of paradoxical statements
opposed to reason. One kind of paradoxical statement is opposed to the
reason of an unreborn person judging on the basis of its own principles. In
the mysteries of faith we do not need to pay too much a en on to this,
because in ar cles of faith one must not depart from the le er for the sake
of something paradoxical to human reason. But the other kind of
paradoxical statement is opposed to the reason of an unreborn person
judging on the basis of the proper principle of theology, that is, on the
basis of the Word. We must pay careful a en on to this in the mysteries of
faith since it is paradoxical with respect to both reason and faith, that is, to
reason embracing the principles of faith and clinging to them ghtly. The
basis for this dis nc on is taught in the following statements of Scripture:
Gen. 18:14: ‫“ הֲ יִפָּ לֵא מֵ יְהֹ וָה דָּ בָ ר‬Will anything be hard for the Lord?” as Arias
Montanus translates it. Or: “Will anything be hidden from the Lord?” as
Vatablus renders it. Or: “Is anything impossible for God?” as Luther
translates it. ‫ פָּ לָא‬is “separated” and “divided” either from man’s
knowledge and intelligence or from his ac on and strength, so that he
cannot a ain that by reason nor perform it by strength. Therefore the
meaning of the divine oracle is this: Even if something has been placed
above the comprehension of human reason and above human powers, yet
that is not difficult for God, much less impossible, because God “can do
more than we understand” (Eph. 3:20). The word ‫ פֶּ לֶא‬means “strange” or
“secret.” Therefore the meaning is: Even if something may seem strange
and paradoxical to men, yet to God it is not strange and secret. Zech. 8:6:
“Thus says the Lord of hosts: if it is strange (‫ )יִפָּ לֵא‬or difficult, if this seems
paradoxical and impossible in the eyes of the people, will it also be strange
and paradoxical (‫ )יִפָּ לֵא‬in My eyes?”
In Luke 1:34, Mary the God-bearer [θεοτόκος], full of wonder, asked:
“How could a virgin, who does not know a man, become a parent?” The
angel then answers her (v. 37): “With God no word will be impossible.”
That is to say, though among humans it may seem impossible and
incompa ble with reason for a virgin to conceive and bear a child without
a man’s seed, yet with God this is not impossible or absurd.
In Matt. 19:26 Christ also makes this dis nc on, that “among men
some things are impossible,” that is, that in their judgment many things are
impossible, absurd, and paradoxical, but with God all things are possible.
In Luke 5:26, when Christ healed the paraly c with a divine miracle, the
people said, “Today we have seen strange things [παράδοξα],” that is,
things that were placed above the comprehension of reason. The same
word is used about divine miracles in Wisdom 16:17 and Sirach 43:30. In
Wisdom 5:2 the heavenly glory of the blessed is called the “paradox of
salva on” [παράδοξον τῆς σωτηρίας] which “eye has not seen, nor ear
heard, nor has it ascended into the heart of man” (Isa. 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9).

The paradoxical statements of the Roman church

§ 253. Now that these things have been set forth, we say that in the
Roman church paradoxical statements of the la er type are set forth,
namely, which are opposed to both faith and right reason, which is
illumined by the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures and clings to the same.
We could list very many paradoxes of this kind, but here we shall be
content with the following.
(1) There is a paradoxical statement in their ar cle of jus fica on when
the Papists deny that the merit of Christ can be imputed to us through
faith, yet they assert that the merits of the saints and works of
supereroga on provided by monks can be communicated to us.
(2) It is paradoxical when they claim that the heathen can be saved
through the law of nature without a knowledge of Christ, though the
heathen themselves have wavered in perpetual doubts about God, the
immortality of the soul, and eternal salva on.
(3) It is paradoxical when they join the merits of the saints with the
infinite and u erly perfect merit of Christ, and our sa sfac ons with
Christ’s u erly perfect sa sfac on.
(4) It is paradoxical when they claim that we can earn the infinite good,
that is, eternal life, with our works, which were already owed to God,
though right reason teaches that we cannot earn so much as a crust of
bread.
(5) It is paradoxical when they claim that we can perfectly fulfill God’s
Law and perform works of supereroga on, though the conscience and
right reason of any devout person teach that every day we fall many mes
along the way of good works.
(6) It is paradoxical when they claim that it can happen that the pope
does his work by the devil’s arts, and yet they deny that the pope can err. It
is paradoxical when they claim that the pope can err as a private person
but not as a public one; that he can err in his premises but not in his
conclusion; that he can err with an error of fact but not of law, in temporal
ma ers but not in spiritual ma ers.
(7) It is paradoxical when they claim that complete pardon of all sins
comes through indulgences, as the bull of the jubilee in the year 1600 has
it, and yet they s ll send those who have purchased indulgences off to
purgatory.
(8) It is paradoxical when they claim that the sa sfac ons which father
confessors impose are very useful to penitents, and yet they recommend
indulgences, which are the remissions of those sa sfac ons.
(9) It is paradoxical when they claim they can confer the presbyterate
and episcopate on boys.
 (10) It is paradoxical when monks vow poverty, and yet abound in an
abundance of all things.
(11) It is paradoxical when they argue that ministers of the church must
be barred from marriage, lest they be distracted by concerns for secular
ma ers, though their bishops administer secular principali es.
(12) It is paradoxical when they claim that the pope is Christ’s successor
and Peter’s vicar, though the pope’s kingdom is completely different in all
things from the kingdom of Christ, and the teaching and behavior of the
pope from the teaching and behavior of Peter.
(13) It is paradoxical when they claim that the cross is to be adored with
the worship of latria, though they meanwhile argue that the human nature
of Christ is only to be venerated with the worship of hyperdulia
[ὑπερδουλεία, “high venera on”].
(14) It is paradoxical when they commend “implicit faith” and “the
collier’s faith,” though Scripture defines faith as knowledge [γνῶσις] and
consent [σύνεσις].
(15) It is paradoxical when they claim that sacred rites must be
conducted in an unknown and foreign language, etc.

Whether the doctrine of the Evangelical churches is holy

§ 254. The third sec on. Is the doctrine of our church truly holy? We
affirm this with the following syllogism. Whatever doctrine has regard for
the glory of God alone and of Christ the Mediator and which, on the other
hand, suppresses human pride and arrogance, that is truly holy. The
Evangelical doctrine has regard for the glory of God alone and of Christ the
Mediator and, on the other hand, suppresses human pride and arrogance.
Therefore it is truly holy. The major premise is proved on the basis of John
8:49, where Christ says that He honors and glorifies the heavenly Father
through His teaching. From that, He proves the truth and holiness of His
teaching. It cannot be doubted that the teaching which suppresses the
pride innate in humans is holy, because genuine humility is truly the
founda on of holiness.
The minor premise can be confirmed with many specific examples. In
the ar cle on Holy Scripture, we give God the glory of goodness, saying
that He has revealed to us in Scripture all of His counsel about our
salva on; and the glory of wisdom, saying that He, as the maker of the
mind and tongue, has spoken to us clearly and perspicuously. Accordingly,
we also venerate Holy Writ as the decrees of God Almighty and of the King
of all kings, and we proclaim their majesty, etc. The Papists deny the
perfec on and perspicuity of Scripture and make human tradi ons equal to
it, and that goes back as an insult against God Himself, the author of
Scripture.
In the ar cle on Christ, we acknowledge that Christ is our only Mediator,
Redeemer, and Savior. We teach that we do depend and must depend on
Him alone with the firm confidence of our heart. The Papists transfer this
honor par ally to the saints, in whose intercession and merits they teach
people to trust. In fact, they also transfer it to our works through which
they claim we can earn eternal life.
In the ar cle on predes na on, we declare the beneficent will of God
toward all people, namely, that He is serious in wan ng all people to be
saved and for this purpose He sent His Son as the Redeemer for the whole
world, and He offers His benefac ons to all in the Word of the Gospel. The
Papists, on the other hand, and especially the Jesuits, support an absolute
decree of elec on along with the Calvinists, through which that beneficent
will of God toward all is denied. The Scholas cs claim that [God’s]
foreseeing of merits is the cause of elec on.
In the ar cle on the image of God, we teach that God created the first
man righteous, holy, and upright according to the image of God, which
includes the light of wisdom in the mind, conformity with the Law of God
in the will, and uprightness of all powers of the soul. The Jesuits, on the
other hand, argue that in the first man, considered in natural purity, there
was an evil concupiscence worthy of hatred that was, nevertheless,
restrained by the reins of original righteousness and covered by it from
burs ng out into ac on. They also argue that this evil concupiscence arose
from the condi on of ma er, yet not from the inten on of the Maker of
nature. Rather, without His inten on it accomplished this from ma er. All
of this takes away from divine omnisapience, omnipotence, and goodness,
which we proved in its own place [cf. On the Nature of God (1625 Exegesis,
Commonplace II), § 209].
In the ar cle on original sin, we claim that, with the single excep on of
Christ, all people who were born a er the fall of our first parents are
subject to original sin. The Papists make an excep on for the blessed
Virgin. Some add John the Bap st and Francis. In this way, the honor due
to Christ alone is shared with others. With Scripture we say that the
concupiscence s ll remaining in the reborn is properly called sin. This
teaching about the remnants of sin in the reborn turns them to true
humility, so that they truly humble themselves before God, having
acknowledged the weakness and imperfec on that s ll clings to them. It
turns them to serious prayer, so that they daily sigh for the remission of
their sins. It turns them to filial fear, so that they have their every refuge
set in the mercy of God alone for Christ’s sake and are drawn away from an
opinion of perfec on and from boas ng about their own righteousness. It
turns them to pa ence under the cross, so that they are mindful of their
daily falls and reverently submit themselves to the chas sement of the
Father. It turns them to true contri on and daily repentance, so that they
resist the lusts of the flesh. It turns them to a readiness to forgive their
neighbor, so that those become quick to pardon who know that they
themselves need pardon. It turns them to a contempt for the world and for
worldly pleasures, so that they flee the kindling of corrupt concupiscence.
It turns them to an effort in hearing the Word, through which the inner
man is strengthened and the outer man is weakened and mor fied. It
turns them to a certainty about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, because
only the reborn and those who are the temples of the Holy Spirit
experience that wrestling of the flesh and the Spirit. Finally, it turns them
to a desire for eternal life, in which they eagerly await perfect renewal and
full freedom from sin. The Papists, however, deny that such concupiscence
that s ll remains in the reborn is sin, and thus they provide the kindling for
a pharisaic persuasion about the righteousness and perfec on of works.
They make people forgiven in exercises of penitence, faith, prayer,
pa ence, etc.
In the ar cle on free will, we ascribe man’s conversion to God alone,
and this teaching amplifies the goodness of God. The Papists extol the
power of free will in spiritual ma ers, and they divide the work of
conversion between the grace of God and the human will.
In our ar cle on the Law, we teach that not even the reborn can in this
weak nature perform a fulfillment of the Law that is perfect and absolute
in all parts. This doctrine totally suppresses human boas ng about the
perfec on of one’s own righteousness. This is not at all insul ng to God,
the author of the Law, as Bellarmine falsely charges (De jus fic., bk. 4, ch.
13, rat. 3) when he writes: “If the Law were impossible, it would follow that
God is more cruel and foolish than any tyrant, since He would be
demanding tribute even from those who are His friends, a tribute that no
one can pay, and He would be passing laws that He knows no one can
observe.” A dis nc on must be made between established nature [natura
ins tuta] and des tute nature [des tuta]. God correctly demands from
nature what He gave to it and what is justly owed to Him, even if man by
his own fault has a racted to himself an inability for performing this, as
Anselm shows beau fully (De concept. Virgin., ch. 28). The Papists, on the
other hand, teach that the reborn not only can fulfill the Law of God
perfectly but also can perform works of supereroga on. Thus they provide
a cause for proud boas ng about perfec on.
In the ar cle on the Gospel, they claim that Christ was a Lawgiver, and
thus they make a new Moses of Him and take glory away from Christ, a
glory that the Holy Spirit a ributes to Him because He was sent “to bring
good dings to the poor, to bind up the contrite of heart, to proclaim
liberty to the cap ves and opening to those who are bound” (Isa. 61:1;
Luke 4:18); because “grace is poured upon His lips” (Ps. 45:[2]); and
because the Lord has given Him “a learned tongue to know how to speak a
word in season to the thirsty” (Isa. 50:4), etc. Now, our churches, carefully
retaining the dis nc on of Law and Gospel, give due glory to Christ and
offer firm comfort to contrite consciences.
In the ar cle on repentance, the Papists argue about the perfec on of
contri on, the merit of confession, and the necessity of one’s own
sa sfac on, and they deny that we obtain forgiveness of sins freely by faith
because of the merit of Christ alone. In this way they diminish Christ’s glory
and provide humans with material for boas ng about the virtue of their
own merits and sa sfac ons. But our churches, teaching that believers
obtain the remission of sins not by the merits of our contri on, confession,
and sa sfac on but freely because of the merit of Christ alone, extol the
glory of Christ and suppress the boas ng of men.
In the ar cle on jus fica on and good works, we teach that we are
jus fied freely by faith in Christ without the works of the Law, that good
works are the fruits of faith and of the Spirit, owed to God by many debts.
We deny with all our might that any merit in the proper sense can be
a ributed to those. In this way again the glory of Christ, our Savior, is
extolled, but human boas ng is excluded, so that Staupitz, vicar of the
Augus nian Order, was correct when he said to Luther at the beginning of
the Reforma on: “I am very pleased that this doctrine which you preach
a ributes glory and all things to God alone and nothing to man. We cannot
a ribute too much glory and goodness to God,” (according to Luther
himself, Jena La n, vol. 4, f. 23, in ch. 1, on Galatians 1). The Papists, on
the other hand, dispute about congruous and deserved merits [de meri s
congrui et condigni], and thus they insult the grace of God and the merit of
Christ. “Whatever is assigned to merits is lacking to grace” (as Bernard
writes piously, on Song of Songs, sermon 67, col. 696).
In the ar cle on the Holy Supper, we teach that according to Christ’s
ins tu on, which all must observe faithfully, we eat the body of Christ by
means of the blessed bread and we drink the blood of Christ by means of
the blessed wine. Andreas Fricius (De emend. reipubl. Christ., bk. 4, ch. 19)
writes: “Ea ng and drinking are named apart by that Wisdom to which all
human wisdom about the inseparability of living blood from living flesh
should yield. Here we must not debate on the basis of human reason, but
we must rather pay a en on to the will of Christ,” etc. The Papists, on the
other hand, jus fy the wisdom of Christ (Matt. 11:19) by their debates
about concomitance, which was invented to establish their the of the
cup. With their fic on about the sacrifice of the Mass, they detract from
the unique honor of the propi atory sacrifice that Christ offered on the
altar of the cross, by which “He has perfected forever those who are being
sanc fied” (Heb. 10:14).
We could bring out here more examples of this kind. On the basis of the
same principles we could also prove the truth and holiness of our doctrine
against the Calvinists and Pho nians. Here we shall be content, however,
with the things that we have set forth. From them one can easily pass
judgment about the rest.

Bellarmine’s arguments against the holiness of our doctrine

§ 255. Intending to prove that we foster proven errors that are contrary
to right reason, Bellarmine first lists “the various absurd opinions of
pagans; ancient philosophers; Muhammadans; Jews; ancient here cs, for
instance, the Gnos cs, Carpocra ans, Montanists, Manichaeans,
Dona sts.” But we have nothing to do with those monstrosi es of Satan
nor with their errors. Therefore from this no conclusion can be drawn
against our churches, unless it is proved that in our churches we foster the
same, or at least similar, absurd and proven errors. But how does
Bellarmine prove this? He says:
The sectarians of our mes teach that every human is jus fied solely by specific faith alone,
with which each one believes with certainty that he is righteous before God because of
Christ. This can be compared with any paradox. For this is neither above nor beyond reason
but completely contrary to reason. When I begin to believe that I am righteous, I ask: “Am I
righteous or unrighteous?” If I am righteous, I am therefore not jus fied by the faith by
which I believe that I am righteous, because that faith comes a er my righteousness. If I am
unrighteous, then that faith is false. Therefore it is not divine, jus fying faith unless we say
that man is jus fied through a lie. Furthermore, all Lutherans extol highly the spirit of
prayers and invoca on. Yet this faith takes away the Lord’s Prayer, for if I believe that I have
no sin, then I lie if I say with faith: “Forgive us our trespasses.” Besides, the Calvinists (and, in
fact, the Lutherans too) condemn the Anabap sts. They claim that they can be neither
jus fied nor saved unless they are converted from their errors. Yet they know that
Anabap sts believe with certainty that they are righteous. Therefore they are forced to say
that they are at the same me righteous and unrighteous.

We respond. (1) Our posi on on free jus fica on through faith in Christ
rests upon the clear and immovable founda ons of Scripture, as was
demonstrated in its own place [On Jus fica on Through Faith
(Commonplace XIX)]. What is more obvious than those apostolic
pronouncements? Rom. 3:28: “We hold that a man is jus fied by faith
without the works of the Law.” Gal. 2:16: “Knowing that a man is not
jus fied by the works of the Law, but only through faith in Jesus Christ,
even we have believed in Christ so that we may be jus fied by faith in
Christ and not by the works of the Law.” Therefore even if our posi on on
jus fica on were opposed to human reason, it would lose none of its
truthfulness due to this, because the mysteries of faith must be judged not
on the basis of reason but on the basis of God’s Word.
(2) Does this conflict with all reason: that one person makes sa sfac on
for another and that through this sa sfac on the other person is freed
from all the obliga on of his debt? Before God’s judgment, humans are
debtors, for they have lost the concreated righteousness and integrity that
were in the first parent and have increased that original interest owed by
their many debts. Thus they are the ones indicated by the servant who
owed his master ten thousand talents (Matt. 18:24). The incarnate Son of
God allows this sum to be transcribed to Himself, and in our place He offers
complete repayment. He restored what He had not stolen (Ps. 69:[4]). The
repentant human embraces this sa sfac on of Christ by faith and applies it
to himself, declaring firmly that he is received by God into grace for Christ’s
sake; that because Christ repaid them, the debts of sin are forgiven him;
and before God’s judgment he is absolved of both guilt and punishment.
What is there in this opinion of ours that conflicts with God’s Word and
right reason?
(3) The opinions of the Papists are directly opposed both to God’s Word
and to right reason. The Papists think that our works—already owed
before, befouled and imperfect—can sa sfy the infinite and u erly perfect
righteousness of God; that our merits must be joined with the merit of
Christ; that we can earn the infinite good of eternal life by our works; that
the merits of the saints and the works of monks can be applied to us; that
one mere man can make sa sfac on for us; etc.
(4) The subtlety of Bellarmine, which he brings against our posi on on
jus fica on through faith, has a simple explana on that we explained in
greater detail elsewhere in our trea se On Jus fica on [Commonplace
XIX], Loci, vol. 3, ch. 19, §§ 145ff. He says: “When I believe that I am
righteous, either I am righteous or I am unrighteous.” We respond.
“Correla ves [exist] by nature at the same me” [τὰ πρὸς τὶ ἅμα φύσει].
In the promises of the Gospel, the benefits of Christ are offered to us;
among them, a righteousness that stands before God is prominent. Faith
embraces these benefits and applies them to itself. In this way a human is
made righteous before God; that is, his sins are forgiven him and the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. Therefore in Bellarmine’s
opposi on something is lacking, for there is a third possibility: that I am
being made righteous. Augustine, 83 QQ., q. 76: “But if he died soon a er
he believed, the jus fica on of faith remains with him,” etc. If freedom is
promised as a favor [ex gra a] to a prisoner with the condi on that he
wants to accept it, he is freed as soon as he accepts that favor. Bernard
teaches the same thing as we do about specific faith (De annunt., sermon
1): “If you believe that your sins cannot be wiped away except by Him
against whom alone you have sinned and to whom no sin belongs, you do
well. But in addi on, believe that through Him your sins are forgiven you.
For that is how the apostle thinks: that a man is jus fied freely through
faith.”
(5) Bellarmine says, “That specific faith takes away the Lord’s Prayer.”
We respond. Not at all, because “having been jus fied by faith, we have
peace, and with confidence we approach the throne of grace” (Rom. 5:1[–
2]). On the basis of Christ’s ordinance we daily ask for the forgiveness of
sins because we know that sin s ll dwells in our flesh and because it daily
tempts us to fall and quite o en also impels us to fall. Meanwhile, by faith
we claim that through Christ we obtain forgiveness of sins and that
through His blood the filth that clings to us is being washed away. We do
not believe, nor should we believe, that we have no sins. Rather, we
believe and should believe that through Christ our sins have been forgiven
and are daily being forgiven to us. We ask Bellarmine how they can call
God “Father” in the Lord’s Prayer without that specific faith which he
a acks by means of these arguments. We also ask with what seriousness
they declare that they can obtain eternal life by the merits of works,
because Christ orders that they beg for daily bread. We also ask why they
have dared to boast about works of supereroga on when they confess that
they are debtors, asking for the forgiveness of their debts. Finally, we ask
out of what impudence they assert their own sa sfac ons, when they are
taught in the Lord’s Prayer to ask for the forgiveness of sins. To all those
ques ons let Bellarmine give us a clear answer without deceit before he
pretends that our posi on on jus fying faith conflicts with the Lord’s
Prayer.
(6) Bellarmine says: “The Anabap sts believe with certainty that they
are righteous, and yet the Lutherans condemn them because of their
errors.” We respond briefly. Jus fying faith is not only confidence but also
knowledge and assent. In this way it has as its object the Word of God set
forth in the prophe c and apostolic Scriptures. Therefore whoever believes
proven and fundamental errors contrary to God’s Word and stubbornly
defends them (which the Anabap sts do), in such people there can be no
jus fying faith.
The points that Bellarmine adds about an error that belongs to the
Lutherans, namely, in the ma er of the faith of bap zed infants, we have
discussed this in detail in our trea se On Bap sm [Commonplace XXIII], §
226, to which we refer our readers. What he adds about the errors of the
Anabap sts and Calvinists does not apply to us because the Augsburg
Confession separates us from both of them.
Section IX: On the Ninth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Efficacy of Doctrine:
Whether efficacy of doctrine is a mark of the church
§ 256. The first sec on. Is efficacy of doctrine a genuine and proper
mark of the church? Bellarmine argues this from the fact that
the church alone has the true doctrine, which is not only spotless but also converts souls
(Ps. [19:7]), and the living Word that pierces to the division of soul and spirit (Heb. 4[:12]).
The ancient philosophers, on the other hand, never could draw even the neighboring towns
to their rules, as is taught by Athanasius (De incarn. verbi) and Theodoret (De legibus). This
is because their words were not living words but dead, not of the Spirit of God but of the
spirit of men. The Muhammadans indeed have a racted many, but by terror of arms, not by
the strength and efficacy of doctrine. For they teach in the Qur’an (chs. 18 and 19) that
people must be coerced to their faith by war. We do not read that here cs ever converted
any heathen or Jews to the faith but that they merely corrupted Chris ans, which Tertullian
notes (De praescript.).

We respond. (1) Efficacy of doctrine can be understood in two ways:

Either that it persuades many and is received by many, or that it salutarily
converts people to God. If efficacy of doctrine is taken in the prior sense,
then it is not a mark of the church, because even false doctrines
some mes persuade many and are received by many. If efficacy of doctrine
is taken in the la er sense, we admit that in the church alone that doctrine
thrives which salutarily converts people to God. However, that efficacy
cannot always be evaluated on the basis of the mul tude of those who
accept that doctrine, “for never do things go so well in human affairs that
the be er things please more people,” according to the statement of
Seneca. By nature people have a greater proclivity to accept errors than
true doctrine, just as they are inclined rather to vices than to virtues, and
even “false things are more readily embraced than true things,” as
Stapleton writes (De princ. fidei doctrin., bk. 8, ch. 2). “People are prone to
go down to the broad and easy way that here cs open,” as Bellarmine here
admits.
(2) Some mes here cal doctrines are more effec ve, that is, are
accepted by more people, than the heavenly truth. 1 Kings 22:22: “A lying
spirit is in the mouth of all the prophets,” and Micaiah alone stood up
against them. The Lord says to that lying spirit: “You will go forth, and you
will prevail.” Becanus writes in clear language (De ecclesia, q. 3, concl. 11,
no. 124): “In the Old Testament an almost infinite number of people
followed the false prophets. But one could not conclude from this that God
had sent them or that their prophecies were divinely inspired.” How, then,
will effectual persuasion in and of itself be a mark of the truth? 2 Thess.
2:9–11: “The coming of the An christ is by the working of Satan with all
power [κατ᾽ ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Σατανᾶ ἐν πάσῃ δυνάμει] … because they
refused to love the truth that they might be saved. Therefore God will send
upon them the working of decep on [ἐνέργειαν τῆς πλάνης].” (Note
well!) Here effectual persuasion is a ributed to the an -Chris an errors.
Rev. 13:8: “All who dwelt on earth worshiped the beast.” Concerning the
doctrine of the false apostles, the apostle complains in 2 Tim. 2:17 that “it
spreads like gangrene,” and in 2 Tim. 3:13: “Evil men and seducers shall
grow worse, erring and driving into error.” In Gal. 3:1, errors are conferred
by bewitching, by which wretched people are effectually driven mad. Jus n
(De monarchia Dei) shows from the beginning that the efficacy of idolatry
and corrupt custom in the minds of the heathen is great. He says:
“Although at the beginning human nature had received the combina on of
wisdom and salva on for the knowledge of the truth and the worship of
one and same Lord of all, an envy to make images gradually crept in and
destroyed the excellent greatness of humans. That broad custom lasted for
a long me and handed down error to many people as something natural
and true.” Tertullian, De praescript. adv. haereticos, ch. 1: “Vainly and
rashly many people are scandalized by this very thing: that just as many
heresies thrive as exist.” Chapter 2: “Because they are scandalized, they are
surprised that those heresies are so strong, as if they came from a truth.
Clearly, it is a wonder that evil has such strength, except that heresies are
very strong among those who are not strong in the faith.” Chrysostom (or
the author of the Opus imperf. in Ma h., homily 19) says about here cs:
“They openly and freely subvert even the leading churches. Thus they have
mul plied on the opposite side, so that Chris ans rather than they appear
to be doub ul.” Vincent of Lérins (Adv. haeres., ch. 7) says: “Almost the
en re world has now been stricken by a sudden storm of heresy.” Like a
flood, Arianism once filled almost all the world, as we have shown earlier
[§§ 181–82]. How great an increase Muhammadanism enjoys not only by
force of arms but also by “the working of decep on”! Surely, in the
beginning it could not be propagated by arms. Those who accept it today
think they are believing heavenly truth. How, then, can efficacy of doctrine
be a genuine and proper mark of the church, when errors and heresies are
some mes more effec ve, that is, are accepted by more people?
(3) What Bellarmine declares absolutely and boldly is false: “Here cs
never converted any heathen or Jews to their faith.” What Lessius
(Consult., p. 42) concludes from this is also false: “That is the true religion
to which there has been a conversion of the heathen.” He cannot deny that
a conversion of many heathen to the Jewish religion, as it was at the me
of Christ’s coming into the flesh, took place. In Matt. 23:15 Christ tes fies
about the scribes and Pharisees that “they traveled across sea and land to
make a single proselyte.” Acts 2:5: “There were dwelling in Jerusalem
Jews, devout men from every na on under heaven.” Nonetheless the
Jewish religion at that me was very corrupt and depraved. At the me of
Emperor Valens the tribe of the Goths was converted from paganism to
Arianism by Ulfilas and other Arian ministers (according to Freculphus,
Chronic., vol. 2, bk. 4, ch. 20). Bellarmine makes the following excep on to
this example: “The Goths were not converted by the Arians but deceived,
for the Goths had wanted to become Chris ans and had asked for bishops
for this reason. The emperor, however, sent Arians.” Then he adds: “The
majority of those Goths were Chris an.” It is enough for us, however, that
the Arians deceived the Goths, for from this it is evident that not every
religion to which heathen are converted is true and pure. Also, one cannot
prove from church history that the majority of the Goths already before
had been Chris an, because Socrates (bk. 4, ch. 27) and Sozomen (bk. 6,
ch. 37) call them before that conversion “barbarians.” They also say that
the occasion of war first made them aware of the doctrine of the
Chris ans. Furthermore, many people once le Muhammadanism and
heathenism and accepted the confession of the Greek churches, yet the
Papists do not admit that that is catholic.
(4) Finally, if efficacy of doctrine is a mark of the church, our posi on
will stand: that true doctrine which is in harmony with the prophe c and
apostolic books is a mark of the church. In fact, we must pass judgment on
that efficacy of doctrine on the basis of the Holy Scriptures. Not every
efficacy proves the truth and purity of doctrine unless it is combined with
the power and ability of a saving conversion to God. Otherwise it will be a
“working of decep on” rather than “the working of divine truth.”

Whether the doctrine of the Roman church is effectual

§ 257. The second sec on. Does the doctrine of the Roman church have
the salutary efficacy for conversion combined with it? Bellarmine asserts a
threefold conversion of the heathen, about which clear pronouncement
must be made. In the first place he puts “the conversion of the heathen
that occurred through the apostles,” which Augus ne (De civitat. Dei, bk.
22, ch. 5) correctly numbers among the chief miracles. A er all, the
apostles were few in number, despised in outward appearance, lacking the
strength of human power and eloquence. Yet through their preaching of
the Gospel they converted the en re world to Christ. But what does this
conversion of the heathen have to do with today’s Roman church? That
happened through the preaching and teaching of the apostles, from which
the Roman church of today has departed in many chief ar cles. Our
doctrine, on the other hand, is the very one that the apostles preached,
and we are prepared to prove this from their wri ngs.
In the second place Bellarmine lists “the conversions of heathen that
occurred in later centuries through Gregory, Kilian, Boniface, Adelbert,
Vincent, etc.” We respond. The conversions that occurred a er the sixth
century of the church most certainly must be dis nguished from those that
took place in the earlier centuries of the church through the apostles and
apostolic men. For at that me—that is, a er the sixth century of the
church—purity of doctrine began to be undermined as supers ons
gradually crept in and as the leaven of human tradi ons became mixed
with the doctrine of the apostles. Yet in the mean me, because God was
able to beget spiritual sons and daughters for Himself even through a
corrupt ministry and because at the me of Gregory, Kilian, and Boniface
there was not yet as great a doctrinal corrup on as followed in later mes,
that conversion of the heathen did not cease being a work of divine
kindness, and “the precious” must always be separated from “the vile” [Jer.
15:19]. Those conversions occurring in later centuries also differ from the
conversions that took place in earlier centuries through the apostles and
their disciples in that they happened more by fear of weapons and by the
violence of warfare than by the efficacy of doctrine. Boniface converted
the Thuringians by terror of arms (as is men oned in the Chronic.
Isenacens., cent. 8, Eccles. hist., ch. 10). By means of destruc ve wars
Charlemagne dragged the Saxons to the Chris an faith, etc. Furthermore,
those heathen who, as Bellarmine declares, were converted to the Roman
church through Gregory, Boniface, etc., already had been Chris ans earlier.
As far as Britain is concerned, Polydorus Vergilius (De rer. invent., bk. 1, ch.
1) tes fies: “By the work of Joseph of Ariminum, it was the first of all the
provinces to accept the Gospel publicly.” Gilfridus (De ges s Britann., bk. 8)
relates: “At that me, when Gregory sent the monk Augus ne into Britain,
Chris anity was thriving because there were in Britain seven bishoprics and
one archbishopric.” Thus Bellarmine asserts that through Kilian the Franks
were converted to the faith and through Boniface, the Thuringians. But
Tertullian and, before him, Irenaeus men on “the Germanic churches.”
In the third place, Bellarmine brings forth the conversion of the Indians
and of other peoples in the New World. Earlier we explained extensively (§
188, point 4) what conclusion should be reached about that. Against the
conversion of the heathen to Muhammadanism, Bellarmine says that “this
took place by terror of arms.” Yet this is also true of the conversion of the
Indians, according to Ludovicus Granatensis, Petrus Martyr [Anglerius], and
many others whose tes monies we cited earlier. The same method of
conversion of Marranos and here cs by the Inquisitors is observed in Spain
and elsewhere. Cornelius Agrippa writes (De vanit. scient., ch. 96): “Our
inquisitors exercise their jurisdic on, based on decrees of the popes, very
savagely. They set up as the object of faith the one Roman church, which,
as they say, cannot err, by asking those who argue against them nothing
else but whether they believe in the Roman church. If anyone tries to
defend his own opinion, they reply that one must ba le against here cs
not with arguments from Scripture but with fire and bundles of wood,” etc.
If it had not been for this Spanish Inquisi on; if not for the prohibi on of
the reading of the Evangelical books and, in fact, of Holy Scripture itself; if
not for the more than tyrannical threat of proscrip on, exile, and loss of
property, there would be no doubt that the Papist religion would be
ex nguished in the hearts of many people and that the light of the
Gospel’s truth would be shining in them.
 As an addi on, Bellarmine adds: “Every year some Jews and Turks are
converted and are bap zed both at Rome and elsewhere.” But these are
par cular conversions of certain persons, many of which occur in our
churches in various places through a grace of God.
** Moreover, against the boas ng about the annual conversion of Jews
and Turks we set forth the statement of Erasmus (Annot. on Matthew 23):
Perhaps this, too, pertains to the behavior of those of us who think it is some great thing to
have en ced a Jew into being bap zed. Not that we should not desire for all Jews to come to
their senses, but some people take their boas ng from this, and they do not en ce them in
the way that they ought. Once they have en ced someone, they do not teach him the things
that involve true Chris anity. For how can it happen that we make others Chris ans if we
ourselves have not first been Chris an? It frequently happens, therefore, that as far as the
Jewish wickedness is concerned, we would consider a Chris an more wicked. We can find
witnesses for this even in Spain. Also, there are some who by a strange example make
Chris ans by means of weapons under the pretext of spreading religion, but are looking out
for their own wealth and power. In regard to these things, nothing will be done unless the
task is undertaken with a purely Chris an spirit. **

Whether the doctrine of the Evangelical churches is effectual

§ 258. The third sec on. Does the doctrine of our churches have a
salutary efficacy for conversion combined with it? Bellarmine absolutely
denies this. He says: “The Lutherans have barely converted one or two,
though they compare themselves with the apostles and evangelists and
though they have more Jews in Germany, and in Poland and Hungary they
have the Turks as their immediate neighbors.”
We respond. (1) The nega on of the primary actuality cannot be
inferred from the nega on of a secondary actuality. If our people have
converted no one or only few, this is not to be a ributed to the doctrine,
which is the same as the apostolic doctrine. Rather, this should be
a ributed: to the persons of those who preach it, to whom God has not
allo ed the same measure of faith and gi s as He allo ed to the apostles;
and to the persons of those who listen, who are unwilling to receive the
seed of the Gospel in the field of their hearts. Thus the teachers of the
church who came a er the mes of the apostles did not convert as many
as did the apostles, yet the truth of doctrine loses nothing because of this.
** Bellarmine is contradic ng himself, for he says, first: “Here cs never
converted any heathen or Jews to their faith but only corrupted them” (ch.
12, art. 1). But then he says (ibid., last art.): “The Lutherans have barely
converted one or two.” Yet if they have “converted one or two,” that is,
“very few,” at least they have converted some. And if they have converted
some, it is false to say that they “never converted any.” **
(2) Whatever conversions once occurred through the preaching of the
apostles, those happened through the doctrine that sounds forth in our
churches, for it is completely the same as the doctrine of the apostles. If
Bellarmine goes on to deny that, let him come down into the arena with us
and argue the truth of doctrine only from the wri ngs of the evangelists
and apostles, with which the wri ngs of the prophets are to be counted
because they are of the same kind.
(3) Through the light of Gospel truth, which was rekindled in the
previous century, whole provinces and kingdoms have been torn away
from the An christ’s dominion. This is something that Bellarmine will
understand if he is willing to count up the receipts of the papal treasury as
they were a century ago and as they are now. Can he deny with any
appearance of truth that the efficacy of Evangelical doctrine has been
great, that it has grown in many provinces while popes and rulers vainly
resisted and raged against it?
A man without the might of sword, with the might of the Word, with an unarmed army
A man without possession, without hope, subdued the resources of the world.

To propagate our religion we use neither violence nor deceit. We do not

frighten those who disagree with us by means of prison, proscrip on,
plundering, etc., nor do we a ract them with fla ering promises of honors,
riches, and high office when we invite them to embrace it. They are
converted to our church by the efficacy of our doctrine alone.
(4) The efficacy of Evangelical doctrine is clear from the fact that it
supplies solid and effectual comfort in pangs of conscience and in
tempta ons. It strengthens and sustains the minds of people on the brink
of death. From this principle Christ Himself (John 8:51) proves the truth of
His teaching. For examples of this, see our trea se On Good Works
[Commonplace XX], Loci, vol. 4, toward the end of § 107.
(5) If Bellarmine demands that we show a conversion of heathen to our
churches, we refer him to Iceland, Greenland, Lapland, Livonia, etc., where
by the preaching of the Gospel many thousands of people were converted
to the true God from heathen idolatry. (See also what we cited from the
histories earlier in § 186.)
Section X: On the Tenth Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: Holiness of Life: Whether
holiness of life is a mark of the church
§ 259. The first sec on. Is holiness of life a genuine and proper mark of
the church?
** Schmaltz, Refut. D. Frantz., p. 278: “No one knows infallibly who is
turning his life to the be er or who is truly doing his best to live devoutly,
because it is easy to pretend virtue.” From this he concludes that it is false
to say that from a considera on of their life one can judge soundly what
people are the true church. But on the other hand, Socinus (Quod evangel.,
toward the end of ch. 3) writes: “Although we did not approve of the sins
that are commi ed in our churches, yet they are sufficient reason for a
person who is zealous about piety to separate himself from those
churches, especially when there are other assemblies of people who
venerate Jesus Christ that do not allow them.” Pisecius lists the pursuit of
piety among “the marks of salutary doctrine” that sound forth in the
assemblies of Pho nians. He says (Contra Camp., p. 110): “Will you deny
that the church is among us? Therefore consider the more obvious marks,
circumstances, and effects of salutary doctrine, such as: a piety conformed
to the teachings of Christ, love, pa ence, kindness, temperance, jus ce,
and the other fruits of salutary doctrine.” **
We defend the posi on that denies this. Holiness means either internal
or external holiness. Internal holiness, consis ng of true faith and inner
renewal (Acts 15:9), is not open to man’s view (Rom. 10:10). Thus it
cannot be a mark of the visible church. Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 3, ch. 10:
“No one can know for sure who the truly just and pious are among so
many who show external righteousness and piety, since it is certain that
there are many hypocrites and false brothers everywhere.”
External holiness cannot be a mark of the church: (1) Because it is not
proper to the church. Bellarmine, De lib. arbitr., bk. 5, ch. 10: “It is certain
that we cannot learn doctrine on the basis of the works of those people
who teach us. We do not see their internal works, and their external works
are common to both sides. Because of this, we compare them with the
coats of sheep with which the wolves also cover themselves. Therefore
because the Lord knew that doctrine could not be discerned from a
person’s work, because bad men o en teach well, He gave the following
warning: ‘Do what they say, but do not do according to their works’ [Matt.
23:3].” The apostle says about here cs that they “speak a lie in hypocrisy”
(1 Tim. 4:2), that they “have the appearance of godliness” (2 Tim. 3:5),
that they “disguise themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Cor. 11:13). He
adds: “If even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light, is it strange if his
servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness?” [2 Cor.
11:14–15]. He says that they “walk in the humility and religion of angels”
(Col. 2:18). Christ tes fies about the Pharisees that they “make a pretense
of long prayers” (Matt. 23:14), that they are “like whitewashed tombs” (v.
27), etc. In regard to the Nova ans (or Cathari [“the Pure”]) and the
Dona sts, it is evident that they had the custom of pretending a wonderful
holiness. Augus ne (De haeresibus ad Quodvultd., ch. 38) tes fies about
the Cathari that “they called themselves by that offensive name because of
cleanness.” In reference to the Manichaeans he writes (De morib. eccles.
cath., bk. 1, ch. 1): “They have deceived many with the holiness of their
behavior.” Jerome writes about the Pelagians (vol. 2, Adv. Pelag., bk. 3, p.
308): “They boldly claim the heavenly goodness for themselves because of
their great holiness and secure righteousness.” Vincent of Lérins greatly
commends the holiness of Origen (Adv. haeres., ch. 23). Yet Bellarmine (De
eccles., bk. 4, ch. 9) calls him a “heresiarch.” Alphonsus de Castro (Adv.
haeres., tle ecclesia) writes about the Dona sts: “They professed holiness
so much that they denied that the church exists where good people are
stained by fellowship with bad people.” As regards the Anabap sts and
Pho nians, it is known that they boast that they live a holy and apostolic
life.
(2) It is not a perpetual mark of the church. Some mes the sanc ty of
the church is so beclouded with a mul tude of scandals or with the fury of
persecu ons that it is not publicly conspicuous. At the me just before the
flood, public and notorious disgraces abounded “among the sons of God”
[cf. Gen. 6:2], that is, in the visible church. Elijah complained that the
children of Israel had broken the covenant, destroyed the altars, killed the
prophets, and le only him [1 Kings 19:10–14]. The complaints of the
prophets are well-known—of Isaiah (ch. 52), of Jeremiah (ch. 50), of
Ezekiel (ch. 36), and of the rest of the prophets—about the wickedness of
their hearers. Eusebius men ons that the great persecu on s rred up by
Diocle an was sent by God “because of the corrupt behavior of the
Chris ans, but especially because of the churchmen who fought among
themselves and seemed to have occupied their minds more with tyranny
than with the priesthood.” Costerus (Ench., tract. de eccles., § coetus igitur)
argues: “At the me of Christ’s Passion holiness flourished only in the
Virgin Mary.” He explains (Apolog., part 2, ch. 3): “As regards external
judgment, it flourished.” So, then, what sanc ty of life was publicly evident
in the church?
(3) It is not an infallible mark, because the An christ with his synagogue
also pretends holiness. Dan. 11:38: “He will venerate the god Maozim in
His place; a god whom his fathers did not know he will honor with gold and
silver,” etc. Rev. 13:11: “A beast rising out of the earth had two horns like a
lamb.” Rev. 17:4: “The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and
bedecked with gold and precious stones and pearls, holding in her hand a
golden cup,” etc. As a whore lies in saying that she is a virgin and as she
tries to commend herself with external splendor, so also the An christ with
his synagogue will commend himself with the external splendor of
hypocri cal holiness. The Papists do not deny this, even though they deny
that their pope is the An christ. Pererius, bk. 14, commentary on Daniel:
“The An christ will be most cra y. He will use various tricks to deceive
people. Especially those people who will pursue piety and religion will he
cap vate with an appearance and pretense of sanc ty, chas ty,
abs nence, and piety. Also, Hippolytus tes fies that the An christ will be a
hypocrite.” Acosta, De temp. noviss., ch. 20: “In order to deceive people a
pretense of holiness will have been placed in him, which is a strong
en cement with its external appearance to men who are not cau ous
enough. For he will be the first of those who speak lies in hypocrisy and
who have an appearance of piety.”
(4) The fathers never claimed teachers should be judged from their life,
but from the kind of doctrine. Therefore holiness of life in teachers is not a
sure and infallible mark of the church. The ancients took Christ’s statement
“false prophets are to be recognized from their fruits” (Matt. 7:20) to
mean false doctrine. This explana on is confirmed from Luke 6:45.
Vincent of Lérins (Adv. haeres., ch. 36) says: “Here cs cover themselves
with statements of the divine Law as with sheepskins. Yet they can be
recognized as wolves from their fruits, that is, from their false
interpreta ons.” Theophylact, on Matthew 7: (The false prophets) “put
forth golden words and pretend a holy life, but the hook is within. For the
sake of fla ering and beguiling, they bedeck themselves in sheep’s clothing
and in a gentleness that they abuse.” Jerome, commentary on Matthew 7,
on the words “who come in sheep’s clothing”: “This refers specifically to
here cs, who seem to surround themselves with con nence, chas ty, and
fas ng as if with the same clothing of piety. But inwardly they have a
poisoned mind to deceive the hearts of more simple brothers.” The author
of the Opus imperf. in Ma h. (homily 19) explains this in the same way, as
does Theodoret (Haeret. fabul., bk. 3, at the beginning) and others.
Regarding the here c Ta an, Epiphanius writes (bk. 1, vol. 3, Haeres. 46):
“He led a very wicked life under the disguise of con nence and con nent
behavior.” Jerome, Apolog. contra Ruf inum, bk. 3: “In dispu ng with
sects, what catholic ever accused the shameful life of him against whom he
disputes?” (But this is ordinary for the Papists who dispute with us!) Jus n,
Dial. cum Tryph., p. 241: “We do not live as do the leaders of your people,
whom God rebukes with words like these: ‘Your princes are companions of
thieves who love bribes’ [Isa. 1:23], etc. But if you know that there are
some among us like that, do not immediately with your curses censure the
Scriptures and Christ for that reason.” Chrysostom, on Matthew, homily 4:
“All the kinds of righteousness that a servant of God has in truth, the
servants of the devil can have in pretense. The devil does have his chaste,
his fasters, his almsgivers; and when naive people who do not know the
difference between true and simulated good look for good men, they run
into the deceivers of the devil.” Chrysostom again, on Ma hew, toward the
end of homily 88: “Although we have very o en overcome them”
(heathen and Jews) “with our doctrines, they reproach us with the bad life
of many, and they set forth the wounds, that is, the ailments of the mind,
of those who live with us.” The author of the Opus imperf., homily 49:
“The behavior of all or of many Chris ans formerly was holy. But now,
people like here cs and heathen, or worse, have become Chris ans.
Consequently, whoever wishes to know which is the true church of Christ
should not learn this anywhere except through the Scriptures.” Augustine,
Letter 137: “This is the custom of here cs” (as well as of Bellarmine and
other Papists today) “to reproach teachers with crimes because they are
unable to fault their doctrine. Even when a married woman is found to be
an adulteress, they do not throw out their wives nor accuse their mothers.
Yet when something about a crime or decep on is heard or is revealed as
true about some who profess the holy name, they insist: ‘They are trying
hard; they are striving to make everyone believe this.’ ” Later he concludes:
You should make no objec on against the here cs except that they are not catholic. See to it
that you do not become like those who, not having anything by which to defend their
separa on, strive to do nothing but gather the crimes of men. And they speak of many of
these most falsely. Because they cannot accuse and obscure the truth of divine Scripture, by
which the holy church of Christ that has been sca ered everywhere is commended, they
bring the men through whom Scripture is preached into hatred. Concerning them they can
also imagine whatever comes into their mind.

(This is a vivid account of the false accusers among the Papists who are
burdening the teachers of our church with unheard-of slander.) Augus ne
goes on: “But that is not the way you learned Christ, if you have heard Him
and were taught in Him [Eph. 4:20–21]. He makes His faithful secure, even
about evil stewards who do their evil things and speak His good things,
when He said, ‘Do what they say, but do not do what they do’ [Matt.
23:3].” Augus ne again, De moribus eccles. cathol., bk. 1, ch. 34: “Now I
advise you to stop cursing the catholic church by disparaging the behavior
of people whom even the church condemns and whom she daily strives to
correct as wayward children.” De catech. rudib., ch. 25: “The heathen have
slandered the doctrine of the Gospel because of the wickedness of some
Chris ans.”
** Augustine, Letter 136: “Teachers can speak true things and yet live
badly.” Augus ne again, QQ. ex utroque Testam., ch. 102:
I do not know on whose account you despise me. I approached him in the case because he
was called your overseer. It was you I sought, you I desired, you I believed. Concerning man,
I hoped for nothing. Why, then, should I be harmed by the evils of him whom I would not
have known unless I had asked you? If his goodness can benefit me, it would perhaps seem
right that his evils harm me. But, just as his goodness brought me no advantage, if I had
believed in doubt, so also his evils should not harm me if I believe well. I trusted his words
that you are said to have spoken. **

(5) Let us go on to the consensus of our adversaries. [Ius canonicum,]

dist. 9, c. ego solis: “I read others in such a way that no ma er how they
gleam with great holiness, I do not think that it is true just because they
thought so,” etc. Here the gloss has: “One should not pay a en on to who
is speaking, but to what is being said.” In favor of this opinion it cites
Thomas ([ST,] 2.2., q. 70, art. 3). Acosta, De procur. Indor. sal., bk. 2, ch.
18: “Augus ne used very great care to preserve that warning in instruc ng
the unlearned [in catechizandis rudibus] in order that those who were
preparing to accept the faith would be admonished not to measure our
religion on the basis of our people, but rather on the basis of its equity and
holiness.” Stapleton concludes with explicit words (De princ. doctr., bk. 1,
ch. 19): “The church is holy, but the holiness of the church is not known.”
** The same, Prompt. cathol., 7. post pentec., locus 4: “The fruits of
here cs by which we should know them are not some truths that they
teach nor are they always those works that they do, whether good or bad
(for bad things do not always come from the actual heresy but some mes
from the wickedness of the person). Rather, they are partly those here cal
dogmas, false and impious, that belong to each here c and were invented
properly by each architect; and partly they are evil works belonging to the
here cs and springing from the root of the heresy.” **
Here we should men on Bellarmine’s statement in his Tract. de indulg.
in the appendix to his De summo pon f., ch. 22: “Boccacius does censure
the disgraceful ac vi es of clergymen and monks. But from this it does not
follow that because of this their religion and doctrine would be seen as
false.” Furthermore, he adds: “This wickedness of priests is rather an
argument for the truth of the faith that is cul vated at Rome, because
neither the heathen nor evil behavior can subvert that see.” So, then, as far
as Bellarmine is concerned, the wickedness of priests is an argument for
the truth of faith, and even for the truth of the church, but in this place he
declares the contrary. That is, hot and cold flows out of one mouth.

Bellarmine’s arguments that holiness of life is a mark of the

church
§ 260. Intending to prove that holiness of life especially in the authors
or first fathers of religion is a mark of the church, Bellarmine brings
forward in the first place “the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles”; second,
“the doctors who struggled against every heresy”; and, finally, “the
founders of the religious orders, all of whom, it is clear, were holy, chaste,
pious, and sober. On the other hand, it is evident that the teachers of the
heathen were either frivolous poets or proud philosophers, that nothing
more incon nent than Muhammad can be imagined, that the heresiarchs
were totally covered with many vices, and that pride is common to all.” He
tries to prove this with specific examples of some people.
We respond. (1) Bellarmine does a great injus ce to the patriarchs,
prophets, and apostles by connec ng them with the founders of religious
orders, for the former were called immediately by God, were conspicuous
for their true holiness, and had the privilege of not erring. The la er, on
the contrary—not to say anything more serious—were supers ous men
who, against the express prohibi on of the apostle, introduced schisms
into the church so that one says, “I am of Francis,” and another: “I am of
Dominic,” etc. (Cf. 1 Cor. 1:12.)
(2) He should not compare the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles even
with the doctors or fathers of the early church, because the la er lack an
immediate call and the privilege of infallibility. Augustine, Letter 19 ad
Hieron.: “I do not think that you want your books to be read like the books
of the prophets or apostles, about whose wri ngs it is abominable to
doubt that they are free of every error.”
(3) What kind of logical conclusion is this: “The patriarchs, prophets,
apostles, and doctors of the church were saints; therefore holiness is a
mark of the church”? Must everything among the doctors of the church
straightaway be a mark of the church? Shall we pass judgment on teachers
from their life rather than from their doctrine? But according to this logic,
it turns out that the teaching of Judas the betrayer was false, but the
teaching of the false apostles who disguised themselves as apostles of
Christ was true.
(4) The doctors of the church were holy, yet they s ll struggled against
their own blemishes and weaknesses. Some—like Noah, Lot, David, Aaron,
Peter—even fell into enormous sins. But did their teaching cease to be true
because of this?
(5) If we are to judge concerning the church on the basis of the holiness
of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, our church rather than the
Roman church claims that praise for itself, for our church follows the
doctrine of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles. We follow those doctors
and are joined with them by a kinship of doctrine. The Papists, on the other
hand, long ago departed far from the integrity of prophe c and apostolic
doctrine, as is shown elsewhere.
(6) We do not deny that the teachers of the heathen and the
heresiarchs were proud. Yet from this one cannot deduce that sanc ty of
life in teachers is a mark of the church. A er all, it can happen that a
catholic doctor is proud while a here cal teacher conceals his pride. How,
then, can that hidden vice be the visible mark of a false church? For
teaching their dogmas, heresiarchs always give the excuse that they are
moved by zeal for promo ng God’s glory and human salva on, but actually
they are earnestly pushing their own ambi on and pride. How, then, can
one pass judgment about their teaching on the basis of their secret pride?

Whether holiness of life belongs to the teachers of the Roman

church
§ 261. The second sec on. Can holiness of life be a ributed to the
teachers of the Roman church? Here Bellarmine appeals to “the patriarchs,
prophets, and apostles, to the doctors of the early church, and to the
founders of religious orders.” But this is obviously uneducated, because
neither the prophets nor apostles nor doctors of the early church accepted
the papal dogmas that we oppose on the basis of the wri ngs of the
prophets, apostles, and doctors of the early church. Therefore they cannot
be called teachers or fathers of the papal church. In fact, not even at the
me of Anthony, Augus ne, and Basil, by whom they imagine some
monas c orders were founded, were there such great corrup ons of
heavenly doctrine as are rampant in the Roman church today. We
conceded that Francis, Dominic, Benedict, etc., were supers ous, but we
deny that they were truly saints. Yet even if they had been more holy than
the apostles, or even the angels, we would s ll have to judge their doctrine
on the basis of the words of Gal. 1:8: “Even if we apostles or an angel from
heaven should preach to you a gospel beyond what we preached to you,
let him be accursed.”
(In regard to Francis we read in the Liber conformitatum, printed at
Bologna in 1589: “Francis was greater than John the Bap st,” f. 24. “He was
be er than the apostles,” f. 38. “The Son of God resembled him in every
way,” f. 5. “He was given as a light to the Gen les,” f. 17. “In merits he is
similar to the angels and archangels,” f. 247. “All the virtues of the saints of
the Old and New Testament were placed in Francis uni vely and
conjointly,” f. 5. “In him, the suffering of Christ in the human race was
renewed,” f. 144, etc. In regard to Dominic, Archbishop Antoninus writes,
part 3, tle 23, ch. 1, §§ 1ff.: “He raised more dead people than did Christ
Himself. The power over things in heaven, things on earth, and things
under the earth was communicated to him. It is easier to go to Christ
through him than through Paul. He received the ‘triple discipline’ from his
own hand, not with a rope but with an iron chain, to the point of
bloodshed: one for his own faults, which were very small; one for those in
purgatory; and the third for those who are s ll in the world,” etc.)
Therefore, away with those monstrous pronouncements that are
diametrically opposed to God’s Word: “Francis sprang forth from Christ’s
wounded side” (Lib. conf., f. 247). “Francis was made according to the
image and likeness of Jesus Christ: crucified first in his life and then in his
suffering” (f. 13). “With the five s gmata of his wounds he saves men from
eternal death who have lived from his me and will live un l the end of the
world” (Bernardus, Rosar., part 2, sermon 27, p. 224). We shall never allow
these statements to convince us, even if Francis were as holy as an angel
from heaven; even if three other popes s ll commanded everyone to
believe in those s gmata of Francis under penalty of heresy, something
that already was done by Gregory IX, Alexander V, and Nicholas III; and,
finally, even if a thousand others claimed with Bonaventure in the Legenda
Francisci that “when Francis died, many people recognized the s gmata,
made by nails driven into them.” This is contradicted by Ma hew of Paris,
who lived at the very me when Francis died (in his Hist. Henr. III. reg.
Angl., p. 329). He denies that any s gmata of the aforemen oned wounds
remained in his side, hands, or feet.

The holiness of the city of Rome

§ 262. Let us look at the highly proclaimed holiness of the Roman
church in the Curia and city of Rome, in the pope as its head, in the
cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, monks, Jesuits, and laity, as that is
described not by our writers but especially by those who contend that they
are theirs. The complaints of the en re world about the corrupt state of
the Curia and city of Rome are well-known.
** Pla na, the pope’s librarian, Vita Bonifacii V., p. 81:
On land and sea the Turks are now threatening to pluck us like rabbits out of our holes, the
church. We sit idle, the one side wai ng for the other, as if this evil does not threaten the
en re Chris an republic. The priests wait for this great and necessary war to be begun by
the seculars. The seculars likewise wait for the presbyters, for the sake of preserving
religion, to promise money for the costs, to supply soldiers, and not to squander it on worse
uses, as most of them generally do, making the monies collected by means of alms and the
blood of martyrs into huge gold and silver containers. They are too li le concerned for the
future. They are despisers of God, whom they worship only for profit, and also of men. **

In the Revelat. extravag. of Brigi a, ch. 51:

Christ said to some archbishop: “Inquire further and hear what is the condi on of the
Roman Curia, which ought to be My throne. Just as there are four suppor ng legs on a
throne and a middle on which the throne rests, so on My throne that I have le to the
supreme pon ffs there should be, as it were, four legs (namely, of humility, obedience,
jus ce, and mercy) and a middle place (namely, divine wisdom with divine love). But this has
been changed and a new throne taken up. In it pride has been subs tuted for humility, one’s
own will for obedience, love of money for jus ce, wrath and envy for mercy. The middle is
called the wise man and master of the world. Behold, in this way My immutable throne has
been turned upside down.

(See similar complaints in bk. 1, chs. 41 and 56; bk. 3, ch. 27; etc.)
** This same Brigi a, who lived in the year 1370, calls the pope “a
murderer of souls, sca erer and slaughterer of Christ’s sheep.” She says he
is “more abominable than the Jews, more savage than Judas, more unjust
than Pilate, worse than and inferior to Lucifer himself.” She says that the
papal throne is “submerged in the depths like a heavy stone” and that his
assessors “will burn in an unquenchable, sulfurous fire.” An ancient
preacher comments on Revelation 17 and describes the Roman see as
follows:
The city of Rome is called a whore. The city of Rome has been turned into dross. Above all
things, they know how to do evil, for they do not know how to do good. They are enemies of
earth and heaven, impious toward God, thoughtless toward holy things, quarrelsome
toward each other, envious of their neighbors, inhumane to strangers. These are people
who do not endure being subjects and did not refuse to be in charge. They are faithless to
their superiors, unbearable to their inferiors, shameless in asking, bold in refusing, rude in
receiving, thankless when they have received. They have taught their mouths to say great
things, but what they do is very small. They are most profuse in their fawning, most bi ng in
their detrac ng, most frank in their pretending, most wicked in their betraying. Kings of the
earth have fornicated with her. That is, earthly princes have abandoned God and serve her,
according to Itampot. Bishop Dominicus Brixiensis wrote a book for Pius II
called Reforma o curiae Romanae. Nevertheless he nudges the subject
with a so elbow as one who is stuck in the same mud with others (Catal.
tes um verit., bk. 19, f. 1862). “Emperor Sigismund had prepared a
reforma on that is s ll extant, printed in the vernacular language. By
means of it, in the Council of Constance he wanted to restrain the pride,
pomp, and simony of the pope and his spiritual people. When some people
said he should begin with the Minorites, he responded: ‘Not with the
Minorites but with the Majorites.’ The pope, however, deceived him very
cleverly, and his pious a empt was frustrated” (Catal., bk. 19, f. 1876). Cf.
Marsilius Patavinus in Wolff., vol. 1, p. 616. **
Adrian VI (whose judgment as pope in this ma er is certain and
infallible), in instruc ons given to Bishop Franciscus Cheregatus of Abruzzi,
his legate to the Diet of Nuremberg in 1523, admits: “From the sole of its
feet to the top of its head there is nothing sound in the en re body of the
ecclesias cal order” (according to Sleidanus, Comm., bk. 4, f. 82). The
words of the Instruc o read in this way:
You will say that we are frankly confessing that God allows this persecu on to come upon
His church because of people’s sins, especially the sins of the priests and prelates of the
church, etc. Because of this, as Chrysostom says, our Savior, intending to cure the sick city of
Jerusalem, first entered the temple to chas se the sins of the priests. He is like a good
physician who heals a disease from its root. We know that already for several years in this
holy see many abominable things have existed: abuses in spiritual ma ers, excesses in
commandments, and finally all things were changed into corrup on. It is not strange if the
sickness has gone from the head into the members, from the supreme pon ffs into other
lower prelates. All of us have turned aside, each to his own way. There was no longer
anyone who was doing good, no, not one, etc.

** Cf. Goldastus, Const. imp., vol. 1, part 2, f. 29; Fascic. rerum agendar.,
published at Cologne; Claudius Espencaeus, commentary on Titus 1, pp.
69 and 70. **
What those abuses were was later explained with examples to Paul III
by cardinals who were selected for this purpose. At Strasbourg in 1555,
Vergerius published a Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, wri en by
Cardinal Johannes Petrus Caraffa of Naples, a Thea ne, who later became
pope under the name Paul IV. He gave it to Pope Paul III, and it was
subscribed by four cardinals, two archbishops, a bishop, an abbot, and a
master of the holy palace. In it they speak as follows:
 For a long me now, God’s church and especially the Curia have been struggling with abuses
as if with destruc ve diseases. It is obvious that the effect of these is near: while these
destruc ve diseases have been growing slowly and gradually, the church has suffered great
ruin. The beginning of these evils was that some popes who were the predecessors of Paul
III had accumulated for themselves teachers according to their own desires [2 Tim. 4:3], not
to learn from them what they ought to be doing, but rather to find from their clever studies
some way by which they would be allowed to do what they wanted. From that source, holy
father, as from the Trojan horse, there burst upon the church of God so many abuses and
such serious diseases, with which we now see that it has struggled almost to the despair of
its salva on and by which the report of these things has flowed even to the infidels. Let your
holiness believe those who know that the infidels deride the Chris an religion especially for
this reason, so that through us—through us, we say—Christ’s name is being blasphemed
among the Gen les [Rom. 2:24].

And later:
The first abuse is the ordina on of clergymen and especially of presbyters in which they use
no care or diligence. In many places everywhere, some are u erly ignorant, some have
come from low birth, some have bad behavior, some are adolescents. These they admit to
holy orders and especially to the presbyterate. As a result of this, there are countless
scandals and a contempt for the ecclesias cal order, and respect for the divine service not
only has diminished but has almost disappeared, etc. Another abuse—and this is of the
greatest significance—is in the conferring of ecclesias cal benefices, especially of curates
and of bishoprics. Here the prac ce prevails of providing for the persons upon whom the
benefice is conferred but not for the flock of Christ and for the church. Another abuse is in
the exchanging of benefices that are made with contracts, all of which are simoniac and are
concerned for nothing but profit. Another abuse is that they have found many ways to
bequeath benefices by a will, so that the sons of presbyters have the benefices of their
fathers, etc. Another abuse is in expectancies and reserva ons of benefices. Not only one
bishopric but many are bestowed on cardinals, though the offices of cardinal and bishop are
incompa ble. This abuse must also be corrected: that bishops, first and foremost, and then
curates not be absent from their churches and parishes, except for a serious reason, and
make their residence there. By God Immortal, what sight can be more wretched to a
Chris an man traveling throughout the world than that deser on of the churches? Almost
all the shepherds have le their flocks and have entrusted almost all of them to hirelings. It
is also an abuse that so many reverend cardinals are absent from this Curia and are
performing in no part any of their office that refers to cardinals, etc. Another great abuse,
which we certainly should not tolerate and which is a scandal to all Chris an people, comes
from the impediments that are imposed on bishops in the governing of their sheep,
especially in punishing and correc ng the wicked. You see, first, in many ways bad men,
especially clergymen, exempt themselves from the jurisdic on of their ordinary. Then, if
they are not exempt, they immediately flee for refuge to the Peniten aria or to the Dataria.
There they immediately find a way to go unpunished, and what is worse, by paying money
for it. Most blessed father, this scandal upsets the Chris an people so much that we cannot
explain it in words. Let these blemishes be removed, we implore your holiness by the blood
of Christ by which He redeemed His church! Let these blemishes be removed, for if any
entry were given to these in any state or kingdom of men, that realm would immediately, or
shortly a er, fall into ruin. Another abuse to be corrected is in the orders of the religious
 that are deformed so much that they have become a great scandal to secular people and do
great harm by their example. We think that all the conventual orders should be abolished,
but not in such a way as to harm anyone, but by forbidding them to admit new people, etc.
Another abuse upsets the Chris an people in the case of nuns who are under the care of
conventual brothers. In most monasteries public sacrileges occur to the greatest offense of
all, etc. There is another great and destruc ve abuse in the public schools, especially in Italy,
in which many professors of philosophy teach wickedness. In fact, in temples the most
impious disputa ons are held. If any of them are pious, spiritual ma ers are handled in
them quite irreverently before the people, etc. Another abuse is in the brothers or religious
apostates who a er their solemn vow abandon their religion and obtain their request that
they not be bound to wear the garb of their order, and not even the vestment of a habit, but
only the honorable clerical clothing, etc. Another abuse is in the peddlers [quaestuariis] of
the Holy Spirit, of Anthony, and others of this kind who deceive the simple, rural people and
entangle them in countless supers ons, etc. In this city of Rome pros tutes walk about or
are carried through the city on their mules like matrons. At midday already members of
noble families, cardinals, and clergymen are pursuing them. We have seen this corrup on in
no city more than in this, which is an example for all. Those pros tutes dwell even in
conspicuous buildings. This abuse must be corrected. Also in this city there are the hatreds
and hos li es of private ci zens, etc. O elect one, we hope that you will restore the name of
Christ that is now forgo en by the people, and even by us clergymen, that you will cure the
illnesses in our hearts and works, that you will lead the sheep of Christ back into the one
fold, that you will remove the wrath of God from us and the vengeance that we deserve,
which is already prepared and which now threatens our necks!

** What reforma on the Papists undertook, however—or, rather, with

what empty and useless hope of reforma on they deluded the world—is
explained extensively by Claudius Espencaeus (commentary on Titus 1, pp.
65–91) and, from him, Mayerus (De vuln. eccl. Rom., p. 99). **
Those are the words of those select cardinals.
** Erasmus, Le er ad Steuchum: “It can happen that in Germany there
are some who do not restrain themselves from blasphemies against God,
but this is punished by means of terrible punishments against them. At
Rome, however, I heard with my own ears some people raging with
abominable blasphemies against Christ and His apostles. Although there
were many who heard this along with me, the blasphemers went
unpunished.” Uber nus a Casali: “The church of today is called ‘new
Babylon,’ which is the great whore, because the true worship and love of
the Bridegroom Jesus Christ has been adulterated disgracefully. The spirit
of the righteous of this me is oppressed above measure in the dominion
of Babylon and is forced, whether it wants to or not, to serve in the many
acts of this whore. In these days, therefore, great perils await us.” Nicolaus
de Clemangis in his le ers calls the Roman church “a house of thieves that
should be purged with a whip just as the temple once was purged.” Also:
“What else is the Roman church but a workshop of ambi on, commercial
transac on, and fraud? Sacraments are for sale, orders are for sale, the
church itself is for sale. In fact, Masses and the administra on of the body
of Christ are for sale. That trafficking is public, and the brothel, the house
of pros tu on, the synagogue are more detestable than Babylon itself.”
(See the heap of complaints of this kind in Polanus, Symph. catholica, p.
770.) Regarding the general corrup on of behavior and universal pollu on
of all estates, which infect both the head and the members of the Roman
church like a spiritual leprosy and deadly decay, see Gerson throughout his
works, Brigi a (Revela ones), Vincen us Ferrariensis (Prognos con), Pierre
d’Ailly (De reform. ecclesiae), Nicolaus de Clemangis (Bibliotheca patrum),
Walterus Mapes (Poemata), Maillardus and Menotus (Sermones),
Holco us (on the book of Wisdom, lect. 182), and many others. Four
hundred years ago, the monk Bernard of Morlaix (made famous by
Possevinus in Appar. sacr, first appendix to vol. 1, le er B) wrote his three
books De contemtu mundi in ar s c rhythms. In them he objects to the
impiety of the Roman church from head to toe by first depic ng in general,
in all estates, its adulteries, drunkenness, ambi on, deceit, frauds, the s,
murders; and then specifically in the clergy, its ignorance, negligence,
sodomy, simony, and other crimes. Finally, he enters Rome and places the
filthiness of the Roman Babylon so clearly before the eyes of the whole
world that it could seem uncertain to anyone whether the impiety of the
former or the license [παῤῥησία] of the la er was greater. In the year
1460, Jacobus Junterbeck, a German Carthusian, wrote some advice to the
pope for the reforma on of the church (according to Possevinus, App.
sacr., vol. 2, le er I). **
Franciscus Petrarch (Dial. de Romanae curiae evita one) calls Rome “a
hall of pride, a tomb of glu ony, a swamp of luxury, and the offspring of all
evils.” Petrarch again, Le er 16: “At Rome there is no piety, no love, no
faith, no reverence for God, no fear, nothing holy, nothing fair, nothing just.
There everything is filled with lies—the inner parts of the temples, the
benches of the judges, the thrones of the popes.”
** The same, Le er 17: “At Rome you see not just a people opposed to
Christ but, what is worse, a people rebelling against Christ and going to war
for Satan under the banner of Christ.” Le er 18: “There” (at Rome) “truth
is insanity, abs nence is rus c behavior, modesty is a huge disgrace and a
license to sin. The more polluted it is, the more glorious is one’s life.” Ibid.:
“The hope of the life to come is an empty tale, and what is said about hell
is all a fable. The resurrec on of the flesh, the end of the world, and
Christ’s coming to judge are considered to be among the songs.” **
Le er 19:
What shall I do at Rome that I may see the good submerged, the bad upli ed, eagles crawl,
and jackasses fly, foxes in carriages, vultures in towers, and doves in the dung-pit, wolves
running free, and lambs in chains, Christ as an exile, the An christ as lord, and Beelzebub as
judge? Who will reform the overturned behavior? Who will gather the sca ered sheep?
Who will rebuke the erring shepherds? Whatever treachery and deceit, whatever
unkindness and arrogance, whatever immodesty and unbridled lust you have ever heard of
or read about, and, finally, whatever wickedness and evil behavior are or were sca ered
throughout the Roman world, you will see and discover it all here, heaped and piled up.

** Claudius Espencaeus, commentary on Titus, digress. 2, p. 69: “The

scholiast of the rules of Innocent VIII at first calls the papal court ‘the
mother of monies,’ and then he acknowledges from Sallust’s Jugurtha that
all things at Rome are for sale. Then he does not hide the fact that many
things are decided or conceded to extort money indirectly and that the
great generosity of the apostolic throne gives lead but demands gold.”
Ibid.: “But this is even known to children, to whom Mantuanus (Ecloga 5
and 9) is read with impunity: ‘If Rome will give anything, she will give jokes,
but she will demand gold. She will give words, but, alas, at Rome now only
money rules. Rome is to men what the owl is to birds’ ” (that is, a hunter).
In his commentary on Titus 1, p. 76: “Please tell me, where under the sun
is there greater license for all evils, more noise and wickedness, not to
men on infamy and immodesty” (than at Rome)?
It is so much and so great that no one would believe it unless he had seen it, and no one
would deny it unless he had not seen it. Shall I make the complaint that all mes have
reported, which began in the mes of Jerome, has lasted un l this century, and, in fact, is
perpetual, in this dis ch? “You who want to live like saints, leave Rome! All things are
allowed there except to be devout.” Whose is that? Certainly it is not the work merely of a
poet but also of a philosopher, theologian, and, indeed, an Italian theologian, Mantuanus a
Clenardo, a professor of the holy language at Louvain, Paris, Portugal, etc. In the le ers they
are cited not once. Also no less a man than a Lutheran dared to summarize this in another
dis ch: “Whoever seeks to get holy wealth by means of a profane coin should go to Rome.
Holy things are for sale at Rome.”
Page 78: “Before Luther had been heard, Raphael Volaterranus, that is, an
Italian, was wri ng that priesthoods at Rome were being given in place of
payment and that the spiritual treasure was being held for profit and
commerce.” **
Nicolaus Floren nus (according to Wolf, Lec on. memorab., preface to
part 2):
If this diligent care for divine worship had been observed by the princes of the Chris an
republic according to its original ins tu on and the precepts of Him who handed it down to
us, we would be enjoying far greater blessedness and peace in the Chris an world, though
there never has been less piety and religion than in those who now live very close to Rome;
and though it is considered the head of the Chris an religion, you can easily guess that it is
greatly endangering the Chris an world. If anyone will consider carefully this cul va on of
religion that is now in prac ce in our me and compare it with the original ins tu on and
true founda ons of the Chris an religion, he is unable not to fear its destruc on or not to
dread divine vengeance. In fact, the misfortune of all Italy stems from the fact that the
Roman church by no means lives according to the precepts of the Chris an religion, but
adulterates and corrupts them.

Johann. Francisc. Picus, count of Mirandola (Orat. ad Leonem X. et

concil. Lateranense, delivered in the year 1512):
Among most of the leaders of our religion, according to whose example the ignorant people
ought to be compared and formed, there is either no or very li le worship of God, no
manner or custom of living well, no decency, no modesty. Jus ce has declined into either
hatred or favor. Piety has fallen down almost into supers on. There is open sinning in all
estates of people in such a way that many mes virtue is turned into vice for honorable
people, and vices are generally honored in place of virtues by those who have thought that
their unheard-of wantonness and long-standing impunity were like walls and ramparts for
their crimes.

Johannes Staphileus, bishop of Šibenik [Siburicensis], in a speech delivered

to the auditors of the Rota on May 15, 1528, regarding the destruc on of
the city of Rome [De excidio urbis Romae] that had occurred in the year
immediately preceding:
We, we who are of this profession, feel, in addi on, this great loss of ours, we who caused
the domes c detriment of this city; I say, we reverend fathers have lost our most blameless,
most serious colleagues. But why, I ask you? Certainly because all flesh had corrupted their
own ways. We were all ci zens and inhabitants not of the holy city of Rome but of the sinful
city of Babylon. About it, the Word of God in Isaiah [1:21] has been fulfilled in our me:
“How the faithful city has become a whore,” etc. So that no one may think that this
prophecy of the prophet was fulfilled long ago in the destruc on of Babylon and of
Jerusalem, I advise him to no ce that, according to ecclesias cal truth, the future was the
present for the prophets, as if he were seeing now the future, now the present, with the
 eyes of his mind, etc. The prophet declares this very thing to us when he adds: “The
daughter of Zion will be abandoned and desolate as if overthrown by enemies” [cf. Isa. 1:7–
8]. In Revela on the apostle John interprets this “daughter of Zion” not as Jerusalem but
precisely as Rome, which is clear from his descrip on of her. He says that the woman whom
you see is a great city that has kingship—by which he means spiritual kingship—over the
kings of the earth [Rev. 17:18]. He says that the city sits upon seven mountains [Rev. 17:9],
which properly fits Rome; Rome is said to be “seven-hilled” by the ancients because of this.
He says, furthermore, that it is filled with the names of blasphemy [Rev. 17:3]. He calls it the
mother of uncleanness, fornica ons, and abomina ons of the earth [Rev. 17:5]. These
words do not demand a more specific descrip on of this city. Although these wickednesses
rule almost everywhere, here they have their throne and empire.

Aonius Palearius Verulanus, Act. adv. pon fic. Rom., tes m. 20:
Everywhere there are public whores, so that in Rome in previous years more than ten
thousand public pros tutes were counted. They are ordered to pay some por on of their
profits to Rome, just as the popes demand from the Jews 1 percent for allowing the Jews to
lend money at interest. In Rome there are such harsh taxa ons, such savage dominions of
simony, deceits, selling and buying of the Holy Spirit, and other abominable prac ces that
those who have the Spirit of Christ see it clearly wri en on the forehead of the Roman
Curia: “Babylon, the great mother of the fornica ons and abomina ons of the earth” [Rev.
17:5].

Before all these, Bernard (De considerat. ad Eugenium papam, bk. 1, col.
1014) complained: “From the whole world, the ambi ous, greedy,
simoniacs, sacrilegious, keepers of concubines, incestuous—even monsters
of such people—are flocking to the Roman Curia. By his authority they
either obtain ecclesias cal offices or keep them. In this way the pope is in
service to iniquity.” Bernard of Morlaix, De contemtu mundi, bk. 3, p. 86:
“Rome gives everything to all who give everything to Rome—for a price.
There the way of law and every law is perishing. As the wheel turns,
crushes ripe fruit, and releases their fragrance, so also Rome shall be called
a ‘wheel’ [rota] for the same reason. Harmful Rome harms and teaches the
way to harm.”

The holiness of the Roman pon ffs

§ 263. Regarding the Roman pon ffs’ many vices and wickednesses of
all kinds, read Pla na, Nauclerus, Balaeus, Johannes Stella, Robert Barnes,
Szegedinus, Nigrinus, etc. Panormitanus writes: “Many popes live their
lives in such a way that it is not at all likely that they believe in either the
resurrec on of the dead or eternal life.” Georgius Gothardus, canon of
Paris, Adv. Heerbrand., p. 116: “I also want you to know this, that when I
declare the dignity of the Roman popes I have looked not so much at their
persons as at the office, and that I am not undertaking the defense of all
the popes, since it is clearer than daylight that most of them led shameful
and profligate lives.”
** Erasmus, In Chiliad. Sileni Alcibiadis, p. 543: “Is it more fi ng that
Christ’s vicar imitate the Juliuses, Alexanders, Croesuses, and Xerxes—
nothing else than great thieves—rather than Christ Himself, the only leader
and emperor of the church?” Toward the end of Encom. Moriae: “No foes
of the church are more destruc ve than wicked popes who allow Christ to
disappear by silence, who bind Him with their laws of profit, who corrupt
Him with their forced interpreta ons, and who murder Him with their
unwholesome lives.” **
Aegidius Corrocetus, an Italian, relates that the painter Raphael Urbino
was once rebuked by the cardinals because he had painted the faces of
Peter and Paul with an unusual rosy nt, contrary to decency. He is said to
have answered: “Those apostles are suffused with red and are blushing as
they look upon the nefarious crimes of their vicars.” Johannes Stella, a
Vene an priest (Chronic.), lists the many wicked deeds of most popes and
concludes his history with these words: “I confess, and God is my witness,
that what I have wri en is not false.” Costerus, Enchir., ch. 3: “We confess
that it can happen that Peter’s successor worships idols, that he does not
think correctly about the faith privately, and even that he performs his
works with the arts of the devil.” Bellarmine (preface to De pon f. Rom.),
offering hard words so ly, writes: “At the end, God has allowed it to
happen that some insufficiently upright popes at mes held this throne
and were ruling. Some of these were Stephan VI, Leo V, Christopher I,
Sergius III, John XII, and not a few others—if those things are true that we
read about their lives and deeds in the histories of those mes.” And later:
“We acknowledge and admit that the vices of the popes were not few,” etc.
Now let us enumerate specifically, though only in part, the more striking
crimes of the popes. (1) Magic. Benno reports that five popes consecrated
themselves en rely to Satan: Sylvester II, Benedict IX, John XX, John XXI,
and Gregory VII. Nauclerus and Pla na tes fy: “All popes from Sylvester II
un l Gregory VII inclusively were sorcerers.” Regarding Sylvester II, who
earlier was called Gerbertus, Pla na men ons in par cular that he was
driven by ambi on and by a diabolical lust for domina on and that he
achieved the papal dignity with the help of the devil, yet with this
s pula on: that a er his death he would belong totally to him by whose
deceits he had obtained so great a dignity, and for this reason he had also
done homage to the devil (according to Arnoldus Alber nus, De agnos.
assert. cathol. et haeret., q. 9, no. 12). Before Benedict IX became pope, he
would en ce into a love for him whatever women he wished by the help of
magic. The story is told about Gregory VII that when he took off his gloves
a fire would leap out like sparks.
** Aven nus (Annal., bk. 5, p. 460) cites a decree of the bishops who
had assembled from France, Italy, and Germany in which they depict
Gregory VII in living colors:
Because Hildebrand is a false monk, a sorcerer, a fortune-teller, an interpreter of dreams and
omens, he thinks badly about the Chris an religion. Contrary to the custom of his fathers
and despite the objec ons of all good men, he was the first to purchase the office of the
chief pon ff, and against our will he tries to retain his dominion over the world. A fellow
priest and disciple of Berengar’s old error, he has conspired with the enemies of the republic
and of the Chris an emperor of the holy empire, who has o en offered peace to him and his
associates. He plots against the salva on of body and soul. He tries to destroy life and the
empire. He perverts divine and human law, teaches the false in place of the true, indulges
and highly extols sacrilege, perjury, lies, murder, and arson as if those were good deeds. He
blows a trumpet, calling people to perpetrate those deeds. He protects treacherous tyranny
in his own fashion; he sows discord between brothers, friends, and kinsmen. He fosters
li ga on and causes divorce between spouses. This deligh ul man refuses to accept as
sacrificial priests those who have legi mate wives, and yet he promoted fornicators,
adulterers, and the incestuous to the altars. Whatever Chris an peace there was, he has
undermined it. **

John XII invoked the devil in dice and honored him with a liba on of
wine. Paul III had a great friendship with Asculanus, a notable sorcerer.
** “Epicurean security” came from him (Council of Basel, session 11,
toward the end of vol. 4, Conc. Venet., f. 294). As far as John XXIII is
concerned, again and again in the presence of various prelates and other
honest and honorable men he stubbornly said, declared, and dogma zed
at the persuasion of the devil that there is neither eternal life nor any life
a er this one. In fact, he stubbornly said and believed that a human soul is
ex nguished and dies with the body like that of brute animals. He also said
that, once one has died, he will not rise again on the Last Day. The same
John XXIII is called (art. 5) the dregs of the vices, a mirror of infamy, and
the devil incarnate. **
(2) Sedi on against the magistrate. Benno reports that Gregory VII
plo ed against the life of Emperor Henry III, and even in a holy place.
Funccius (Chron.), Nauclerus (generat. 14), and Johannes Stella (on
Alexander III, p. 27) report that Alexander III excommunicated Frederick
Barbarossa for not having followed his custom of dragging out the war.
A er upse ng and frightening him with the thunder of excommunica on,
he appointed a day for him to throw himself at his feet as a suppliant in the
great temple at Venice. When he did this, the pope put his foot on the
emperor’s neck and ordered his chaplain to shout: “You will tread upon the
asp and the basilisk. The lion and the dragon you will trample underfoot”
[Ps. 91:13]. Because the noble mind of Frederick was deeply moved by the
indignity of the situa on, he said openly within the hearing of the pope:
“Not to you, but to Peter.” But the pope replied more than tyrannically:
“Both to me and to Peter.” Consult the histories; see how the popes
behaved toward Henry IV, whom Gregory VII excommunicated and against
whom the pope s rred up Duke Rudolph of Swabia who, having lost his
right hand in ba le, paid just penal es for his treachery, according to
Urspergensis (anno 1080), Helmoldus, Crantzius, etc. In the case of Henry
V, Pope Paschal II had s rred up a sedi on against him as he set out for
Rome that he be renounced as emperor, so that it became necessary for
the emperor to ba le for his life and fortunes. In Philip’s case, Pope
Innocent III excommunicated him and forbade the princes to give him
sovereignty. He hurled his anathema against O o IV and commanded that
he be deprived of his sovereignty. He published a decree against Henry VII
in which he tried to subject all the kingdoms of the Chris an world to the
Roman hierarchy ([Ius canonicum,] clemen n., bk. 2, tle 11, de sent. et re
judic., c. pastoralis).
(3) Fornica ons, adulteries, incest. Sergius III, a very lewd adulterer,
fathered a child by Marozia, [and this child] later became Pope John XII
(Luitprandus Ticinensis, De ges s. imperat., bk. 3, ch. 12). John XIII was
caught in adultery and confessed it (Sigebertus, anno 963). Lando I spent
the greater part of his life with pros tutes.
** Gregory VII had in mate rela ons with Mathilde. Urspergensis calls
Clement V a “public fornicator.” Volaterranus says about Innocent VIII: “He
was the first of all the popes to introduce himself as a new example for
openly boas ng of his bastard children, for discarding all the old discipline,
and for heaping all riches upon them.” See more examples of this same
thing in Dr. Hoë, on Revelation 2, p. 270. **
John VIII, the woman pope, pursued fornica on, conceived, and gave
birth. Innocent VIII is said to have fathered sixteen sons by different
women. As a result Marullus writes: “The criminal fathered eight boys and
just as many girls. Rome could rightly call this one ‘father.’ ”
** As to what Aeneas Sylvius (later called Pius II) writes about himself,
see Le ers 45 and 92. Paulus Jovius writes this about Leo X (in his Vita of
the same, p. 192): “He was not free of the infamy of sodomy because he
appeared to have dishonorable love for some men and to jest with them
too tenderly and freely. But let us grant something to the humanity of Leo,
that in the greatest license of the hot me of life and of prosperous health,
he bore the heat very poorly.” “Next, the vices of a prince are different
than those of a man. Julius III caressed Innocent, just as Jupiter caressed
Ganymede, and when Hieronymus Mu us was on trial for sodomy, he
approved his defense, which was made to adorn so great a crime”
(according to Sleidanus, bk. 21; Vergerius; Balaeus, Cent. 8, ch. 27,
append.). Pius IV was so addicted to fornica on that even in his decrepit
old age he was eager to s mulate passion in himself by means of certain
po ons. Finally, overcome by the heat of his lusts and glu ony, he was
compelled to pour out his life. By magic arts Benedict IX could acquire
whatever women he wished, making them wildly desire his embrace; they
were just like ravenous foxes seeking cadaverous food (according to
Sabellicus, Volaterrano, Benno, Pla na, etc.). Onuphrius, on Alexander VI:
“Greatly addicted to women, he fathered by them four sons and two
daughters. The foremost woman of all was the Roman Vannocia, whom he
almost had as a lawful wife because of the beauty of her form, the allure of
her behavior, and finally because of her astounding eloquence in lesser
fortune.” **
In the Council of Constance, John XXIII was accused of commi ng incest
with his brother’s wife and with nuns, of defiling virgins, and of commi ng
adultery with married women. Sixtus IV was a sodomite and allowed that
shameful ac vity to his friends, three cardinals, to be exercised during the
summer months of June, July, and August (Wolf, vol. 1, p. 836). According
to Cornelius Agrippa, Sixtus IV also erected houses of pros tu on
[dedicated] to both Venuses, as a result of which he received the following
epitaph (according to Wessel, De indulgen is): “Sixtus, you are finally dead.
Sodomites, whores, pimps, dice, wine, and Venus weep upon your ashes.”
Alexander VI commi ed incest with his daughter Lucre a. The pope’s son,
Lucre a’s brother, also defiled her by means of incestuous concubinage.
Hence this funeral song: “Here in this tomb lies Lucre a by name, but in
reality Thais, the daughter, bride, and daughter-in-law of Alexander”
(Ac us Sannazarius, p. 30). Paul III, having been caught in incest with his
niece Laura Farnese, the daughter of his sister, was marked with a dagger
by her husband Nicolaus Quercaeus. Before he became pope, the same
Paul handed over his sister Julia Farnese to be defiled that he might
become cardinal and bishop of Os a. But why go into more detail? “Shake
the whole following of the pope and its growing, flourishing, and fading
credibility, and you will discover nothing but priests of Lycaean Pan
[Luperci], Lupercalia, pros tutes male and female, and brothels.” And as
Mantuanus sings: “The polluted house of Peter wastes away as its luxury
flows, etc. All of Rome is now a brothel.”
** “And furthermore, they are not even free of perjury. Paschal II bound
himself to Emperor Henry V with an oath that the right of inves ture of
priests ought to belong fully to the ring and staff of Henry and his
successors. As a tes mony of the truth and of the bond of keeping his
promise, he broke the consecrated host in two, ate one piece and gave the
other to Henry with these words: ‘Just as this part of the living body has
been divided, so also may anyone who tries to violate this agreement be
separated from the kingdom of Christ, our Lord’ ” (Sigonius, De regno
Italiae, bk. 10). “But scarcely had Henry V departed from the city when
Pope Paschal II began to act against what he had done and to resist the
tes mony of his own voice. He took away from Henry the right of
inves ture that he had confirmed and in addi on struck the emperor with
his curse” (Sturcius, De vita Germ. impp., ch. 43, nos. 10–12). Pope
Eugenius persuaded Vladislaus to violate a treaty he had entered into with
Turkey. Vladislaus, however, came to a wretched end (Antonius Bonifinius,
Rer. Ungar., bk. 22; Wolf, vol. 2, p. 423). Lipsius, Monitor., bk. 2, ch. 11: “It is
considered very certain that this happened to Clement V, the supreme
pon ff. In a council at Vienna he had condemned the Templars, a religious
society that had been good and useful for a long me. He had punished its
members with fire and sword in many places everywhere or raged against
them as others had. Finally, he was summoned to a supreme tribunal by
many of them. A li le more than a year later he died, as if the Supreme
Ruler had summoned him to appear in court.” Gobelinus, Aetas 6, ch. 84,
says about Boniface IX: “He completely destroyed the Count of Fondi, who
established the beginning of a schism. He, a Roman, ruled not only as pope
but also as a rigid emperor, for he had his judicial officers kill many of those
whom he suspected of faithlessness. He for fied strongly the capitol and
his palace. Before him we read of no Roman pope who had such temporal
power at Rome and acted in the patrimony of St. Peter.” Ma hew of Paris
(In Henr. III) calls the Roman popes “fishers not of men but of coins,
officials not of Christ but of the moneybag.” **
(4) Massacres and wars. Very bloody wars with the killing of many
thousands of Chris ans were waged by Gregory VII, Paschal II, Eugene IV,
Gregory IX and especially Julius II, by whose effort “the earth drank more
blood in a single day than he himself drank wine with his drinking
companions throughout his en re pon ficate.” He is said to have thrown
the keys of Peter into the Tiber and to have said, as he lead his army
against the enemy: “Because Peter’s keys accomplish nothing in ba le,
perhaps Paul’s sword will be of help.” Cardinal Benno men ons that
Gregory VII removed six popes in order through his minister Gerhardus
Brazutus so that he might ascend the papal throne. Pla na writes about
John XII in his Vita of the same: “He was contaminated by all disgraces and
shamefulness. He cut off one cardinal’s nose and another’s hand. He was
more a monster than a man.” He also writes about Boniface VII in his Vita
of the same: “He was sacrilegious and a murderer. He prac ced tyranny. He
gouged out the eyes of a cardinal who resisted him.” Vergerius writes
about Paul III: “He had his mother and his sister killed, so that he might
bring the en re inheritance into his own possession and in this way rise to
the papacy.” Alexander VI is said to have “mixed more poison than water.”
By the just judgment of God he perished by mistakenly drinking poison that
had been intended to be set before some noblemen at his orders **
(according to Aonius Palearius, Act. adv. pont., test. 19, p. 255). ** Oh, how
many rivers of Chris an blood were shed at the ins ga on of the popes
since the me of reformed religion in France, Belgium, and other kingdoms
and provinces!
(5) Greed and simony. When John XXII wrote to the Greek church that
there was only one church and that he was the head of it and the vicar of
Christ, and warned that the Greeks should subject themselves to it, the
Greeks responded briefly (according to John Mandeville, bk. 1, ch. 7): “We
firmly believe in your supreme power over your subjects, but we cannot
tolerate your supreme arrogance, and we are unable to sa sfy your greed.
The devil be with you, because the Lord is with us.” A er his death, this
John XXII le 25,000 gold coins in his treasury, according to Petrarch or, as
others say, 250 tons of gold. Emperor Frederick was unable to get
absolu on from his excommunica on from Gregory IX unless he paid
100,000 ounces of gold (according to Guicciardinus). Clement VII
(according to Onuphrius, Append. ad Pla n., p. 385) officially put up for
auc on in the forum three cardinal’s hats to those who offered the most
for them in good, present gold. Simony flourished especially in the Curia
under Clement V (writes Antoninus, part 3, tle 20, ch. 3, p. 3). Alexander
VI decided that he would have to poison the wealthiest priests in his court
as well as several cardinals richer than the rest in order to get their wealth
into his treasury and, having taken possession of it, to be u erly lavish in
giving bribes (as Onuphrius tes fies). Ac us Sannazarius tells the same
thing about Leo X. Why go into greater detail? As Mantuanus sings: “All
things are for sale to us—temples, priests, altars, sacred rites, crowns, fire,
incense, prayers. Heaven is for sale—even God!”
(6) Arrogance. Regarding Paul II, Pla na relates in his Vita of the same:
“When he went out in public, he wore his mitre on which there were many
treasures made from precious stones of every kind that he had bought. He
wanted people to look at it and admire it highly.”
** “The pope threw Franciscus Dandalus, duke of Venice and king of
Crete and Cyprus, into chains and kept him bound up under the table to
lick bones like a dog” (Sabellicus, Ennead. 9., bk. 7). **
In his corona on parade Clement V lost from his ara a carbuncle
es mated to be worth six thousand. Consequently, Agrippa writes, De
vanit., ch. 61: “The pompousness and arrogance of the Roman pope has
never been equaled by any of the tyrants.”
 ** (7) Lies and deceits. About Alexander VI, Machiavelli, a Papist, writes
(De principe, ch. 18): “He acted in no other way except as a deceiver of
mortals. He trained his mind for nothing else except malice and deceit (by
which to deceive humankind). In making earnest declara ons there was
never anyone who was more effec ve or who swore an oath with greater
plausibility or, on the other hand, who kept one less.” Costerus, Enchir., ch.
3, p. 15: “It can happen that Peter’s successor worships idols, which, as is
read, Marcellinus once did. Perhaps privately he did not think correctly
about the faith, and he even performed his work with the devil’s arts.” **

The holiness of the cardinals

§ 264. Among the histories we find no fewer complaints about the
pride, luxury, greed, and other crimes of the cardinals. Nicolaus de
Clemangis, who flourished two hundred years ago, writes (De ruina et
reparat. eccles.) that “if he wished to build a skillful image of pride, he
could do this in no more fi ng way than by pu ng up a statue of a
cardinal for people to gaze at.”
** Emperor Frederick (Literae responsoriae ad Adrianum pon ficem)
writes: “We see cardinals who are not preachers but predators, not
corroborators of peace but robbers of money, not repairers of the world
but insa able raveners.” Carolus Molinus (Orat. de dignit. et usu legum
imperialium habita Tubingae anno 1554, which is added to Flacius’s
Refuta o invec vae Bruni opposita, p. 180): “We have seen—and this is
s ll happening in kingdoms that are in service to papal cap vity—that
cardinals have elevated themselves not only from the humblest ranks but
also from the poorest beggars to be named and called openly the kith and
kin of kings.” Marsilius Patavinus (Defens. pacis, part 2, f. 170): “Too many
wanton youths, unlearned in the divine wri ngs, are being taken up into
the college of cardinals.” **
When a pope makes some to be cardinals, he addresses them with
these words: “Be my brothers and princes of the world” (according to
Augus nus de Ancona, De potest. eccles., and Antoninus, part 3, tle 21,
ch. 1). Why, then, is it so strange that they wish to be held above kings and
princes, even though they some mes draw their kind from the lowest
dregs of humanity? Thyraeus (De An christo, ch. 20, thesis 18) tries to
prove that it is right for this to happen. He does this on the basis of Ps.
45:16: “You will make them princes in all the earth.” Hasenmullerus
(Histor. ord. Jesui ci, ch. 10) men ons: “I personally saw cardinals and
other clergymen hurrying public whores away to nearby brothels and
dragging pros tutes in public streets into their carts and carriages and
taking them away to their gardens.” This is something that the selected
reformers of the Roman church also do not conceal in the Consilium they
gave to Paul III. Erasmus (De rat. concion., bk. 3) reports that Robertus a
Licio, a Minorite, wi ly reproached the cardinals and the pope for their
pride and luxury in this way. He was among them, about to speak. He saw
that they were entering with more than royal pride and that the pope was
being carried in a six-man sedan chair and was being worshiped by
everyone. Finally, they sat down, and people were awai ng the voice of
the man, but he said nothing but: “Pfui to St. Peter! Pfui to St. Paul!” Along
with these curses he spit now to the right, now to the le . He did nothing
more, but rushed from their midst, leaving them all thunderstruck. Some
suspected that he was insane, and some wondered whether he had fallen
into some heresy or Judaism or paganism and had burst forth with his
blasphemies. They discussed pu ng the fellow in chains, but a cardinal
who had known his character very well and loved him persuaded them
that, before he would be called before the pope, a few cardinals should
listen to him as witnesses. When the fellow was asked how he had burst
forth with such terrible blasphemies, he responded that he had prepared a
far different subject, and he explained in a few words the sum of that
speech. He also said:
Aside from that, when I saw that you lived with great pride and such great pleasures, I
immediately thought what a humble, laborious, and unpleasant life the apostles led, in
whose stead you act. I concluded that either those who struggled to heaven on such a
torturous road were crazy or that you were going straight to hell. But because I could bring
no evil suspicion into my mind about you, who hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven, it
remained for me to detest the stupidity of those who had preferred to torment themselves
throughout life with fasts and hardships, though they could have lived a er this fashion in
splendor and sweetness.

In a book called Onus ecclesiae, published in 1517, we read: “The cardinals

devoured all the substance that ought to have sustained the rest of the
clergy. In this way the wealth of the church was sca ered to the corners
[cardines] of heaven.”
 ** The ci zens of Venice, Resp. ad paraen. Baronii, p. 45: “For several
centuries now, what have those red-robed satraps done other than se ng
ablaze all the world with their deadly torches of wars and ba ering it? If
any who are of a gentler disposi on have entered this posi on, they
believe that their only duty is to recall from hell the luxury of the banquets
of the heathen.” Page 46: “Also, what the heathen shun exists among the
wearers of this red robe, who not only delighted in the stains of their
perverted lust but even praised them and sang about them. Joh. Casus,
archbishop of Benevento and papal legate, prac ced it in this very city.”
Caraffa, Paul IV’s nephew (from his brother) and legate, entered Paris with
the customary pomp and, as happens, made the sign of the cross. In many
places everywhere the people came up to see him and fell on their knees
upon seeing him. In place of the words that would customarily be spoken,
he o en sighed with an inaudible murmur: “If the people want to be
deceived, let them be deceived” (Thuanus, 12, f. 298). Pla na, Vita
Stephani III. pon ficis, p. 119:
Now their piety and religion have become so cool that they barely bother to come to make
humble supplica on shod and booted, much less with bare feet. They do not weep during
the same, or when the sacrifice is taking place, as the holy fathers did, but instead they
laugh—and indeed shamelessly. I am speaking about those whom the red makes more
conspicuous. They do not sing hymns, for this seems servile, but they tell jokes and stories
to s r up laughter among themselves. Why say more? The more sarcas c and wanton one
is, the greater the praise he earns in such corrupt behavior. This clergy of ours stands in awe
of such “severe and serious” men. Why is this? Because they prefer to live in such great
license rather than submit to someone who gives good advice or forces them in the right
direc on. For this reason the Chris an religion daily becomes worse and worse. **

The monk Paulus Langius, Chronicon Zi cense, anno 1405: “The cardinal
of Isernia le thirty thousand ducats a er his death. The cardinal of
Monopoli le more than a hundred thousand ducats when he died. But
how many churches and monasteries and other churchly benefices do you
suppose they oppressed and impoverished before they acquired so many
thousands?” Ravisius Textor (Officina) reports about Cardinal Petrus
Presbyterus, who lived when Sixtus IV was on the papal throne: “In two
years he squandered three hundred thousand in gold with his luxury and
spent sixty thousand in borrowed copper and three hundred pounds of
silver on his vani es.” Franciscus Petrarch writes this about the cardinals in
his le ers: “Those old men are so hot and inclined toward Venus, are so
ablaze in their lusts, and rush into every vice in such a way that it seems
that all their glory is not in Christ’s cross but in feas ng, in drunkenness,
and in the beds and impuri es that follow these things.” Petrus Paulus
Vergerius supplies some terrible examples of this (Histor. de idolo
Lauretano):
Our fathers remembered a Vene an cardinal of a family from Pisa, who had among the rest
of his private and concealed literature two booklets put aside that were filled with various
obscene pictures and detestable images of nefarious lusts. In one of them were pictures of
several men copula ng with a woman in a way full of all disgrace and filthiness and totally
contrary to nature. The other had pictures of that accursed Venus which they call sodomi c
(because it is evident that it was common among the people of Sodom), expressed in
different ways and in the greatest variety. A er the cardinal’s death his household library,
with which he had equipped his house, was examined thoroughly. One of those two
obscene books was discovered. At the me of Pope Julius II it was divided and sold in parts.

Regarding Cardinal Angelus Poli anus, Ludovicus Vives tes fies (De verit.
fid. Christ., bk. 2): “He preferred the odes of Pindar to the psalms of David.”
** Victorinus Strigel (explana on of the Psalms, p. 30) reports that
when Cardinal Bembo had come to Jacobus Sadoletus and learned that he
was pu ng some effort into a commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
he told him: “Forget this nonsense. Such absurdi es do not befit a serious
man.” **
Regarding the same P. Bembo, Fabricius reports that he said: “I once
read the Bible, but if I had to read it again, I would destroy all La nity.”

The holiness of the Papist bishops and priests

§ 265. Members of their households and eyewitnesses tell what sort of
holiness Papist bishops, priests, and clergymen have. Bernard, on Song of
Songs, sermon 33, col. 909:
They are ministers of Christ and serve the An christ. As honored men they exult over the
possessions of the Lord, but they do not give honor to the Lord. From this comes what you
see daily—the a rac veness of a whore, the clothing of an actor, the pomp of a king. From
this comes gold on their reins, on their saddles, on their spurs—and their spurs gleam more
than their altars. From this come their tables rich with foods and dishes. From this come
feas ng and drunkenness. From this come the lute and lyre and flute. From this come
winepresses overflowing, storehouses full, belching from this one to another. From this
come jars of paint. From this come purses filled. For things like this they want to be and are
leaders of churches: deans, archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, etc.
 ** The same Bernard, on Song of Songs, sermon 77, col. 1098: “Whom
will you give me from the number of your leaders who is not more
concerned about emptying the purses of his subjects than about roo ng
out vices? Where is someone who will turn away wrath with his prayers?
Where is someone who will preach the acceptable year of the Lord?”
Sermon ad clerum in conc. Remensi, col. 2244: “Alas! Where shall we find
bishops who will contain themselves in humility a er they receive dignity?
Their pride provides them with the opportunity to aspire to such a dignity,
to a ack Christ’s sheepfold shamelessly,” etc. (See his complaints in
Sermon 6, on Psalm 91, col. 291; De consid. ad Eugen., bk. 3, col. 1027; De
consid., bk. 4, col. 1035; etc.).
** Pla na, on Gregory IV:
The ecclesias cal order poured itself out in every luxury and lust. Now you would catch sight
of red- and royal-robed figures. Oh, not men, for that might seem insignificant, but horses
and oxen! A great crowd of young men would precede them when they went out, and
another crowd of presbyters would follow them. They went about not on donkeys—as did
Christ, the author of our dogma and our only example for living well on earth—but on very
fierce, decorated horses, as if they were leading a triumphal march because of a vanquished
enemy. There is no point in telling about their silver vessels and wonderful table se ngs and
about their foods; for, if you look at them, you can say that Sicilian banquets, A alic
decora ons, and Corinthian dishes are worthless. I shall pass over what is born of this
intemperance, lest, as they say, I set my mouth against the heavens [Ps. 73:9]. **

In the book Onus ecclesiae:

Bishops generally omit due hospitality by neglec ng Christ’s poor people, by fa ening
themselves, by feeding dogs and other animals. In this way one beast nourishes another,
etc. Everywhere almost all bishops suffer from the illness of covetousness, which is the
mother of all heresies, as they take the property of others and squander the goods of the
church. They spend in other ways that which they ought to be dispensing for divine use and
for the poor people of Christ, etc. We are now living when the status and dignity of bishops
depend on their earthly wealth, on sordid and plebeian concerns, on the tempests of wars,
on mundane empires, etc. In both cathedral and conventual churches, countless scandals
are commi ed as a ma er of course, and now very frequently the dregs of the world are
being placed in charge of the administra on of the church, namely, those that the world
cannot use and enjoy. Ambi on and simony now rule among our clergy everywhere so that
the prophecy of the prophet is being verified today: “From the least to the greatest they all,”
namely, the clergy, “are concerned with greed, and they all, from prophet to priest, deceive”
[Jer. 6:13; 8:10].

Ecbertus (Ad episc. Colonien. in the Catal. tes um verita s) describes being
a bishop in this way: “It is to indulge the flesh, to strut pompously, to strive
a er profit, and to enjoy deligh ul leisure.”
 ** Pope Innocent (Sermon 2 in die cinerum) says about the Papist
clergy: “At night they arouse the son of Venus in their bedrooms. In the
morning they sacrifice the Son of the Virgin on the altar. At night they
embrace Venus. In the morning they venerate the Virgin.” Bishop Ulrich of
Augsburg (in a Le er ad Nicol. I around the year 860, which le er Aeneas
Sylvius also men ons) says that the pope, bishops, and archdeacons “are
so inclined toward lust that they do not know how to abhor adultery,
incest, or even the most disgraceful intercourse with males. Yet they say
that the chaste marriage of clergymen is a stench to them, and they order
and compel clergymen to abstain from it. They fornicate with the wives of
their fathers, they do not abhor intercourse with males and sheep, they do
not hesitate to misuse the wives of others.” (See Chemnitz, Exam., part 3, f.
63.) In the Lavacrum conscient. omn. sacerd. (printed at Lyptzig by
bachelor Wolfgang Monacensis on October 3, 1497), there is a le er of
Lucifer to the Roman clergy (De vi o luxuriae, ch. 4, f. 12b), which reads:
Beelzebub, prince of devils and captain of darkness, with his a endants and all the powers
of hell, to the archbishops, abbots, provosts, deans, presbyters, and the other rectors of the
churches, their dearest friends: The gree ngs of hell now and forever, and the covenants of
inviolate alliances that can never be broken! We have great confidence in your friendship,
most beloved friends, and we are very pleased with you because you have the same feelings
as we have and because you are seeking diligently the things that are ours by everywhere
protec ng and fostering whatever is known to pertain to our law. You should be aware,
therefore, that you have been welcomed in our university, and that we honor your efforts
with much thanksgiving, because infinite mul tudes of souls are being abducted by your
ministry and examples from the way of truth and are being drawn over every day to us as
our prisoners. As a result, you are marvelously strengthening the power of our kingdom.
Persevere, then, as our faithful and in mate friends in our friendship and in the work that
you have begun. We are surely prepared to repay you for all of this with the worthy
compensa on and fi ng reward from the depths of hell. Farewell, and may our salva on be
with you always.

Johannes Aven nus, Annal. Boior., bk. 1:

The decurions of priests and the parsons, everywhere and with impunity, contaminate
everything with their heat, adulteries, and unchas es. They love, they drink, they defile
and impregnate many virgins in a single year under a veneer of piety. They become drunk,
they defraud, they pillage, they li gate, they plunder temples and priesthoods as if trading
horses. They sell ceremonies, traffic in religion, fornicate, indulge, hunt, wage war, thirst
a er human blood, shed it with impunity, and prac ce robbery. **

Pla na, Vita Marcelli I, p. 39:

 Our vices have grown to the point that they scarcely leave us any room for mercy before
God. How great is the avarice of priests and especially of those who acquire property! What
great lust do they seek everywhere! What ambi on and pomp, what pride and sloth! What
ignorance, both of themselves and of Chris an doctrine! How small their religion is, and it is
pretended rather than true! How corrupt their behavior is, which is detestable even among
the common people whom they call “seculars,” not to men on that they sin so openly and
publicly as if they were seeking praise because of it.

Cardinal Hugh writes in a gloss: “The devil has two daughters: avarice and
luxury. The former had been hired out to the Jews; the la er, to the
heathen. But now, the clergy and priests have taken over both for their
men and hold them as their own.” Hugh also complains about clergymen:
They do not know the law. They learn useless things. They are eager for leisure, for feas ng,
and for drinking. They grasp for earthly things. They are regularly in the streets but seldom
in the churches. They are slow to inves gate the guilt of sins, but they are quick to follow
the tracks of hares. They are swi er to gather dogs than to call together the poor. They give
bread more quickly to their hounds than to the poor. They reach for the dice more readily
than for the book of the Mass. They are men whose beds are more ornate than their altars,
whose drinking cups are more beau ful than their chalices, whose horses are more precious
than their missals, whose napkins are more beau ful than their chasubles, whose
nightshirts are more delicate than their albs. In the very temple of God they sing wantonly
and luxuriously to please their lovers.

Jean Gerson (in the trea se that he en tled Declara o defectuum virorum
ecclesias corum) complains on the basis of a very just grief:
Good bishops who are approved in both work and doctrine are not being chosen anywhere,
but rather carnal men who are ignorant of spiritual ma ers. Intoxica on and drunkenness
dominate among the clergy. They are dice-throwers and hunters. They obtain church offices
with money. Prelates are so arrogant that they do not know that they are men. Their horses,
dogs, birds, and large family—rather than the poor of Christ—are feeding on the patrimony
of the church. Cruelly and frivolously they brandish the sword of the church, that is,
excommunica on, against the poor. Bishops are officials more of a treasury than of Christ,
etc.

** The Frenchman Franciscus Belleforestus: “I shall not give just

anything to your ears but shall admit the truth frankly, that no one has
caused so many schisms and heresies except our tonsured and anointed
clergymen and priests with their u erly shameful and criminal lives.
Therefore let them not accuse someone else before they have learned that
they and they alone must be chas sed and corrected.” **
The author of the book Stella clericorum cries out: “O Lord, Your
shepherds have been changed into shearers, Your defenders into
dispersers. Those who should be sober are drunk every day. Those who
should be prelates are Pilates. Those who ought to be chaste are
incestuous. Those who should be pastors are impostors,” etc. Nicolaus de
Clemangis, archdeacon of Bayeux and teacher at Paris, wrote a whole book
about the corrupt condi on of the church [De corrupto ecclesiae statu], in
which he says among other things (p. 22):
If anyone today is slothful, if anyone abhors work, if anyone wants to luxuriate in leisure, let
him hurry to the priesthood. Once he has been accepted, he joins himself to the rest of the
priests, pursuers of pleasures, who live more according to Epicurus than according to Christ;
who diligently frequent the taverns for their drinking, feas ng, dining, and partying while
using up all their me playing dice and darts. Being intoxicated and drunk, they fight, shout,
create uproars, curse the name of God and of their saints with their foul mouths. Finally,
having composed themselves from the embraces of their whores, they come to the divine
altar.

Petrus Ferrariensis, Form. sent. definit., § sed ad quemcunque: “The mind

and appe te of clergymen strove to accumulate more money than all
others, contrary to common honesty and the faith they promised to God.
They pay no a en on nor are they interested in good behavior and
Scripture, both divine and moral.” The bishop of Zweibrücken, in a speech
delivered before the fathers of the Council of Trent [Orat. coram concilii
Trid. patribus habita], said among other things: “Those two bloodsuckers
that always cry: ‘Bring more! Bring more!’ the one being the mother, the
other the nurse of all evils—covetousness and ambi on—are both subtle
evils, both a secret virus, plague, and monster of the world. Those who
should have followed virtue and doctrine like living, animate laws instead
extol sin and ignorance with the highest honors. They have finally caused
building to become destroying, example to become scandal, good behavior
to become corrup on, keeping the laws to become contempt, severity to
become relaxa on, mercy to become impunity, piety to become pretense
and hypocrisy, preaching to become conten on and strife, fes vals to
become shameful marke ng, and, to put it into a single statement, the
fragrance of life has most unfortunately changed over into the stench of
death, etc. Hence, while they” (the bishops) “were doing something else
and sleeping with both ears shut, they were ravaging those flocks; the
flocks were not being fed by them, for the li le ones were looking for
bread but could find no one to give it to them.”
 ** “With what monstrous disgraces, with what sordid filth, with what
plague have the people and priest in God’s church not been defiled and
corrupted? I place the case in your judgment, fathers. Begin with the
sanctuary of God [cf. 1 Pet. 4:17] to see if there remains any shame, any
modesty, any hope or manner of living honorably or if there is rather
unbridled and unrestrained lust, singular audacity, and incredible
wickedness! Ah, how dim the gold has become! How changed is the best
color!” (Ibid.) **
The legate of Duke Albert of Bavaria spoke thus in the same council **
(the Ora o was printed at Padua in Italy): ** “Since the clergy should have
been the salt of the earth but have now lost their taste and are useless for
that responsibility for which they should especially have been useful [Matt.
5:13], all wise men should admit that the great blame for this evil” (the
corrup on of the church) “is on the clergy. Because of the modesty of your
ears we are prevented from disclosing what great disgraces of every kind
were discovered in the behavior of the clergy in the recent visita on, what
great laziness and thoughtless negligence in some princes or prelates of
the church. The shameful behavior itself demands that those things not go
long unpunished. Yet if one wished to describe them individually just as the
reality is and as is surely evident, it would be completely offensive to your
chaste and devout ears, most reverend fathers, and it would offer an
enormous and dangerous stumbling block to others who are not as
strong,” etc.
And later: “Our clergy indulges its belly and lusts as if they wished to be
recognized as being in contempt of God and man and as covered openly
with every kind of vice, rather than to be corrected in a very insignificant
ma er. As for the rest of the clergy’s faults that they have in common with
the people, we pass over them in silence. But surely that excessive lust,
unrestrained and notorious, is judged most alien to the people, because of
which they are considered most infamous by the irritated masses.” Finally,
he concludes: “Useless and disgraceful priests should be removed, who
terribly deform the church with their most shameful behavior and
undermine it not a li le with their ignorance.” Agrippa agrees with that
speaker (De vanit. scient., ch. 64): “Many priests defile holy virgins, taint
widows, and, from what I know and have seen, with their friends pros tute
common women under the Platonic law. Thus they sacrifice to the devil
the bodies of those whose souls they ought to be winning.”
** Protestants, in Sleidanus, bk. 11, p. 303: “How they a ain these sorts
of offices with evil deceits and dishonest reasoning through force and
cunning, what a shameful life they lead, how notorious they become with
their blameworthy examples, how they perform nothing of their duty, how
they neglect the people who have been commi ed to their trust and revel
in every wickedness of life—all this is commonly known and witnessed so
that there is no need for further explana on.” Antonius de Rosellis,
Monarch., part. 3, ch. 25: “It is notorious, they cry, that in some areas the
clergymen walk about in secular clothing which is more fi ng for princes
and soldiers than for people of religious orders. They have greater interest
in hun ng and fowling than in the divine offices. If such men are not
reformed, the state of the en re church becomes discolored.” Alexander,
who presided over the apostolic see under William, the twenty-eighth
Roman emperor, addressed the Bavarian bishops and clergy at Aven no in
this way: “You are the corrup on and common destruc on of the Chris an
religion. Your people are not unlike you as imitators of your sins. Because
of your license, you have become even worse. Your wealth corrupts you.
Through you, people hear God’s name poorly. You devour, consume, and
kill the poor.” **
Duarenus (De sacr. eccl. minist., bk. 1 ch. 4) boldly declares: “Most of
the bishops of our me are far greater strangers to religion and sacred
ma ers than any secular rulers and princes. Their only concern is to
protect their dominions and possessions justly or unjustly.” Albericus de
Rosate, Lexicon, at the word decimae: “Prelates and priests violently and
cruelly extort thes from the poor country farmers whether the thes are
due or not, if they can. They do this not to distribute the thes to the poor
but to give them to their concubines and fornicatresses and bastard
children. The Lord will not leave this unavenged, or else the Scriptures lie.”
An orator of the Republic of Venice makes this short speech about the
priests of the dominion of Venice to Paul V: “Oh, that this our age, most
blessed father, would have such priests about whom we could rightly say:
‘Touch not my anointed ones’ [Ps. 105:15]! Nowhere would their dignity
be greater than among us. The reality, however, is much different. How few
there are who live their lives as is fi ng, mindful of their order,
responsibility, and holy things! On the other hand, how many there are
who do not abstain from fornica on, adultery, slaughter, poisoning,
parricide, or from any more serious crime that can be imagined.” Nicolai
Crassus, An paraenesis ad Card. Baronium, published at Padua in 1616, p.
70: “In these mes, the avarice and greed of the clergy have increased just
as much as their property and power have grown.”
** Erasmus, Annot. on 1 Peter 5: “Now the crowd of bishops hears
nothing from their learned fla erers except dominions, jurisdic ons,
swords, keys, powers. As a result, the pride of some is more than royal, and
their cruelty more than tyrannical.” Fornerus, Contra jubil. conc. Norinb., p.
64: “Do not deny this, as I do not deny that in our Papist clergy sins and
scandals flourish now just as formerly, but not in such great supply.”
Salmeron, tome 9, trea se 9, p. 57: “Now in many priests and religious
persons who live from the patrimony of the Crucified, that prophecy is
being fulfilled: ‘When I fed them to the full, they commi ed adultery and
rioted in the harlot’s house’ (Jer. 5[:7]).” In regard to the monk Brother
Cornelius, Meteranus reports (Hist. Belg., part 2, bk. 8, p. 385, on the year
1578): “At Bruges he persuaded the most shapely virgins and women to
bare their en re bodies in front of the assembly and permit themselves to
be struck very gently with a whip by that old goat. Many did this because
he persuaded them that a good part of repentance consisted in this
voluntary nudity of the body as a sign of humility.” Johannes Wierus (De
praes g. daemon., bk. 3, ch. 7, p. 288) tells a similar example from Paul
Grillandus. **
On this subject we could list many more complaints from ancient and
more recent writers; for instance: the prophetess Hildegard, who accused
the clergy of “ex nct religion”; Rupertus of Lincoln, who called the pastors
of his me “destroyers of the earth, sca erers of the Lord’s flock, men who
cut down the vineyards and destroy the pastures”; Marsilius Patavinus;
Johannes de Rupescissa; Pierre d’Ailly; Cassander; Savonarola; and others.
But what need is there to move this Camarina further?

The holiness of the monks

§ 266. The Papists themselves complain that monks and nuns have
departed a very long way from the rules of their orders, and especially
from the rule of piety that Christ prescribed. Jean Gerson (trea se
Declara o defect. eccles.) writes: “The cloisters of nuns are brothels of
whores.” In the book Onus ecclesiae we read: “There are some convents of
nuns so open that those places are more like the brothel of Venus than the
sanctuary of God. From them come shamelessness, unchas ty, and the
lewdness of holy women; from them come so many fearful scandals and
offenses.”
** Cassander, Consult., art. 25, p. 236:
It is quite clear of itself how far monas cism today has degenerated from its original state
and has been contaminated and deformed by many abuses. For gradually true and solid
religion was turned into supers on and an empty appearance of religion. As its wealth
increased, piety decreased, and the specters of ceremonies took its place. In these the sum
of all religion is set, the works of true piety being mostly neglected. The empty observance
of these ceremonies has so diminished and obscured true religion among most monks that
it is no wonder that monas c life of whatever kind is now almost being exposed to the
hatred and censure of many. **

Pierre d’Ailly, De reform. ecclesiae: “Monks have stained the church with
their uncleannesses.” Brigi a (Revel.) calls those brothers “a pompous,
vain, and arrogant people.” Erasmus, Enchir. mil. Christ., p. 31: “Everywhere
we see that monasteries have degenerated to a behavior that is more than
profane. Once the life of monks was secluded. Now those are called monks
who are completely involved in the middle of mundane business and are
clearly exercising a tyranny in human ma ers. Yet these people, because of
their clothing, because of their tle, arrogate to themselves some great
sanc ty, so that they consider no one a Chris an compared with
themselves.” Erasmus, Meth. theol., p. 189: “They are no more outside the
world than the kidneys are outside the body of a living creature.” Page 139:
“Although they are mingled with the inward parts of the world, they s ll
call themselves monks. They pretend beggary while striving for royal
luxury.” About this luxury of monks there is a proverb of Emperor
Frederick: “Go see a monastery if you want to know about luxury.”
Hermannus writes (in the chronicle inscribed Flores temporum) about the
monastery of Erestheim: “Alas! In modern mes in the same monastery so
great a change took place, not of the right hand of the Most High but
rather of the le hand of the cursed devil, so much that one could rather
call it a brothel of carnal lust than a monastery of the rule of con nence.”
The same: “The soldiers and knights of our day are deceived in thinking
that monasteries are lodging for their sons, etc. I do not men on the
convents established for those of the feminine gender. Oh, that this
gender, consecrated to God and nourished delicately on Christ, its
patrimony, would not at mes render itself suspect and even notorious for
unchas ty and adultery and childbirth. Oh, that they would not use herbs
nor the cu ng open of some veins nor ghastly po ons nor lo ons for the
feet either to procure an abor on or suffocate the fetus,” etc.
** Petrus Ferrariensis in a pamphlet in which he discusses Ex subs t., §
ex suo corpore: “The emperors have granted the privilege that the goods of
those who enter monasteries be applied to those monasteries. Because of
this privilege, monasteries have been founded and have been mul plied
infinitely throughout the en re world. Once they were a cause of devo on;
today, however, they are a cause for plunder and greed to such an extent
that today they have destroyed the world and wiped out the estate of the
empire and of all the laity.” Erasmus, Chiliad., p. 540: “There are some—
and, oh, that they were not encountered everywhere!—whom one would
call Serapions or Pauls, if he wanted to evaluate them on the basis of the
forest of their beard, their pallor, their cowl, their bent necks, their belt,
their haugh ness, their harsh face. But, if you would unroll them, you will
find mere jesters, glu ons, cheats, gorgers—in fact, plunderers and tyrants.
On the other hand, I do not know whether it is more dangerous for this to
be covered,” etc. Palingenius, In Leon., bk. 10:
But especially let no brother or monk or priest enter your threshold for any reason. Flee
them, for there is no more savage plague than this. They are the dregs of humankind, the
fountain of foolishness, the filth of the evil. Under the wool of lambs they are wolves who
worship God for hire, not for piety. Under a false appearance of right they deceive the naive.
Under the semblance of religion they do a thousand forbidden acts, and then offer a
thousand offerings for sin. Plunderers is what they are—adulterers, corrupters of boys,
servants of luxury and of glu ony.

Aeneas Sylvius, later called Pius II: “Stygian Pluto does not dare to try what
an old monk dares who is unrestrained and filled with deceit.” Buchananus,
Ad Antonium, p. 49: “Anthony, you are said to have pastured the pigs when
you lived as a swineherd; deprived of light, you s ll support the monks.
Both of them have equal numbness of mind and equally fat bellies. They
take pleasure equally in filth and equally in glu ony. The la er is no less a
dumb and brute animal than a swine, no less tasteless, no less rude.
Everything else matches, but in one point there is a grave mistake. Acorns
should have been the food for your monks too!” Palingenius: “Alas! The
church can tolerate these pigs, having me only for belly, lust, and sleep.”
Nicolaus de Clemangis, De corrupt. eccl. statu: “If anyone today is slothful,
if anyone abhors work, if anyone wants to luxuriate in laziness, he should
hurry to the priesthood,” etc. In addi on, see Bernard, Le er ad Guilielm.
abbat.: “Courses follow courses, and instead of meat alone, from which
they abstain, great bodies of fish are doubled.” Giraldus Cambrensis
(Specul., bk. 2, ch. 3) reports: “The monks of Winchester complained
vehemently because from the thirteen courses that were served at each
lunch and supper, three were taken from them.” He adds: “The monks
were scarcely content with sixteen courses.” Mar nus Peresius, De
tradi onibus, part 3, p. 244: “The monks think that they are fas ng when
they consume food in such quan ty that they could sustain Milon of old for
three days.” **
Johannes Keisersbergius, preacher at Strasbourg, was enraged with the
monks because of the very corrupt state of monas cism. He called those
“who had assumed the order of the black robes ‘devils.’ ” He said that
“those who had put on the white cowl were ‘the mother of the devil,’ and
those who were of a medium color and walked about with an ash-colored
robe were ‘the progeny of the above and their offspring.’ ”

The holiness of the Jesuits

§ 267. Concerning the holiness of the Jesuits, see the Catechismus
Jesui cus, whose author calls himself “Catholic.” From the founda on of
blind obedience, which they vow to their general, flow those countless
sins, namely, that they believe they are ac ng correctly when they lie to
the magistrate for the sake of promo ng their religion and confirm that lie
with an oath. From that stem so many frauds and deceits, so many
perjuries and lies, so many ambushes and assassina ons of kings and
princes, so much meddling in other people’s affairs, all of which they have
strongly convinced themselves they can cover with the cloak of “blind
obedience.” The author of the aforemen oned book (bk. 2, ch. 17), who,
along with others, discusses this situa on, reproaches them with the
following:
 (1) Boas ng. They call themselves “the associates of Jesus” more than
everyone else. Ludolphus Carthusiensis, De vita Christi, ch. 10, from
Augus ne: “The name ‘Jesus’ is a proper name. The name ‘Christ’ is a
common name, the name of the sacrament.” Also: “The name ‘Christ’ is a
name of grace, but the name ‘Jesus’ is a name of glory. Just as we here are
called ‘Chris ans’ from Christ through bap smal grace, so also in heavenly
glory we shall be called ‘Jesuits’ from Jesus, that is, ‘the saved people.’ ”
Therefore when the Jesuits usurp the name that belongs properly to Christ
for themselves alone, what else are they doing except expressing their
arrogant boas ng? That is why Eustach. Bellaius, the bishop of Paris, in his
Censura concerning the Jesuits, disapproves of the name “Jesuits” as being
“full of arrogance,” because they thus a ribute to themselves alone what
befits the church catholic, which can be properly called the gathering of
the faithful, whose Head is Christ. When they take this name for
themselves alone, they also seem to be saying this: that they alone
cons tute the church. Jacobus Silvanus (Philippica) calls the Jesuits “the
princes of the Roman faith.” In the preface to the Sica tragica of Franciscus
Costerus they boast that they are “like shields for the Catholics.” The
author of the Catechismus Jesui cus, however, tries to prove the contrary,
namely, that because of their wicked skills they were more of a hindrance
than a help to the papal kingdom. We leave the decision on this
controversy to the Papists themselves. Benedictus Arias Montanus
complains in the Antwerp Bible about this boas ng of the Jesuits also and
says: “Since they alone seem to themselves to be wise, to live good lives,
and to follow and accompany Jesus very closely, they profess this openly
and boast. Yet they have for no reason made me an object of their hatred,
me, who consider myself a useless disciple of Jesus Christ. Because they
dare disapprove of no one who otherwise is well thought of, they abuse
the names and characters of others whom they can secretly induce to do
this.”
(2) Hypocrisy, about which Jacobus Augustus Thuanus sings: “O
emissary tribe from the dark shores of Spain, you cover your deceit with
pretended piety,” etc. Hieronymus Vendramenus, the Vene an theologian
(in his Disquisi ones inter Paulum V. et rempublicam Venetam, ch. 1, p. 13)
writes: “I say nothing about them” (the Jesuits) “who have masked faces,
are clad in the wool of sheep, and hide their wolfish behavior and nature.”
 (3) Frauds and perjuries. Campianus wri es (in a Le er ad generalem
societa s wri en from England, printed at Trier in 1583, p. 24): “I am in a
very demented condi on; I change it o en, and likewise the names.” Ibid.,
p. 86: “The condi on of Catholics in England is very serious. Nothing is le
free or whole for their minds. Neither a word nor religion must you speak
with others. You must affirm with an oath what the others affirm, even if
you are of a far different opinion, even if you believe the exact opposite in
your conscience.” Alexander Hajus said about the fellows of his order: “A
Jesuit is every man.” Henry Garnet, the provincial of the Jesuits in England,
as is clear from the printed English trial, some mes called himself Walley,
some mes Darcey, some mes Robert Farmer, some mes Philippes. As a
result the royal advocate said in the trial: “Garnet the Jesuit is a man of
many names but not of a good name.” Creswell, Resp. ad edictum
Elisabethae reginae Angliae, preface, no. 2, p. 6: “Catholic priests sent
from the Spanish seminary at Valladolid were of apostolic behavior. Their
garb, however, as there was need, was varied and disguising. They had
entered England and, unbeknownst to the queen, bands of explorers had
slipped by to their work, a er having divided throughout the innermost
parts of the realm.” (See more earlier in § 260, on sins against the Second
Commandment, no. 3, and in the Lysand. Jesui c. of Elias Ehingerus.) A
memorable example of those Jesuit frauds could be noted in Moscow in
earlier years. The ci zens of Venice men on them (Resp. ad Paraenesin
Baronii, p. 5) in these words:
Our (the Jesuits’) tricks were concealed not even from the Sarma ans and Scythians who
live next to the frozen ocean. We recreated the example of the Persian magi, and as our
display we brought forth into a Moscow theater a certain Demetrius as a false Smerdis. He
was, however, insufficiently equipped with a city-destroying siege machine and was hissed
off the stage before we were allowed to set up the statue of our Diana that had fallen from
Zeus, paint it with white and crimson Romulean dye, and curl its hair with crude curling
irons. Surely, as Simonides used to say that the Thessalians were too stupid to be able to be
captured by the en cements of his songs, so also that Demetrius or “Son of Earth” learned
from experience that those rus c boors of Moscow were too savage to grow gentle because
of the singing and seduc on of the Roman Sirens. Therefore, while that empire had scarcely
been tasted and while he was s ll licking up the appe zer, he prepared a dish of fatal and
overly tragic pomp for the Scythians, who were singing to him with barbaric sarcasm: “O
Jesuit, with what tricks have you sought to traverse Moscow and its lands? It is obvious that
those who bring these gi s, which have dared to tempt me with fraud, bring back scepters
with them.”
 (4) Luxury and lusts. These have provided the opportunity for those
epigrams constructed from these words of the Jesuit sect, which have been
set forth in the Catechismus Jesui cus: “You corrupt males! You have no
mistress, no wife. Tell me, Jesuit, how you could be a father.” And again:
“You corrupt mothers and holy beds, O pious priest, and holy virgins. He
who propagates the faith with this martyrdom, who propagates the world
with this counsel, he is truly a father, a blessed father. I venerate your
blessedness, and I embrace your pious fatherhood, O supreme Jesuit,
father of fathers.” Simon Steinius (Resp. ad Gretserum) writes: “Nowhere
else but in those regions in which the affairs of the Jesuits flourish do we
discover more lusts, impurity, profanity, supers on, blasphemy,
hypocrisy,” etc.
** Hasenmullerus (Hist. Jesuit., p. 134) reports about Dr. Melchior Stoer
and Dr. Fridericus Sommermann: “One of them loved an abbess
exceedingly. The other, commanding a devil to depart from a nun, himself
went into her, and, in place of Satan, he subs tuted a baby.” Stephanus
Pasquier, the noble counselor and advocate of the king of France, writes
about Father Guillaume Postel (in his Discursus de secta Jesuitarum, f. 64):
“He became a woman and gave birth to a monster of pros tutes.”
(5) Parricides against kings and princes, as is evident from both theory
and prac ce. On June 22, 1614, the senate of Paris saw to it that the
execu oner burned publicly at Paris the book of the Jesuit Franciscus
Suarez called Defensio fidei catholicae adversus Anglicanae sectae errores.
In that book he was teaching publicly: “Kings and princes who tolerate a
religion other than the Roman religion can be destroyed with impunity not
only by a foreigner but even by their own subjects.” The book of the Jesuit
Mar nus Becanus that had the same thesis as the one above suffered the
same fate. Mariana (De rege et regis ins tu one, published in 1605, bk. 1,
chs. 6–8, pp. 58ff.) teaches: “It is right and just for subjects to remove in
any way their kings and princes against whom serious and learned men”
(like the Jesuits) “have laid the charge of heresy.” He also prescribes how
poison should be made, how it should be smeared on their clothes, gloves,
sword handles, or even on their horse blankets, so that a death might
follow which is as quick and immediate as if they were pierced with a
sword. On p. 60, a er recoun ng the act of Jacobus Clemens who wanted
to kill King Henry III of France, he adds: “It would go well with human
affairs if we would find many so bold of heart for the freedom of their
country, men who hold their life and safety in contempt.” Page 74: “If men
of this kind” (assassins) “have escaped a er perpetra ng their crime, they
are admired as heroes in all of life. If it turns out otherwise, they fall as
sacrificial vic ms who have pleased those above and pleased men, famous
in the memory of all posterity because of their noble a empt.” The
provincial master prefaces this work of Mariana in this way: “If ac ons and
plans be brought back to this prescribed form, surely there will be a great
and incredible reward for their work.” That is, with these weapons and
with this soldier Christ’s work is carried on! Creswell, Resp. ad edict. reg.
Angl., sect. 2, no. 162, p. 153: “Surely, it is not only permi ed but is also a
responsibility by highest necessity and command of divine Law—in fact, by
the strongest bond of conscience and at the extreme peril and hazard of
their souls—for all Chris ans to overthrow princes because of a manifest
crime of heresy or to resist them from being admi ed, if they can do this.”
Number 157, p. 149:
The en re college of theologians holds, and it is certain and worthy of belief, that if any
Chris an prince clearly has turned aside from the Roman Catholic religion and also wants to
call others away, he is immediately deprived of all power and office. By the force of divine
and human law, even before any sentence of pope and judge be declared against him, all his
subjects are free from every obliga on of the oath that they have given in regard to
obedience. They can and should cast out this man from his ruling posi on as an apostate
and here c, lest he infect others.

Furthermore, what they teach in words they have also demonstrated in

prac ce. Regarding that monk, Jacobus Clemens, who drew up a plot
against the life of King Henry III of France, the French Annales that were
translated into German at Mömpelgard (part 2, p. 349) men on: “He had
frequent mee ngs with the Jesuits, who were promising him a special
place in paradise if he would by chance be crowned with martyrdom
because of this crime.” The author of De jure belli Belg. tes fies: “The
Jesuits named that Clement, the least clement of all assassins of kings, a
‘second Ehud,’ who killed the king of Moab, and they named that terrible
crime with the specious tle ‘the stroke given from heaven!’ ” That
murderer and thief of the royal head was put into the number of the
saints, and his kith and kin were li ed from the dust and dirt and were
promoted to posi ons as cardinals. In 1597 a pyramid was erected to
Johannes Castellanus, who had plo ed against the life of King Henry IV of
France, in the place where his father’s dwelling had been destroyed. On
that pyramid were these words: “That crude man [sotericum] used evil
teachers and an impious school.” In the Arest. curiae Parisiensis against this
same Castellanus the Jesuits are called “corrupters of youth, disturbers of
the public tranquility, enemies of the king and kingdom.” Wolf (Lect.
memorabil., cent. 16, anno 1597, p. 1048, from a German book De occul s
Jesuitarum virtu bus) men ons:
They compelled King Philip of Spain to permit his then only surviving son to be killed since
the son was being led to a remarkable pity and was very sorry for Belgium because of the
very brutal tyranny that had been exercised against it. Because his royal majesty was
overcome with enormous grief and sadness to hand him over for execu on because of his
fatherly, innate, and deeply rooted feeling of love that he had for his son, they then passed a
judgment that the father had been infected with the contagion of the “Lutheran” heresy, as
they call it. They dragged the king out and forced him to permit a vein to be cut open on his
forehead, so that thereby that here cal blood in this way would be drawn from his royal
majesty, and it would no longer circulate and increase. They acted the same way toward
Maximilian, the king of Rome, the son of the most praiseworthy Emperor Ferdinand. For it is
undoubtedly s ll obvious and known in the court of his imperial majesty that, a er the
death of his imperial majesty (of most honorable memory), the beloved son of the same
Ferdinand, his heir, the elected emperor of Rome, Maximilian, found among the secret
wri ngs and papers of his lord parent (of most blessed memory) a le er from a Jesuit,
Petrus Canisius, that had been given to his lord parent. In that le er he (Canisius) reported,
among other things, that he had discovered with certainty that Ferdinand’s son Maximilian
had decided to join the Lutherans, or the confessors of the Augsburg Confession [Augustani
confessores]. Therefore because the Roman Catholic church (as he calls it) in this way could
fall into great harm and danger, it was his advice that his imperial majesty quickly prepare a
remedy for this imminent evil and that he severely correct his son for the be er or drive him
completely out of the borders of his kingdom into exile. This aforemen oned le er was
shown by Emperor Maximilian to the aforesaid Jesuit. The emperor warned him seriously to
iden fy the subscrip on of his own hand. A er the ques on was asked as to what a man
deserves who s rs up such disagreements between father and son, especially persons of
such great dignity, the le er was read to him.

Turco-Papismus (bk. 1, ch. 8, p. 59) lists many assassins whom the Jesuits
ins gated and persuaded to plot against the life of Queen Elizabeth of
England. (See more examples of this kind in Wolf, Centenarii, and in the
Catechismus Jesui cus.)
(6) Greed. Johannes Passera us (Praefa o libri de ridiculis) writes:
“Scarcely anyone who knows them well can persuade me that the Jesuits
teach for free. My witnesses are of the most honorable and dis nguished
family, whose blood those leeches have sucked out instead of a ny tui on
payment. An enormous witness is their riches, which can vie with the
wealth of kings and princes.” A li le earlier in the same work he calls them
“Harpies” and adds: “We should remember in what manner the
vagabonds, no less vagrant than the Scythians, commended to the people
by the new profession of free teaching, crept in here and ‘against the will
of the gods’ se led in part of the Academy” (of Paris). “[We should
remember] with what tricks they, gazing eagerly at the fortunes of the
wealthy, deceived and suddenly changed—as if by Circe’s cup—rich,
childless men, or delirious, celibate old men; supers ous women; and
inexperienced youths. Thus, under the appearance of religion, which they
spread over their insa able greed and deceits, they have gradually brought
in a Trojan horse,” etc. Of course, they vow poverty along with the rest of
the monks, but under this condi on: that so long as they remain in the
simple vow (as they call it), they can possess the riches of this world and by
inheritance in the direct and collateral line acquire riches. As a result,
Navarrus, an interpreter of canon law, calls this vow “great and wonderful,”
obviously because they can join together riches and poverty into one
subject. (Montaignes discusses this ma er in Defens. verit. contra Anton.
Arnold., ch. 5.) And this is why the Sorbonne at Paris in its Censura of the
le ers of recommenda on and of the privileges that Popes Paul III and
Julius III granted to this order in the year 1554 makes a harsh judgment
against them, for among other things they say:
This new society claims for itself the unusual tle of Jesus’ name. It admits very freely and
without selec on any persons, regardless of how criminal, unlawful, and notorious they may
be. They have no difference from the secular priests in exterior garb; in the tonsure; in
speaking privately their canonical hours, or in chan ng them publicly in the temple, in
cloisters, and in silence; in the choice of foods and days; in fasts and various other
ceremonies by which the estates of the religious are dis nguished and preserved. It has
been granted so many and such various privileges, indults, and liber es, especially in the
administra on of the sacrament of penance and the Eucharist, and this without any
dis nc on of places and persons, even in the responsibility of preaching, lecturing, and
teaching. To the prejudice of the ordinaries and of the order of the hierarchy, to the
prejudice also of other religious orders and, in fact, of princes and temporal lords, contrary
to the privileges of universi es and facul es and, finally, to the great aggrava on of the
people, [this society] appears to violate the honor of monas c religion; it weakens the
zealous, pious, and necessary exercise of virtues, abs nences, and austerity; in fact, it
provides the opportunity for aposta zing freely from other religious orders; it takes away
the subjec on and obedience due to the ordinaries; it unjustly deprives temporal as well as
ecclesias cal lords of their rights; it introduces turmoil into both governments, many
complaints among the people, many li ga ons, disagreements, conten ons, rivalries,
 rebellions, and various schisms. So, having carefully examined and thought over all these
things and others, this society seems dangerous in the ma er of faith, disrup ve of the
peace of the church, upse ng to monas c religion, and more for destroying than for
edifying, etc.

The holiness of the Papist people

§ 268. Regarding the common people in the papal kingdom: because
they are kept away from the reading of Holy Scripture, and because instead
of the heavenly Word they hear fables, supers ons, and tradi ons in the
sermons that, in most places, are held quite rarely; it is no surprise that
everywhere supers on instead of piety, stupid ignorance instead of the
knowledge of the true God, and self-chosen services instead of the true
worship of God dominate. In a speech delivered before the fathers of the
Council of Trent [Ora o coram Triden ni concilii patribus habita], the
bishop of Bitonto says, among other things: “With what monstrosi es of
disgraces, with what filth of uncleanness, with what disease have the
people and priests not been befouled and corrupted in the holy church of
God? etc. No wonder if, because of this” (because of the negligence and
wickedness of the shepherds), “the sheep have been sca ered and wander
away over all the mountains and fields, and that the more powerful have
been turned from authority to dominion, from dominion to tyranny, from
jus ce to injus ce, from a scepter to an iron staff, from the worship of God
to wickedness, from the protec on of the church to slaying, from
modera on to passion, from reason to whim, from tributes to unbearable
burdens, from peace to cruel wars, from simplicity to deceits, from
prudence to malice, from generosity to luxury, from parsimony to greed,
from adornment to pomp, from obedience to open rebellion? Oh, that
they had not turned aside, like the completely lifeless, from religion to
supers on, from faith to faithlessness, from Christ to the An christ—in
fact, from God to Epicurus or to Pythagoras, saying in their wicked hearts
and indecent mouths: ‘There is no God,’ ” etc.
** Bellarmine (Conc. de lumine fidei) complains about the impiety of the
Catholic laity and priests, which was spreading everywhere at the me of
Luther: “The behavior of Chris an people was very corrupt for the most
part. The sacraments, religion, and church discipline were despised, and all
kinds of sins held sway.” See ibid. for more in the same vein. **
 Claudius Espencaeus (commentary on 1 Timothy, p. 374) repeats this
complaint from Bernard: “Woe, woe unto this genera on! The whole body
of the church is suffering. The wider it spreads, the more desperately does
the s nking corrup on of hypocrisy today creep throughout the en re
body of the church. Now Isaiah’s prophecy is being fulfilled: ‘Behold, in
peace is my bi erness most bi er’ [Isa. 38:17].” Franciscus Lambertus,
preface to his book De conjugio: “I was born in the famous city Avignon of
France and o en was in the palace there because my father was the
secretary of the embassy that is in the same city and of the ‘apostolic
palace,’ as they call it. I admit the holiness of that new kingdom, that is, the
impie es and the most horrible and at the same me most heinous crimes,
though [I am] conquered by them, because they are too many and
enormous, so that I could scarcely ever list them.”
Was there perhaps greater holiness in Italy because of the proximity of
the throne of the Roman pope? No. In fact, Machiavelli bears witness to
the contrary (Comment., bk. 1, ch. 17): “Although Italy is by far the closest
of all the provinces called Chris an to the Roman church, yet there is no
province that has less religion because the most holy Roman Curia sows
constant fac ons and discords there.” Bodinus relates, De daemon.: “The
eminent sorcerer Trescal told me that there were more than a hundred
thousand sorcerers in one kingdom that was devoted to the Roman
church.” But what need is there for us to move this Camarina any further?
The day of the Lord will reveal how many disgraces and how many
impuri es even that one papal law about a perpetual celibacy that must be
preserved by priests, monks, and nuns has introduced into the Roman
church.

Whether there is holiness of life in the Evangelical churches

§ 269. The third sec on. Is holiness of life banished by the teachers and
their hearers in the Evangelical churches? Bellarmine intends to prove this
and censures both Luther and the Lutherans bi erly. Regarding Luther he
writes:
(I) “He began to a ack the papacy purely out of envy and ambi on, for
he had found it very hard to bear that the duty of spreading indulgences
had been transferred from the monks of his order to the monks of the
order of preachers.” As a witness to this he cites Cochlaeus, Acta Lutheri.
** Erasmus, Epist. contra pseudoevangel.:
Show me anyone whom that Gospel has made sober from a drunkard, a gentle person from
a savage one, a generous man from a greedy one, a man who speaks good words from a
foul-mouthed one, a modest man from a lewd one. I will show you many who have become
worse than they were. Who ever saw in their services anyone shedding tears, bea ng his
breast, or groaning because of his sins? Look around that Evangelical fellowship and tell me
how many adulterers there are, how many drunkards, how many dice players, how many
prodigals, how many notorious for other sins.

Gretserus (Comm. de duob. nummis, p. 57) cites and praises Cornelius à

Lapide (on 2 Peter 2). Bellarmine, De indulg., bk. 1, ch. 1: “… Mar n Luther,
who in our me made the beginning for propaga ng his sect from his
censure of indulgences, as is clear from the Resolut. de indulg., from the
Assert. ar c. a Leone X. damnatorum, from the beginning of his book De
cap v. babylon., and from other tracts of his.” **
We respond. ** Luther performed his duty with very great diligence. His
en re life was not consumed in leisure as generally happened among the
Papists, even among those who were considered the most holy among
religious persons. He spent his me teaching, preaching, comfor ng,
establishing, and administering the church devoutly, and in the other
responsibili es of his calling. The account of his life as well as his published
works tes fy of this. **
Guicciardinus (Histor.) refutes the liar Cochlaeus, wri ng: “Luther was
given an opportunity by the indulgences conceded too open-handedly by
the popes. Because everyone knew that he gave these out only to demand
money from mortals, the indulgences s rred up a great mass of people.
Because the followers of the pope did not correct among themselves
things that could be condemned, they kindled a fire with their blowing. As
people are by nature prone to apply violent remedies, their rigor and
threats destroyed what could have been removed by concealment.”
Jacobus Augustus Thuanus bears the same witness (Histor., bk. 1, anno
1515):
Pope Leo X commi ed a far more serious sin in dispensing sacred offices. Although in other
respects people would voluntarily be carried to every license, Leo, at the ins ga on of
Cardinal Lauren us Puccius, a violent man, sent le ers of recommenda on throughout the
kingdoms of the Chris an world to collect money everywhere for his huge expenses. He
 promised forgiveness of all sins and eternal life for an agreed price that each would pay in
propor on to the gravity of his sins. For this purpose he set up collectors and treasuries
throughout the provinces. To these he added preachers to commend the magnitude of so
great a benefit among the people and to extol without measure the efficacy of indulgences
in carefully prepared speeches and in pamphlets distributed publicly. Papist ministers did
this too freely everywhere, and especially in Germany. There, those who had brought to
Rome the money to be redeemed by the pope poured forth the power to extricate the souls
of the dead from the expiatory fire on dice games and other shameful uses in whorehouses
and restaurants. Then finally Mar n Luther appeared, an Augus nian monk and professor of
theology at Wi enberg in Saxony. He first refuted and then condemned the mee ngs of
those preachers. It finally reached the point that he called into doubt the very power of the
pope, which he was usurping for himself through those le ers of recommenda on. Finally,
as his wrath grew due to the strife, he went on to examine the doctrine that, he said, was
being undermined with the passage of me.

Guicciardinus and Thuanus agree on these points and with what Sleidanus
tells. Thus they agree exactly with the historical truth. Therefore it was not
the envy and ambi on of Luther but the avarice of the pope and the
shamelessness of Tetzel that provided the first cause for those s rrings of
unrest. Tetzel had been set up by his pope as a preacher and juggler of
indulgences and was very impudently preaching: “There is no sin so great
that it could not be loosed through indulgences, even if one had done the
impossible and deflowered the mother of God. Souls immediately fly out
of purgatory when the sound of money thrown into the box is heard. I do
not want the privilege of a preferred place along with Peter in the kingdom
of heaven, though I have redeemed more souls with my indulgences than
Peter has with his preaching of the Gospel.”
** Here we can note the statement of Augus ne (Contra Petilian., bk. 3,
ch. 10): “One should not believe an enemy when he detracts.” Luther, vol.
6, f. 315a: “It seems to me that if anyone under the pope’s dominion is able
to make of Luther the most wicked sectarian on whom the sun has ever
shined, he has hit the target. Again, whoever can make me a double Papist
among the sectarians and worse than the pope, that person cannot err.”
Jena, vol. 2, f. 149b, in the book against the king of England: “The spirit of
giddiness leads him to rebuke my life, which I myself have never claimed
was holy.” On Matthew 11: “It is all a ma er of the Word. Because they
cannot stand it, they s ck to our life, which they can manipulate as they
wish according to their hos le hearts.” Jena La n, vol. 4, f. 319b: “I do not
call myself a saint, nor do I dispute anything about my life, but I do dispute
about the teaching of Christ because” (he said) “I am in the presence of his
imperial majesty and the estates of the empire at Worms,” etc. Cf. Jena,
vol. 1, f. 443. **
With a sounder judgment than Bellarmine, Cassander writes (Consult.,
art. 14, toward the end, p. 102): “Charges should be brought against our
men” (the popes) “who, being inflated with an empty tle and misusing it
in order to dominate, gave the occasion to men who were not evil to
detract from this ecclesias cal order and to fall away from it.” Cassander
again (art. 7, De eccles., p. 52): “I would not deny that in the beginning
many people had been driven by pious zeal to an excessively harsh rebuke
of certain obvious abuses. I also would not deny that the par cular cause
for this calamity and dividing of the church must be assigned to those”
(Note well!) “who have been inflated with an empty pride of ecclesias cal
power and who proudly and arrogantly despised and drove away those
who were correctly and moderately warning them. On account of this, I
think that one can hope for no firm peace in the church unless it begins
with those who caused that dividing; that is, so that those who are in
charge of the governance of the church may give up something from their
excessive rigor, concede something for the peace of the church, hearken to
the wishes and warnings of many pious people, and correct their manifest
abuses according to the rule of divine Scripture and the ancient church,
from which they have turned aside.”
(II) [Bellarmine writes about Luther:] “In the debate he had with Eck in
Leipzig in 1519, he exclaimed: ‘This cause was not begun for God’s sake,
nor will it be ended for God’s sake.’ Our witness for this is Cochlaeus, Acta.”
We respond. With clear and powerful language Luther himself refuted
this false charge, which was borrowed from Emser (in his Responsum ad
Emserum, 1521, Jena German, vol. 1, f. 404): “Twice now, in La n and in
German, Emser has published and several mes elsewhere babbled what I
am supposed to have said, that I did not begin this cause in the name of
God nor will it be ended in God’s name. What would Emser do if he really
knew anything about me? How would his Chris an love, about which he
brags so much, burn toward me, if he is so agitated with those hateful, self-
contrived, unabashed lies?” etc. Later he gives the occasion for and intent
of those words: “At Leipzig at the castle in the chancery, it happened that
as a result of Eck’s tricks the discussion on the disputa on was going to his
advantage and to my disadvantage, and we saw that the other side was
seeking honor more than the truth. Up to that me I hoped that they had
begun it in God’s name, as I had. It was then that I said with mournful
words and a troubled heart: ‘This thing was not begun in God’s name, and
it is not going to end in God’s name,’ etc.” Finally, he concludes: “Thus my
words have referred not to me but to Eck, who began the disputa on, and
to the theologians of Leipzig; but Emser has turned them against me in a
Jewish manner.” Folio 415 of the same book: “Even if I were so possessed
—may God prevent it!—as to say s ll that I had not begun it in God’s
name, what would you have against that, since you keep shou ng that you
only want to a ack my doctrine?” See s ll more there.
** They quote many things from his Table Talk; about these, however,
note the judgment of Luther himself (Pos l. domest., part 2, Jubilate
Sunday, f. 34b): “In the books of St. Augus ne one finds many proverbs
that flesh and blood have spoken. I must confess in my own case that I say
many words that are not God’s words: when I speak outside the preaching
office, at home at the table, and elsewhere.” Here we could men on six
hundred places in which Luther expressly appeals to God’s command,
honor, protec on, etc. Wider den falschgenannten Stand der Geistlichen
(Jena German, vol. 2, f. 107): “I am convinced that my word and my
beginning are from God, and that my doctrine is not mine but Christ’s.”
Glossa aufs vermeinete kaiserliche Edict (vol. 5, p. 321): “St. John Huss
prophesied about me when he wrote from prison in Bohemia, ‘They will
now roast a goose’—for Huss means ‘goose’—‘but a hundred years from
now they will hear a swan singing. They will have to bear that swan. Here
the ma er shall rest, if God so wills it.’ ”
(III) [Bellarmine writes about Luther:] “In a le er to the people of
Strasbourg he says that he would gladly have denied that the true body of
Christ was in the Eucharist, if Scripture was not so clear, because he saw
that by this reasoning he could trouble the papacy much.” We respond.
This proves his due respect for Scripture and his due hatred toward the
kingdom of the An christ.
(IV) [Bellarmine writes about Luther:] “In his book Contra regem
Angliae, Luther boasts of himself and his abili es with such arrogance that
he says that kings, princes, popes, etc., are not worthy to un e his
shoestrings; that he wanted to be considered a holy man, regardless of
what people wanted; and that he did not consider a thousand Cyprians
and a thousand Augus nes to be of great value.”
We respond. He is not speaking about his own person but about his
doctrine. He declares that he was absolutely convinced of the certainty of
his doctrine not from carnal presump on but from boldness of faith.
Consequently, he appeals only to the Word of God, to which all the
wri ngs of all the fathers without excep on must be subjected. His own
words read this way: “As far as my doctrine is concerned, I am much, much,
much too proud for the devil, the emperor, king, princes, and the whole
world—proud, stubborn, arrogant. But as far as my life is concerned, I am
humble and submissive even to every child.”
** At the Diet of Worms he u ered these groans and laments: “O my
God! O my God, support me against the reason and wisdom of the en re
world! You do it! You must do it, and You alone! This is not my cause but
Yours. For my person I have nothing to do here and nothing to do with
these great lords of the world. Indeed, I would prefer to have good, res ul
days, to be untroubled. But the cause is Yours.” Admon. ad omnes
Chris anos ut sibi caveant a sedi one (Jena German, vol. 2, p. 71): “It is not
possible for a man to s r up and lead such a tumult. It has come this far
without my considera on and advice; it will also certainly end without my
advice, and the gates of hell will not stop it. It is a different Man who is
spinning the wheel.” To the charge of pride and arrogance Luther himself
responds in Jena German, vol. 1, f. 363a and vol. 3, f. 332a. Jena German,
vol. 1, f. 363a: “Whoever wishes to a ack my person, let him do it in any
way he wishes. I do not pretend to be an angel. But I will not allow anyone
to a ack my teaching with impunity, because I know that it is not mine but
God’s. I think you should believe my fellow ci zens of Wi enberg who
know my daily behavior and deal with me every day, more than the absent
liar Emser.”
(V) [Bellarmine writes about Luther:] “In his book De missa angulari he
says that he learned from the devil that the Mass was a bad thing and that
he was persuaded by the devil’s logic to abolish the Mass, obviously in
order to show that his father was the one who is king over all the sons of
pride.” Becanus (De ecclesia, bk. 3, q. 3, concl. 11, no. 129) repeats the
same thing and says: “Luther received his teaching about abroga ng the
Mass from the devil.”
 We respond. On this ma er, see the wri ng of our extraordinary friend,
Dr. Balduin, Contra Jesuitam Serarium de Lutheri magistro, in which he
completely crushes and destroys this diabolical slander.
** Jena German, vol. 6, f. 87, in the book De missa angulari et unc one
sacerdot., 1553. The devil did not appear to Luther in that gathering in his
own person nor did he speak with Luther in his own voice, because Luther
begins the descrip on of this account as follows: “… except the devil began
to debate in my heart.” **
Luther certainly did not record that dispute held with the devil for the
purpose of acknowledging the devil as his teacher in the abroga on of the
private Mass, since he had already learned earlier from the Word of God
what there is in the private Mass that conflicts with Christ’s ins tu on. He
did this rather to give proof with the example of himself as to how slippery
the founda on is on which those papal reasonings stand, which they
generally provide to support the private Mass, and how in tempta ons the
Chris an mind surely cannot assent to them. The en re context teaches
that this is the aim of that story.
Therefore what are they condemning in Luther because of that
account? His conversa on with the devil? And yet not only have some
Papists had conversa ons with the devil, which cannot be condemned in
and of itself, but they have even made a pact with him, which is clearly
damnable.
** Polydorus Virgilius (bk. 6, ch. 6) relates the occasion and origin of the
Feast of All Souls to weeping devils. “Abbot Odilo of Cluny believed those
lying spirits and established this fes val” in the year 1002, as Peter Damian
and Durandus tes fy (bk. 7, ch. 35). If the Papists want examples of those
who have had familiarity with the devil, there is no need for them to look
for such among us. They have an abundant supply in their own household.
Let them read the histories of Sylvester II, Benedict VIII, Gregory VII, who
earlier was called Hildebrand, etc. **
In His own tempta ons Christ spoke with the devil (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).
Do they condemn Luther for believing the lying devil? Although the
devil is a liar and “the father of lies,” yet he does declare some true things,
as when he calls Christ “the Son of the Most High” (Luke 8:28). So when
the devil tries to tempt people to despair, he reproaches them with what is
a ma er of the most certain truth: that they are sinners and because of
their sins they have deserved the wrath of God and eternal damna on. In
the same book Luther writes in regard to this subject: “The devil is a liar.
His lies are more cunningly devised than the human mind can
comprehend. He a acks in such a way that he always lays hold of a solid
truth that cannot be denied. So neatly does he paint his lie that he
deceives even the most cau ous. That’s the sort of thought that struck
Judas’s heart. ‘I have shed righteous blood.’ This, Judas could not deny. But
it was a lie that he had to despair of God’s grace. Therefore Satan does not
lie when he makes an accusa on because there he has two unimpeachable
and serious witnesses: the Law of God and our conscience,” etc. Therefore
it was the devil’s intent to lead Luther to despair. To achieve this goal he
took up what was of the most certain truth: that the Mass is idolatrous and
that for this reason Luther sinned most seriously in celebra ng so many
private Masses. It was neither possible nor permissible for Luther to deny
what the devil was presupposing as certain, for this was something he had
learned from God’s Word and from the ins tu on of the Lord’s Supper. He
did, however, deny the consequence, as he should have—namely, that
because of this sin he must despair—for he adds in the same place: “I
cannot deny that I have sinned, but Satan lies to me when he urges the
next step, that I should despair. I have indeed confessed before the devil
that, like Judas, I have sinned. But with Peter I turn to Christ, I invoke
Christ, I believe in Christ, who has washed away my sin with His blood.”
Do they condemn Luther for not resis ng the devil who was opposing
the Mass, since it is not likely that the devil would a ack anything that is
idolatrous? Yet, like a coiling serpent, the devil some mes a acks the Mass
and some mes encourages it. Delrius reports (according to Surius, De
magia, bk. 4, ch. 1, q. 3, § 5): “At mes the devil appeared to an abbot in
the form of an angel and urged him to celebrate the Mass.” Therefore from
the devil’s approval or a ack on the Mass no certain conclusion can be
drawn, but [only] from the Word of God, with which those arguments
agree exactly that the devil used to a ack the Mass in Luther’s heart,
though the devil did this for a very wicked purpose, namely, to encourage
Luther to despair.
** The Papist Tilmannus and, from him, Fornerus (Contra conc. jubil.
Norimb.) report: “Maximilian I saw an evil demon in physical form si ng
on Luther’s shoulders.” We respond. (1) They themselves add: “Maximilian
also called his baron butler to look very carefully at Luther. When he had
done this, the butler said that he had seen nothing but a monk wearing his
cowl.” (2) Is it likely that Luther came to Augsburg when the Diet was held
there in 1518? How would Maximilian dine with the doors open? (3) The
le ers of Maximilian to Leo X (which are extant in vol. 1, ff. 99 and 109, and
in vol. 5, f. 112b) tell the opposite. Cf. Mathesius, De Luth., conc. 2, f. 12a.
(4) The devil stands among the sons of God (Job 1:6). He stands at the right
hand of the priest to accuse him (Zech. 3:1). He led Christ to the pinnacle
of the temple [Matt. 4:5]. **
(VI) [Bellarmine writes about Luther:] “According to Conrad Gesner and
the ministers of Zurich, he was an argumenta ve man, stubborn, of
impetuous character, impa ent, and one who could not bear it unless
people agreed with him in all things.”
** At the end of the Histor. eccles. of Theodoret, they list a catalog of
emperors, bishops, here cs, etc., in which (under the tle “Chrysostom,” p.
433) is men oned with regard to Luther: “He had a harsh and rough
freedom; he was a scoffer and was angry toward all people. Also, he was
accustomed to a ack the imperial majesty so freely that he was
considered a here c. He was of hateful severity, and his stubbornness was
reprehensible.” Yet this is added: “Surely the sins of those mes needed to
be cut out and burned; they needed to be cured with severe remedies.”
We give the same response about the stubbornness and severity with
which they accuse Luther. Fornerus and other Papists say that Luther
“s rred up a revolt among the peasants.” Sleidanus states the opposite
(Hist., bk. 4, p. 107; bk. 5, p. 117). See Luther himself (Jena German, vol. 3,
ff. 102, 104b, 105b, 108, 113b, 114b, 115, 134b; vol. 6, f. 6; Eisleben
edi on, vol. 1, f. 277). **
Campianus, Pistorius, Ungersdorffius, and the other slanderers add that
“he was a drunk, incestuous,” etc. Becanus (De ecclesia, q. 3, concl. 10, no.
105) says he was “infamous” and (in conc. 11, no. 126) that he “allowed
lusts.”
We respond. On the contrary, some of the Papists themselves, though
sworn enemies, approved of his life. In a le er to Thomas, cardinal of York,
Erasmus writes (bk. 11, Epistol. 1): “The great consensus of all approves the
life of the man” (Luther). “It is not a light precedent: he is of such moral
integrity that not even his enemies can find anything with which to slander
him.” Erasmus again, in a le er to the cardinal of Mainz (Epistol., bk. 12, p.
421): “If I were to favor him as a good man, which his enemies also
confess, would this be envy?” Roffensis (Adv. Luth., art. 34) cites Luther’s
pious admoni on: “How much more correctly would we be ac ng if we
first caused God to be kindly disposed with our prayers and, in fact, by
changing the manner of our en re life?” He also adds: “No one who knows
you” (Luther) “will oppose your opinion.”
We have shown elsewhere (namely, in our preface prefixed to the book
of Dr. Johannes Faber that contains the Refuta o papis ci discursus, etc.)
that the false charges made against Luther and his wri ngs accomplish
li le against the doctrine of our churches. This is because: (1) Papist
writers who contended with Luther while he was s ll alive men on no such
thing about him. They would not have passed that by if there were any
truth to these slanders. (2) Because they keep their hearers from reading
the books of Luther, why, then, do they direct such savage accusa ons
against him, while denying him any way of responding in his own favor in
the minds of his hearers? “If it is enough to have accused, who will be
innocent?” (3) It is evident from their own histories of themselves how
most Papists lived in the later centuries. If we compare their disgraceful
ac vi es with those things they a ribute to Luther, you would call it a
ludicrous joke. (4) We consider Luther not as an apostle immediately called
nor as a pope endowed with the gi of infallibility, but as the salutary, elect
instrument whom God used to reform doctrine and to reveal the
An christ. (5) God bestowed many blessings upon the church through
Luther so that we would not doubt that he wrote salutary wri ngs and
lived a pious life as an instrument of the Holy Spirit. Our eyewitnesses of
this are Philipp, Mathesius, Justus Jonas, and others who give a clear
tes mony of him.

The judgment of Bellarmine about Lutheran teachers and hearers

§ 270. From Luther, Bellarmine goes on to the Lutherans, whom he
divides into teachers and hearers. Regarding the teachers he declares: “If
we were to remove the boas ng, lies, scoffings, curses, and insults from
their books, we could scarcely put together brief pamphlets from their
largest volumes.” Regarding the hearers he expressly asserts: “There is not
a good man among them.” To this end he cites tes monies of Luther,
Andreas Musculus, Jacob Andreae, and Erasmus in which they complain
about the corrupt life and morality in the Evangelical churches.
** (These, however, are the fatherly complaints of pastors, not the
Rhadamanthean sentences of judges. The same complaints about their
hearers occur in the prophets. Jer. 5:1: “Run to and fro through the streets
of Jerusalem, look and take note! Search her square to see if you can find a
man who does jus ce and seeks truth, and I will be merciful to it.” Isa.
53:1: “Lord, who has believed our report?”) **
Becanus (De ecclesia, q. 3, concl. 2, no. 8) repeats the same tes monies
of Luther and of Musculus.
We respond. (1) Which party’s wri ngs teem more with abuse and
curses? We submit this ques on to the judgment of all devoutly learned
people. Experience shows quite clearly that Cochlaeus, Surius, Pistorius,
etc., easily hold first place in the art of abusing.
(2) What more serious rebuke can be spoken than what Bellarmine
belches forth here, that “there is not a good man among them”?
** Yet Jacob Reihingius (Muri civit. sanctae, fund. 8, p. 204) repeats:
“The Catholic church does have many bad people but also countless good
men and many renowned holy men. Your church has bad people without
number and not a saint.” Costerus, Enchir., ch. 2, p. 105: “The here cs
either have or had no saint, nor have they sent anyone on to heaven.” **
But what shall we say about bap zed infants in our church? Are these
not good people? Yet if we administer a legi mate Bap sm in our church,
which the Papists themselves acknowledge and admit, surely through it
the Holy Spirit is effec ve for regenera on and renewal in their hearts, and
even makes them good.
** Elsewhere the Jesuits themselves give Protestants a tes mony of
goodness. Costerus, Enchir., ch. 2, p. 201: “They produce some good
behavior, they are generous in their alms, they set up hospitals, some of
them live moderately and abstain from insul ng and swearing.”
Maldonatus, on Matt. 7:15: “There is nothing on their lips except ‘Our
Father, who art in heaven,’ nothing except ‘Christ,’ nothing except ‘faith.’
Swearing is not heard. There is nothing in their deeds except almsgiving,
nothing except temperance, nothing except modesty.” Sandaeus, Cas gat.
de prodig. Jes. liberal.: “Many of the Protestants have a bit of uprightness.
When they carry out the du es of a good ci zen, they exercise some moral
works that are not bad.” **
(3) We set before our hearers the Word of God cleansed of all human
corrup ons and supers ons. Therefore it cannot happen that it does not
bear fruit in the hearts of some. Isa. 55:10–11: “For as the rain and snow
come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth,
making it bring forth and sprout … so shall My Word be that goes forth
from My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty.” We teach the Law of God
purely as the norm of all holiness and piety. We instruct our hearers to do
good works according to the norm of the Law, a er they have been led to a
knowledge of their sins and have embraced the blessings of Christ by faith.
We teach that true, saving faith is not idle but is effectual in the pursuit of
good works. Thus where good works do not appear outside, there true
faith is not inside. We teach that through sins against conscience the Holy
Spirit and saving faith are cut off from the reborn. We set before our
hearers very serious and urgent reasons why they have to do good works,
namely, for God’s sake, for our neighbors’ sake, and for our own sake. We
encourage our hearers to mor fy the flesh along with its lusts, to crucify
the old Adam, and thus to work out their salva on with fear and trembling.
It cannot happen, therefore, that through these means the Holy Spirit
would not be effectual for true holiness in the hearts of some people.
** Isidore of Pelusium, bk. 3, Le er 223:
Then, they would go out to meet death for the sake of the salva on of all; now, however,
the shepherds bring death upon the sheep not by killing their bodies (which would be the
lesser evil) but by bringing stumbling to their souls. Then, they would chas se their bodies
with fasts, but now they cause themselves to exult in luxurious delights. Then, they
distributed their goods to the poor, but now they turn the goods of the poor into their own
property. Then, they cul vated virtue, but now they proscribe and eliminate those who
cul vate virtue. Then, they treated chas ty with great praise, but now—well, I do not want
to say anything offensive. **

(4) At the same me we do not deny that there are very many who
wickedly abuse the doctrine of the Gospel for carnal security and who are
very quick in the course of their wicked deeds. But we have this complaint
about the perversity of some of our hearers in common with Christ, the
patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, who themselves quite o en
complained that their teaching did not bear fruit in everyone. The apostle
complains about the Corinthians: “It is heard that there is fornica on
among you, and such fornica on as is not so much as named among the
Gen les” (1 Cor. 5:1). Christ makes the pronouncement about Chorazin,
Bethsaida, and Capernaum that because of their contempt for the Word,
the inhabitants of those ci es would be punished more severely on
Judgment Day than the people of Tyre and Sidon and the Sodomites (Matt.
11:20[–24]).
(5) Although “the prophets and apostles o en censure the en re
popula on as if no one were good, yet there are many good people.” (The
words are Bellarmine’s, De ecclesia, bk. 3, ch. 16, § ad quartum, from
Augus ne, De unit. eccles., ch. 12, and Cont. Donat. post colla onem, ch.
20.)
** Caspar Sanc us, on Acts 1, p. 15: “By the custom of Scripture, when
some things are done in many people, they are said to be done in all; and
just as it also denies that some things are done by anyone if they tend to
be done by very few, so here he is declaring this rule with many examples.
Isa. 1:6: ‘From the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness
in it.’ Ezek. 3:7: ‘All the house of Israel are of a hard forehead and of a
stubborn heart.’ ” Melchior Canus, Loci theol., bk. 4, last chapter, §
secundum: “Augus ne very o en says: ‘Divine speech so rebukes the
wicked crowds of the church as if all were such and as if absolutely no one
remained.’ ” Augus ne, toward the middle of Letter 59 ad Paulinum: “It is
the custom of Scripture to speak about the part just as about the whole. In
the first parts of the Epistle, he praises the Corinthians as if they were all
that way, though only some of them were praiseworthy. A erward, in
some passages of the same Epistle he rebukes them as if all were to blame
because of some who were such.” Ibid.: “Whoever has noted carefully that
this custom of Scripture is sca ered profusely throughout the en re corpus
of its literature has solved many things that seem contrary to each other.”
**
So also the teachers in our churches rebuke seriously the wickedness of
some of their hearers. Yet from this, one cannot infer that they are
acknowledging no good people among them. In fact, this very point proves
a serious zeal for piety in our teachers: that they inveigh so vehemently
against the impiety of their hearers.
(VI) Although in our prayers, alms, and fasts we by no means follow that
external pomp of ceremonies, and though we do not perform our works
before people to gain their applause, yet in this area we follow Christ’s
prescrip on in Matt. 6:1ff. From this, however, one can by no means
a ribute to us a neglect of the exercises of piety, for “the day of the Lord
will reveal what was done in secret.”
** Among the Papists, however, there are similar complaints.
Bellarmine, Conc. de lumine fidei, § at quibus: “The behavior of Chris an
people was in the main very corrupt. The sacraments, religion, and church
discipline were despised. All kinds of vices ran rampant.” See ibid. for more
in the same vein. Pla na, Vita Marcellini:
What do we think is going to happen with our age, in which our vices have increased to such
an extent that they have scarcely le us a place of mercy in the presence of God? It is not
my place to say how great is the greed of priests and especially of those who acquire
property, with what passion they search everywhere, how great is their ambi on and pomp,
how great is their pride and sloth, how great is their ignorance both of themselves and of
Chris an doctrine, how small is their religion (and that is pretended rather than true), how
corrupt are the morals even in the laypeople whom they call secular—since they sin so
openly and secretly as if they were seeking praise for that.

Erasmus (Le er ad Spala n., in Scultetus, Annal., decad. 1, p. 58) writes:

“At Luther’s me there was such corrup on in the public morality of the
Roman church that there was no one who would not confess that there
was need for a public remedy.” In a Le er ad Barbirium found in the same
work (p. 92) he writes: “No one refuses to admit that there was need for a
strong medicine for the collapsed morals of the church.” **
We therefore conclude with the words of the apostle in 1 Cor. 4:5:
“Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the me, before the Lord
comes, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will
disclose the counsels of hearts. Then each one will have praise from God.”
Section XI: On the Eleventh Mark of the Church
Assigned by Bellarmine: The Glory of Miracles:
Whether miracles are true marks of the church
§ 271. The first sec on. Are miracles a genuine and infallible mark of the
church? We follow the nega ve posi on, claiming that “oracles cannot be
proved through miracles.” In order to demonstrate this more clearly, we set
forth these divisions of miracles:
(I) “I call a miracle” (writes Augus ne, De u l. credend., around the
middle of ch. 6) “whatever appears difficult or unusual, beyond the hope
or ability of an admirer. In this genus nothing is more suitable to people
and to foolish men than that which is brought to the senses.” This
defini on of a miracle is very general, for it includes all things that surpass
our opinion, hope, and expecta on and, consequently, are considered
miracles, even if they are not miracles in the proper and specific sense.
Certainly, Augus ne adds division to his defini on.
** In the defini on of miracle that Augus ne supplies, the Scholas cs
note four things that are required for something to be a miracle, the first
two of which involve the “thing” of the miracle, and the la er two, the
manner. (1) The first is that it be difficult, not because of the magnitude of
that which is done, which Augus ne teaches is not always seen in miracles
(on John, tractate 24), but because it surpasses the ability of nature. (2) It
must be unusual, not that it happens rarely but because it does not
generally occur according to the common course of nature. (3) It must be
beyond the ability of nature, not so much or always because of the
substance of the deed, namely, insofar as nature cannot imitate what God
does in nature, but also because of the order and manner of doing it. Now,
the manner of nature is that it does what it does in me and not in an
instant. The order of nature is that it does anything but not in just any
subject. (4) It must appear to be beyond the hope of the admirer.
Understand this to mean the hope of nature, not the hope of grace (Rom.
4:14). Thus a miracle some mes appears to the eyes of the body and
some mes only to the eyes of faith. **
 He says: “But again, these are divided into two, for there are some
things that cause only amazement, but some things produce also great
grace and benevolence. You see, if anyone catches sight of a man flying,
that provides no advantage to the spectator beyond just marveling at that
spectacle. But if a person who is afflicted with a serious and hopeless
illness becomes well as soon as it has been ordered, he will overcome his
amazement over his health with a love for his healer.” According to this
division of Augus ne, some miracles are playful, but some are useful and
salutary.
(II) Some miracles are said to be priva ve, some posi ve. Those of the
first kind occur when the natural ac ons of a thing are restrained for a me
not by the interven on of physical causes but by the peculiar power of
God, the greatest and universal cause. Thus the sun stands s ll for Joshua
(Josh. 10:13), the sun goes back ten steps on the sundial of Ahaz (Isa.
38:8), it is darkened during Christ’s Passion (Matt. 27:45), iron floats (2
Kings 6:6). Those of the second kind occur when things are endowed with
new quali es, as when the barren give birth (Ps. 113:9), sicknesses are
cured beyond the course of nature, etc.
** Miracles can surpass the ability of nature in three ways: (1) As
concerns the substance of the deed, as when the sun went backward (2
Kings 20). (2) As concerns the subject in which they are done, as when the
dead are raised, the blind receive their sight, etc. (3) As concerns the
manner and order of doing them, as when through divine power Peter’s
mother-in-law was freed in an instant from her fever (Matthew 8). Thomas
says (De pot. Dei, q. 6, art. 2, resp. ad 3): “These three kinds of miracles
differ in this manner: the first kind is of those that are contrary to nature;
the second, of those that are above nature; the third, of those that are
beyond nature.” Thomas ([ST,] part 3, q. 29, art. 1, resp. ad 2) divides
miracles “into those that are to strengthen faith and those with which the
faith is concerned, such as the miracle of the virgin birth. The former are
performed in the sight of many. The la er, however, God wanted to be
secret, that the faith of Chris ans might be tested more when it accepts
them solely because of the declara on of the Scriptures.” Augus ne (in
Prosper’s Sent., ch. 134) divides miracles into “visible and invisible.” He
dis nguishes the former as “those that call people to be illumined; the
la er illumine those who have been called.” Alphonsus de Castro (Adv.
haereses, bk. 10, at the word miraculum):
A miracle is an unusual thing worked above the power of nature. Thus for anything to be
called a miracle, two things must be present: that it be above the power of nature and that
it not be common and customary. If one of these is missing, it will not be called a miracle.
For this reason, the crea on of the human soul is not to be considered a miracle because,
though its crea on exceeds the power of nature, it is nevertheless not an unusual ma er,
because God creates new souls every day. In the same way, if one man is born with seven
fingers on one hand, this would not be called a miracle because, though it is unusual, it
nevertheless does not surpass the power of nature because this can proceed from natural
causes. S ll, if something is unusual and surpasses the powers of nature, it is right to call
that a miracle.

(III) In the ques on whether the devil can perform miracles, the
Scholas cs dis nguish between wondrous deeds (mirabilia) and miracles
(miracula). They concede the working of the former to the devil, but they
deny the working of the la er. Thomas, [ST,] part 1, q. 110, art. 4:
It is not enough for it to be a miracle if something is done beyond the order of some
par cular nature, for in this way anyone might perform a miracle by throwing a stone up in
the air. On this basis something is called a miracle: because it is beyond the order of all
created nature. In this sense God alone does miracles. We do not know all the power of
created nature. Thus when something happens beyond the order of crea on known to us
through a created power of nature unknown to us, that indeed is a miracle with regard to
us, but not simply.

Gabriel Biel explains that in greater detail (Sent., 2, dist. 8, q. 2):

A miracle can happen in two ways: with respect to the thing done and with respect to the
manner of doing it. With respect to the thing done, this happens when an effect is produced
while a second natural cause is not concurring, or in a subject that does not have the natural
order to undertake such an effect. With respect to the manner of doing it, this happens
when something is produced from natural causes but in a shorter me than is the
customary course of nature. These miraculous changes are done in two ways: either that
those results are not produced from the principles of nature but immediately by God
Himself either in an instant or successively, and then it is a miracle according to the first
manner; or the effect can be produced from the principles of nature in an instant or
suddenly in me because of the instantaneous or sudden applica on of the ac ve to the
passive beyond the usual course of nature, and then it is not properly a miracle but a
wondrous deed, that is, a miracle taken in the second manner.

(IV) Therefore, though the devil cannot perform miracles in the proper
and specific sense, he can perform many wondrous acts through the
applica on of ac ve natural causes whose force and opera on he has
examined in great detail. We consider these as miracles because we do not
know their cause nor do we see how they are done. (Consequently,
Augus ne writes, De Trinit., bk. 4, ch. 11: “It is easy for wicked spirits,
through their ethereal bodies, to do things at which souls, weighed down
with physical bodies, are amazed—even those of be er affec on.”)
Furthermore, the devil can blind and delude people’s eyes in various ways
so that they seem to themselves to see what they do not see. Because of
all this we further divide miracles into divine and diabolical. The former
have God as their author, who in performing His miracles some mes uses
the ministerial work of angels or humans, and some mes acts without
means in miracles. The la er have the devil as their author, who quite
o en uses the ministry of wicked humans devoted to his service to
perform them. D. Rungius (Ex., ch. 7, part 2, locus 2) establishes six
differences between divine and diabolical miracles. He says that they differ:
(1) In their efficient causes. Ps. 136:4: “God alone does great wonders,”
that is, miracles in the proper sense. The devil does do some wonders, but
only when God permits this. (2) In their material or subjects. The works of
God obviously are done contrary to the order of nature. Although the devil
can do some wondrous deeds either by his nature’s agility and subtlety or
because of his experience of natural things and causes that are unknown
to man, yet he can cause no internal change in nature itself because he is
not the Creator. (3) In their formal cause. Divine miracles are never
puta ve or imaginary, but creatures are changed or renewed actually and
really. As an ape of God, the devil tries to perform similar works, but
frequently he deludes mortals with his deceits, witchcra , and decep ve
help. (4) In their final causes. The miracles of God aim toward the
confirma on of heavenly doctrine and of God’s commandments. The
miracles of the devil confirm lies, idolatries, invoca ons of the dead, etc.
(5) In their instrumental causes. God either does His wondrous works
immediately or He uses the work of prophets, apostles, and other men
outstanding for their piety and virtue or at least in their ordinary calling.
The devil uses sorcerers, soothsayers, deceivers, fortune-tellers, and similar
monstrous people.
** The author of the Opus imperf. in Ma h., homily 29: “Whoever you
see cas ng out demons, if the confession of truth is not in his mouth and
righteousness is not in his hands, he is not a man of God.” **
 (6) In their manner of doing. God simply commands what He wants to
be done and occasionally uses means, but few of these. The devil wants to
use certain forms of words, powders, figures, impreca ons, po ons, drugs,
etc. That is the third division of miracles.
** “True miracles occur through an open and serious invoca on of God.
On the other hand, the jokes of the devil are done with those discordant,
secret, vain, ridiculous, or supers ous prayers or signs,” as Delrius the
Jesuit says (Disquis. magic., bk. 2, q. 7). **
(V) Because God is truth itself while the devil is a liar and the father of
lies (John 8:44), the miracles of God are true, but the miracles of the devil
are false. Gabriel Biel, loc. cit.: “Miracles are either true, which are
arranged for good faith, that is, for the teaching of the church and for the
salva on of the faithful; or they are false, which are arranged to deceive
and subvert those who see them, though what they see is true.
Consequently, all the miracles of demons are false.”
** The word “miracles” some mes signifies in general amazing and shocking works done by
anyone at all. In this way, people once celebrated the seven wonders [miracula] of the
world. In the same sense the new and shocking works of Satan are called miracles or “signs
and wonders” (2 Thess. 2:9), because they appear to have happened beyond the common
course of nature and strike the eyes of humans with singular force. On the other hand, God’s
miracles are those that occur above and contrary to the order of nature, which the Lord can
and o en does change by the same power with which He created it. (Rungius, on Exodus
34) **

(VI) Miracles are said to be false in two ways, either with regard to their
form, because they are feigned and deceiving, from which they are called
“miracles according to opinion” rather than “according to truth”; or with
regard to their end, because they have been established to deceive, and
they lead people into a lie. Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 20, ch. 19) disputes
in what sense miracles of the An christ are called “lying wonders” (2
Thess. 2:9). He says:
It is commonly ques oned whether these works are called “lying signs and wonders”
because he will deceive man’s senses by false appearances, seeming to do what he does not
do, or because, though they are true wonders, they will draw people to believe a lie, that
those things could not have been done except by God. They, of course, do not know the
devil’s power, especially when he takes such power as he has never had. For when fire fell
from heaven and with one blow swept away from St. Job his large household along with his
great flocks, and then the whirlwind struck and demolished his house and killed his children,
these were not just appearances. They were the works of Satan, to whom God had given
 this power. Therefore at that me it will become more clear why they are called “lying signs
and wonders.”

Augus ne was unwilling to prescribe in what respect the miracles of the

An christ are called “lying.” Chrysostom (on 2 Thessalonians, homily 4)
claims that they are called “decep ve” in both respects: “There is nothing
true about them; fraud is their goal, and the ‘decep ve wonders’ are, in
fact, lies, or they lead to a lie.”
** The same claim is made by Theophylact, the Gloss. ordin., and Lyra.
**
The La n translator converts the disjunc ve into a copula ve: in
prodigiis falsis et inducen bus ad mendacium [“in wonders that are false
and en ce into a lie”]. Even Ambrose (commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2)
declares that the miracles of the An christ can be called “lying” because of
their decep on. He says: “With the power of his signs, the An christ will
make it credible that he is God. Therefore the apostle called them ‘lying
portents’ because through his signs the An christ wants people to believe
that he is what he is not, in order to deceive those whom he goes about
seeking.”

The arguments in favor of the nega ve side

§ 272. Now that these things have been set forth, we confirm our
posi on with the following arguments. (I) Whatever is not proper to the
church cannot be a proper, genuine, and infallible mark of the church.
Miracles are not proper to the church. Therefore they are not a proper,
genuine, and infallible mark of the church. The minor premise is proved,
because miracles have been done even by the heathen and here cs, yet no
one would say that the true church exists among them.

First, the heathen seem to perform miracles

(1) As for the heathen, Cornelius Tacitus (Histor., bk. 4) reports:
“Vespasian restored vision to a blind man, the ability to walk to a cripple.”
Aelius Spar anus reports: “Hadrian healed a blind woman, and a man who
had been born blind suddenly recovered his sight when he touched the
body of the dead Hadrian.” Apollonius Thyanaeus is said “to have suddenly
vanished so that no one saw him anymore” when he was in a council
before Emperor Domi an. Augus ne (Letter 5) also men ons this
Apollonius and writes that he as well as Apuleius performed “many
miracles.” Augus ne (De civit. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 16) men ons these miracles
of the heathen: that
the household gods which Aeneas carried in his flight from Troy are reported to have moved
from place to place. Tarquinius cut a hard rock with a razor. The serpent of Epidaurus
a ached itself as a companion to Aesculapius when he sailed to Rome. A ship on which
stood a statue of the Phrygian Mother and that a host of men could not move was moved by
one li le woman who ed her belt to the ship and dragged it as a witness to her chas ty. A
Vestal virgin whose corrup on had come under suspicion destroyed the controversy over
that problem by filling a sieve with water from the Tiber without spilling any.

Ludovicus Vives (Comm., same place) declares all of these miracles from
secular history in detail. In the book [by Augus ne] De unitate ecclesiae,
toward the middle of ch. 16: “Let those” (who wish to prove the church
from miracles) “hear what the pagans tell was either miraculously done or
seen in regard to their gods and temples. Yet the gods of the heathen are
demons.”
Bellarmine makes the excep on (De ecclesia, bk. 4, ch. 14, § ad
quartum): “Vespasian did not cure a truly blind man, a true cripple,
because when physicians were asked if the ailments of those two were
curable, they responded in the affirma ve” (according to Cornelius
Tacitus). Yet even if those whom Vespasian cured were not truly blind and
crippled but could have been restored by physicians’ efforts, one s ll
cannot deny that the works of demons and magicians can turn out in such
a way that those who, even in the judgment of physicians, appear to be
truly blind and truly crippled can be restored to health. History and
experience are both witnesses to this.
Therefore Bellarmine makes an excep on in a different way: “It is
believable that such an ailment in its en rety came from the devil, who
took possession of the eye of one and of the leg of the other and hindered
the use of those members for this purpose: that he might appear to cure
when he ceased to harm.” We respond. This is enough to confirm our
posi on. Because diabolical miracles, as regards their external appearance,
agree with true and divine miracles—though they are en rely different
with regard to the thing itself—it is therefore dangerous to pass judgment
about doctrine on the basis of external miracles alone. Only the outward
appearance of a miracle meets the eyes. The discerning of the thing and
the dis nguishing of the diversity that is between divine and diabolical
miracles are obvious to neither the eyes nor the other senses. Therefore it
can happen that diabolical miracles are considered as true miracles
because of the external look and appearance by which they correspond to
true, divine miracles. Bellarmine himself acknowledges this in a certain
way. He writes (loc. cit., § est autem): “Before the approval of the church, it
is not evident nor certain with the certainty of faith that any miracle is a
true miracle. This is because it is not evident to us that something false
cannot be among it, that it is not the illusion of a demon. Even though a
demon cannot perform true miracles, he can do them in appearance—
even the greatest ones.” Therefore, if in miracles the truth of the thing is
not always connected with the outward look and appearance, it is a ma er
of great peril to make pronouncements about the truth of a miracle and
about doctrine itself from outward appearance.

Second, false prophets seem to perform miracles

§ 273. (2) One can prove from God’s Word and from church history that
here cs and false prophets perform miracles. Deut. 13:1–2: “If a prophet
arises among you or a dreamer of dreams and gives you a sign or wonder,
and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, ‘Let
us go a er other gods,’ etc.” Theodoret comments on these words: “With
God’s permission a false prophet does wondrous things. But we are
instructed not to believe when one who does such things teaches contrary
to piety.” A li le later: “Demons work with the permission of God. It was in
this way that Pharaoh’s magicians performed the wonder of the rod, the
river, and the frogs, as God the Most Wise allowed this to rebuke the
madness of the doer.” Again, Paul Fagius on the Targum:
“To give a sign” is to predict that something will come which is not unusual in nature but as
a sign of promise or of warning, just as Samuel foretells that Saul would meet three men [1
Sam. 10:3]. It is a marvel or portent when something that is beyond that which is believed to
be a part of nature is given as a sign, such as the changing of the rod into serpents. Again, if
anyone were to ask how a false prophet can do signs, the Hebrews will give a double
response. Some think that that passage must be taken to mean signs that represent
something, just as Zedekiah put on his head iron horns and promised a victory—a lie—to
 the king (1 Kings 22[:11]). Some take it to mean signs that are done through an incanta on
or magic spell, as the wise men in Egypt did signs.

Fagius adds: “We must note this passage carefully, namely, that God at
mes permits Satan to perform miracles to this end: to test His own people
as to how steadfastly they want to cling to His Word.” The miracles of the
Egyp an wise men Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. 3:8) belong here also, who
with their incanta ons threw their rods out into the middle and changed
them into serpents (Exod. 7:12). Josephus (Antiq., bk. 2, ch. 5) explains the
reason for this miracle in this way: “With their wondrous deeds those
magicians put a spell on the eyes of the spectators so that those rods
appeared to them to be serpents.” However, though the devil can and
o en does set before the eyes of people such tricks, yet because the
serpent of Aaron is said to have swallowed up the magicians’ serpents, we
say more correctly with Cyril (on John 8, bk. 7): “By the devil’s decei ul
work it happened that into the place where they threw their rods, in an
invisible manner serpents were immediately brought from elsewhere and
were subs tuted.” Augus ne (De Trinit., bk. 3, ch. 8) argues about this
subject as follows: “Because of the subtlety of his sense and body, the devil
knew the seeds of those things that were hidden to us. He sca ers them
broadly through the harmonious composi on of the elements and in this
way provides opportuni es for producing things and speeding their
growth.” Yet the devil cannot for this reason be called a creator, “because
the creator of those secret and invisible seeds hidden in the physical
elements of the world is He alone who is the Creator of all things, by
whose permission the devil works his wonders.” One should make the
same judgment about the spectacle of the waters changed to blood that
was presented to the king (Exod. 7:[20–]22) and about the producing of
frogs from the waters (Exod. 8:[6–]7). This changing of waters and
producing of frogs either was illusory or was done through a sudden
switching of blood into the place of the water and a sudden bringing in of
frogs from some other place. Finally, however, when that power of the
magicians went to produce the niest, meanest li le creatures—gnats—
out of the dust, it failed completely, “that people might understand that
whatever they could accomplish up to that me they accomplished only
with power granted from on high,” as Augus ne speaks (De Trinit., bk. 3,
ch. 7). Furthermore, “they were permi ed to do some wonderful things
that they might be overcome the more wonderfully,” as Augus ne also says
(De civ. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 8).
What the Egyp an magicians and false prophets did in the Old
Testament can also be done in the New Testament, according to the
witness of Christ and His apostles. Matt. 7:22–23: “On that day many will
say to Me: ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name and cast out
demons in Your name and do δυνάμεις πολλὰς (many miracles) in Your
name?’ ” (For that is how that word is taken in Matt. 11:20; 13:58; and in
many other places everywhere.) “And then I will declare to them: ‘I never
knew you. Depart from Me, you evildoers.’ ” On the basis of these words
Jus n (QQ. et. respon. ad orthod., q. 5, p. 309) infers thus: “If a showing of
powers and miracles were conclusive proof of true religion, then the Lord
of the na ons would not have rebuked and declared unworthy of His
recogni on those who had said, ‘Lord, did we not prophesy in Your
name?’ ” etc. Matt. 24:24–25: “For false christs and false prophets will
arise and show great signs and wonders so as to lead astray if possible
even the elect. Behold, I have told you beforehand.” The Papist writer
Cornelius Jansen comments as follows on these words (Concord. evangel.,
ch. 123, p. 842):
In our mes there have been among us Chris ans who very foolishly tell the lie that they are
Christ, the King of Zion and Savior of men. They had their own prophets, signs, and wonders
by which they imposed their lie on some people who were not deeply rooted in the faith.
Among those signs we can list this, that the bap zed among them, a er drinking from a cup,
as they say, soon hold the Holy Scriptures with the admira on of men be er than those who
have con nuously occupied themselves with the Scriptures. In other cases, people clearly
were changed as they courageously underwent death for the defense of their sect and
shared all their possessions in common. In this way they seduced people powerfully, so that
if this could be done, they could have imposed their belief even on the elect.

In Luke 11:19 Christ tes fies that the sons of Pharisees (that is, their
disciples) were cas ng out demons. 2 Thess. 2:9–10: “The coming of the
An christ will be by the working of Satan with all power and lying signs and
wonders and with all seduc on of iniquity,” etc. Rev. 13:13–14: “The beast
works great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in
the sight of men; and it deceives those who dwell on earth because of the
signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the former beast,” etc.
Regarding the wicked here c and impostor Marcus, Irenaeus writes (Adv.
haeres., bk. 1, ch. [13], p. 43): “Someone else of those who are among
them” (the Colarbasians) “boasts that he is the corrector of the Master. His
name is Marcus, and he is highly skilled in the magic of deceit through
which he misleads many men and not a few women and converts them to
himself as if to the most knowledgeable and perfect man who has very
great power from invisible words. Thus it appears as if he really were the
precursor of the An christ. For he mixes the buffoonery of Anaxilaus with
the wickedness of those who are called magicians. Those who have no
sense and are out of their minds think that he works effects through these
powers.” Chapter [13], p. 44:
Pretending to consecrate cups mixed with wine, and protrac ng to great length the word of
invoca on, he contrives to give them a purple and reddish color, so that Grace, who is one
of those who are superior to all things, should be thought to drop her own blood into that
cup through means of his invoca on, and that thus those who are present should be led to
rejoice to taste of that cup, in order that, by so doing, the Grace, who is set forth by this
magician, may also flow into them. Again, handing mixed cups to the women, he bids them
consecrate these in his presence. When this has been done, he himself produces another
cup of much larger size than that which the deluded woman has consecrated, and pouring
from the smaller one consecrated by the woman into that which has been brought forward
by himself, he at the same me pronounces these words: “May that Grace who is before all
things, and who transcends all knowledge and speech, fill your inner man,” etc. Repea ng
certain other like words, and thus goading on the wretched woman to madness, he then
appears a worker of wonders when the large cup is seen to have been filled out of the small
one, so as even to overflow by what has been obtained from it. By accomplishing several
other similar things, he has completely deceived many, and drawn them away a er him.

(Epiphanius has the more clear Greek words of Irenaeus in bk. 1, vol. 3,
Haeres., no. 34.) In ch. [15], p. 58, he reports: “A holy old man and skillful
preacher of the truth said to this Marcus: ‘Marcus, you are a builder of
idols and inspector of portents; you are skilled in astrology and magic, with
which you confirm your doctrines of errors. You show signs to those whom
you mislead, but they are the workings of the power that is apostate,
which your father Satan supplies to you as through the angelic power of
Azazel, who can make you the precursor of the cunning wickedness that is
opposed to God.’ ” Adv. haeres., bk. 2, ch. 57, p. 160: “Of those things that
Christ does for the benefit and strengthening of people, they” (the
Valen nian here cs) “are found to accomplish no such thing nor anything
similar nor anything that could come into comparison in a certain respect.
But if they do anything through their work of magic, they decei ully
a empt to seduce the foolish, providing no fruit and benefit, and they say
that they are perfec ng themselves toward those powers. They mislead
boys, deceiving their eyes and showing them phantoms that disappear
quickly and do not last even for an instant. Thus they show that they are
similar not to our Lord Jesus, but to Simon Magus.” Augus ne men ons
that the Dona sts, too, boasted of their miracles. As a result, he calls them
(on John, tractate 13) “the quite wonderful ones” and writes (De unit.
eccles., ch. 16): “He should not say that it is therefore true because
Donatus has done this and that wonder. Let those fic ons of lying men or
portents of deceiving spirits be removed.” The writers of church history tell
the same thing about the Nova ans, that they have performed miracles.
Socrates, bk. 7, ch. 17: “A cra y Jew was pretending the Chris an faith.
Although he had been bap zed quite o en before, he asked Bishop Paul of
the Nova ans to bap ze him. Paul took the Jew down to the bap stery,
whereupon all the holy water suddenly vanished because of some power
that could not be perceived by the eyes.” As far as the Turks are concerned,
Septemcastrensis (De moribus Turcarum, ch. 14) reports that their religious
persons, both living and dead, perform many miracles.
Here we should men on the statements of the ancients. Tertullian, De
praescript., ch. 44: “They” (those who have been misled by here cs and
who will give an account to Christ on Judgment Day) “will add many things
about the authority of each here cal teacher, especially that they
confirmed faith in what they taught: they raised the dead, strengthened
the disabled, foretold the future, so that they would be believed really to
be apostles—as if it had not been wri en that many will come to exercise
even the greatest powers in order to strengthen the falseness of their
corrupt preaching.” Athanasius, QQ. ad An ochum, q. 110, vol. 2, p. 306:
“We are not surprised that some here cs perform signs, for we have heard
the Lord saying, ‘Many will say in that day, etc.’ ”
** Miracles are o en done not by the power of the person doing the miracles, which power
renders the healing, but by the faith of the person who comes to the worker of miracles. For
it is wri en: “Your faith has saved you.” We should also take note of this: that many people
with a corrupt faith offer many works to God through their religious prac ces. As a reward
for them, they have received from God in this life the gi s of healings and of prophecy so
that they may hear in the future age: “You have received your good things and your labors;
now it will no longer be given to you.”
Again, Athanasius (on Psalm 9, col. 67): “When he” (the An christ) “begins
to do those signs, the more wondrous they appear to people, the more the
holy men of that me will be despised and considered as nothing. With his
wondrous feats he will seem to overcome the very men who resist him
through righteousness and innocence,” etc. Jerome, commentary on
Gala ans, bk. 3: “Observe: those who do not hold the truth of the Gospel
are said to work miraculous powers. I say this against here cs who think
that they have proved their faith if they have performed some sign.”
Augustine, Contra Faust., bk. 15, ch. 5: “You” (Manichaeans) “perform no
miracles. Even if you were to do some, we would be wary of them in you
because the Lord instructs us and says, ‘False christs will rise up,’ ” etc.
Theophylact, on Luke 9: “Very o en many have done miracles through
demons, but their preaching has not been sound. Therefore their miracles
were not performed by God’s power.”
The Papists, too, cannot deny this, that even here cs at mes perform
true miracles. Ius canon., part 2, decret., causa 1, q. 1, c. 56: “If anyone
performs miracles outside the unity, it is nothing. The people of Israel were
in the unity, and they did not perform miracles. The magicians of Pharaoh
were outside the unity, and they did things similar to Moses.” Maldonatus,
commentary on Matthew 7:
Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthymius, and Theophylact prove with many examples that even non-
Catholics perform genuine miracles. On the basis of this very passage: “Many will say in that
day,” etc., we easily conclude that those false prophets about whom Christ is speaking
performed true miracles, truly prophesied, truly cast out devils. Christ does not respond that
they are lying but that He never knew them, even though they did those things. It is no great
thing if He were to warn us not to believe those who perform false miracles; but it is very
great and wonderful that He warns us not to believe false prophets even when they perform
true miracles.

Maldonatus again, on Mark 9, p. 765: “Although he” (who was cas ng out
devils in Christ’s name) “followed Christ in neither body nor soul—that is,
in faith and doctrine—he s ll could have cast out devils, as we learn from
the tes mony of Christ (Matthew 7) and of Augus ne (De cons. evang., bk.
4, ch. 5). Bede and Theophylact agree also on this passage.” Claudius
Espencaeus, commentary on 2 Timothy, p. 83: “He writes that miracles are
common to God and to the devil, to Christ and to the An christ.” Salmeron,
tome 4, part 2, p. 260: “The devil o en performs false miracles for those
who are unwilling to accept the clarity of the truth in order to confirm his
lies.” Pererius, commentary on Genesis, ch. 7, disp. 5: “Here cs, too, drive
out devils through holy words or Christ’s name or the Chris an sacraments.
At mes the devil yields voluntarily to those who are commanding a
wicked thing. At other mes they go out unwillingly in honor of their most
excellent commander, Christ. Such was the man about whom the disciples
are speaking to Christ in Mark 9:38: ‘Master, he is cas ng out devils in Your
name,’ though he was not following Christ.” Stapleton, Promtuar. moral.
for the Twenty-fourth Sunday a er Pentecost, p. 627: “Not only the
An christ himself and his immediate precursors but any here cs, no
differently than magicians, can perform true miracles with God’s
permission.” Acosta, De temp. noviss., ch. 19: “At the me of the An christ
it will be difficult to tell true signs from false ones. Then there will be many
great signs similar to true ones.” Costerus (Enchir., commonplace de
eccles.) concedes that the Nova ans once had their own miracles.

The excep ons of Bellarmine

§ 274. From these, Bellarmine selects some and sets his objec ons
against them. (1) In regard to the miracles of the An christ (Matt. 24:24; 2
Thess. 2:9–10; Rev. 13:13–14), he responds: “They will not be true and
real but apparent or wondrous to humans. But they will not be miracles
absolutely, such as can be done by the ability of the devil.” He confirms this
from 2 Thessalonians 2, where they are called “lying,” and from
Revelation 13 where for “the greatest miracles of the An christ” there is
added: “Making fire to come down from heaven and causing the image of
the beast to speak—clearly these will be very easy for the devil. But the
miracles of the saints are sight for the blind, cures for the crippled, raisings
for the dead. These cannot be done except by divine power.”
We respond. The miracles of the An christ are called “lying” or, as it is
more correctly translated from the Greek, “signs of a lie” (τέρατα
ψεύδους) not so much with regard to their form, as if all things will be
false and only apparent, as with regard to their end, namely, because they
will be directed to confirm a lie, as we heard a li le earlier from
Chrysostom and Augus ne. You see, before the Israelites were liberated
from Egypt, the Egyp an magicians performed their “signs of a lie” and
were not playing around with mere tricks. Rather, with their devilish skill
they were placing a true serpent before the eyes of their followers in order
to confirm Egyp an idolatry. In just the same way, before the final
libera on of God’s children from this world, the An christ will not play
around with mere tricks. Rather, in order to confirm his own lies, he will
perform such miracles as can be done through the extreme, supreme
power of the devil. This very point is confirmed from the emphasis of the
passages. In Matt. 24:24 we read: “False christs and false prophets … will
show such great signs and wonders that, if it were possible, even the elect
would be led astray.” Yet if those were mere phantoms and satanic tricks,
we would not have to fear so much the peril of being misled. In 2 Thess.
2:9–10 the apostle says explicitly: “The coming of the An christ will be by
the working of Satan with all power and with signs and wonders of a lie
and with all decep on of unrighteousness in those who are perishing.”
That is, the devil will exert all his power in the miracles of the An christ, his
instrument, and he will not leave untried anything that he can do to
mislead people. Concerning this ma er, let Bellarmine listen to Cornelius
Jansen, a man of his own religion, though not of the Jesuit profession (in
his Comment. concord. evang., ch. 123, f. 843):
When the signs and wonders of the An christ are called “lying,” this should not be taken as
if all those signs have to be done through the delusion of the senses and appearance, so
that what does not exist nevertheless appears to exist. He will perform some of them truly
through a secret combina on of natural causes. For instance, he can truly draw fire down
from heaven and perform many other wondrous things. These are s ll called “lying signs,”
however, either because they draw people to a lie when they believe that they are done by
divine power or because, though they are true things, they nevertheless are not true signs
and miracles. You see, in the end that thing is truly and properly a miracle if it occurs above
nature and by a supernatural power that belongs to God alone.

Let him listen to Pererius, a man of his own religion and profession, that is,
of the Jesuit society (commentary on Daniel, bk. 4):
There are two kinds of miracles. Some are of the kind that can be done only by the
omnipotence of God. The An christ will perform none of this kind. The others are those that
can be done by the power of natural causes, a power which the devil works and which is
unknown to man. These will use an invisible manner and will be considered as miracles.
These la er signs are true, just as Augus ne thinks the former ones of the magicians were
true. Nonetheless they are “lying” because the one who will perform them will falsely
profess that he is doing them miraculously with divine power.

Let him listen to Thomas Aquinas, to whose words he swore ([ST,] part 1,
q. 114, art. 1): “Although the miracles of the An christ are true, they draw
those who believe them to a lie.” In fact, let Bellarmine listen to himself
(De Rom. pon f., bk. 3, ch. 15, § porro): “The miracles that the An christ is
going to do will be ‘lying signs’ with regard to all the causes: final, efficient,
ma er, and form. The end of those miracles will be to show that the
An christ is God and the Messiah, and that will be the most destruc ve lie.
Chrysostom teaches on this passage (2 Thessalonians 2) that these signs
are called ‘lying’ because they draw people to a lie, etc. Next, they are
called ‘lying signs’ from their efficient cause, for their principal efficient
cause will be the father of lying, the devil. Also, many of them” (therefore
not all, as he asserts in this place) “will be pretended because there will be
some appari ons and tricks. Finally, some of them will be lying with regard
to their form, though they are true with regard to their ma er, because at
mes he will do true things, but those will not surpass the powers of all
nature, and thus they will not be miracles in the formal sense.” In this
place, Bellarmine adds: “Giving sight to the blind, cures to the crippled, and
raisings to the dead can be done only by divine power.” This we readily
admit. But at the same me, it is certain that this should be taken to refer
only to the true illumina ons of the truly blind and the true raisings of the
truly dead, because the devil, too, can do similar things as far as external
appearance is concerned. Bellarmine writes about this (De pon fic., bk. 3,
ch. 15, § erunt e am): “The An christ will seem to raise the dead and heal
the sick, but these will be illusions of demons, not true raisings or healings.
Because of this it says in Rev. 13[:13] that he will work miracles in the sight
of men, that is, apparent miracles that delude the sight of men, but not
real and true miracles, as Aretas noted on this passage.” And later (§
exempla): “The An christ will pretend to die and rise again.” Bellarmine
argues correctly (De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 14, resp. ad 4): “Vespasian cured the
blind man and the lame man in this way: the devil took possession of the
eye of the one and the leg of the other and hindered the use of those
members. He did this so that he would seem to cure when he ceased to
harm.” But now, with an external look no one can dis nguish or discern
whether giving sight to the blind, curing a cripple, or raising a dead person
is real or only apparent, whether it was done by divine power or by illusion
of the devil. For the devil “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor.
11:14). Consequently, Bellarmine himself (loc. cit., § est autem) writes in
clear language: “It is not evident to us with certainty that something false
could not be among it, that it is not an illusion of the devil; for though the
devil cannot perform true miracles, he can do them in appearance—even
the greatest miracles.”
(2) In regard to the miracles of the Dona sts he responds: “They are not
the kind of things that belong to the saints but are only some secret visions
that they were boas ng they had seen, without having a witness.”
Bellarmine adds a tale about a vision from a book en tled Somnium
Lutheri. Here Luther is said to have “appeared to some Lutherans and
complained with a sad face that in a short me his disciples were going to
desert both him and his teaching.” He dis nguishes true miracles from
these visions and tries to prove in par cular that Augus ne did true
miracles on the basis of De civit. Dei, bk. 22, ch. 8. There he cites against
the pagans “very great miracles done near the relics of the saints,
especially of Stephan, the first martyr.”
We respond. The Dona sts boasted not only about secret visions but
also manifest miracles, for Augus ne writes about them (De unit. eccles.,
ch. 16): “Let him not say that this is true because Donatus or Pon us or
anyone else did these or those miracles, or because people pray near the
memorials of our dead and are heard, or because this or that happens
there, or because this brother of ours or that sister of ours saw such a
vision while awake or dreamed such a vision while asleep,” etc. Here
Augus ne joins the visions and miracles of the Dona sts and adds: “Let
those things be removed either as the fic ons of lying men or the portents
of deceiving spirits. Either those things that they tell are not true, or, if
some wonders have been performed by here cs, we should rather beware
because, when the Lord said that some decei ul people would come to
deceive even the elect, if this were possible, by performing some signs, He
added a strong commenda on and said, ‘See, I have told you
beforehand.’ ” So also (in tractate 13 on John), against those miracle
workers he urges the prophecy of Christ: “In the last days there will rise up
false prophets who will do great signs and wonders,” etc. Then he adds:
“Therefore our Bridegroom cau ons us that we should not be deceived by
the miracles.” Yet if the Dona sts had boasted only about some secret
visions, what need would there have been to confute laboriously that
empty boas ng and to urge the prophecy of Christ about the miracles of
the false prophets so much against the Dona sts? From the following [§
275], one will understand what miracles Augus ne did, and we do along
with him, and in what respect we do them. Let the story about the vision
of Luther, which Bellarmine perhaps saw while he was dreaming, entertain
Bellarmine as long as he wishes. Only a man who is too credulous puts
confidence in such nonsense and fic ons.
(3) In regard to the miracle of the Nova ans he responds: “This
happened not to confirm the Nova an faith but to confirm catholic
Bap sm.”
We respond. The ques on of the truth of a miracle is one thing; the
ques on of its purpose is another. What Bellarmine concedes is enough for
us: “Even here cs can perform true miracles, but not to confirm thereby
their here cal teaching but to confirm Bap sm and other dogmas that
belong to the Catholic church. At mes these dogmas are s ll held in the
churches of here cs.” Athanasius argues in almost the same way (QQ. ad
An och., q. 110): “O en miracles are performed not by the power of the
person who does them, which power effects the cure, but by the faith of
the person who comes to him, for it is wri en: ‘Your faith has saved you.’
Here we should also note this,” he says, “that many people with a corrupt
faith offered many works to God through their prac ce. As a reward for
them they have received from God in this life the gi s of healing or
prophecy,” etc. Mar nus Delrius admits the same thing (Disquis. magic.,
bk. 2, q. 7): “Indeed, God o en bestows this grace” (to perform miracles)
“freely even to those who believe incorrectly about the faith, but He does
this to approve the true faith. For example, He gave a prophe c gi to
Balaam and Caiaphas. He did not give this in order to confirm a false faith,
nor could God have given it [for this purpose] anymore than the truth can
lie.” Therefore from Bellarmine himself we have prepared a response to
the miracles of the Jesuits, which they do in the New World in Christ’s
name, as will appear a bit later [§§ 284–85].

Miracles do not always belong to the church

§ 275. (II) Un l now we have been explaining the first argument for our
posi on. The second follows. Whatever does not belong to the church
always and forever is not a genuine, proper, and infallible mark of it.
Miracles do not belong to the church always and forever. Therefore they
are not genuine, proper, and infallible marks of it. The minor premise is
confirmed because the gi of miracles was proper to the early church, but
it ceased as me passed. Miracles were like trumpets and heralds by which
the Gospel was recommended at first. Authority was bestowed on the Law
of Moses by several miracles at Mount Sinai and in the wilderness. These
ceased later, however, when they reached the land of promise. In the same
way, miracles were taken away when the preaching of the Gospel spread
throughout the world.
We can confirm this from Holy Scripture, from church history, and from
the tes monies of the fathers. In Mark 16:17 Christ sends out His apostles
to preach the Gospel in all the world, and He equips them with the gi to
perform miracles with which to confirm the truth of His doctrine for the
heathen. In the same way, He earlier had sent out into Judea both them
and seventy disciples to preach and had equipped them with that gi
(Matt. 10:1; Mark 3:13; Luke 9:1; 10:1, 9, 17, 19). By no means, however,
did He give them a general promise that such a gi would ordinarily and
perpetually flourish in the church a er people had accepted the preaching
of the Gospel in the world. In regard to the gi of tongues, which Mark lists
among those miracles of the apostolic and early church, Paul says (1 Cor.
14:22): “Tongues are a sign not for believers but for unbelievers.” On the
basis of this passage, Claudius Espencaeus (commentary on 2 Timothy 3)
concludes: “Where there is no unbeliever, there is no need for performing
miracles.”
** Chrysostom (on Matthew, homilies 4, 33, and 47) teaches the
mul tude: “Now that the Chris an religion has been planted, there is no
need for miracles. Formerly, the Law of Moses was given authority by
means of the many miracles in the wilderness. These ceased occurring
a er they reached the land of promise.” Augus ne, De vera relig., ch. 25:
“Miracles have not been allowed to con nue in our me, lest the soul
always look for visible things and lest the human race become cold
because of familiarity with such things, by whose newness it was ablaze.”
**
By virtue of that promise which Christ made to the apostles, the gi of
performing miracles flourished for some me in the church, as we
conclude from the Acts of the Apostles and church history. Irenaeus (Adv.
haeres., bk. 2, ch. 57, p. 160) writes about his own mes:
 In the name of Christ those who are truly His disciples receive grace and perfect it for the
benefit of the rest of mankind as each receives the gi from Him. For some drive out
demons very strongly and truly, so that most frequently even those who were cleansed by
wicked spirits may believe and may be in the church. Others have a knowledge of things to
come and visions and prophe c u erances. Others cure people who suffer under some
infirmity through the imposi on of hands and restore them to health. Now even the dead
have risen and have remained with us for many years. And what shall be said to this? There
is no way to tell the number of graces that the church throughout the world has received
from God and that He perfects in the name of Jesus Christ the crucified for the assistance of
the na ons every day.

Later, when the preaching of the Gospel had been received in the world,
the gi of miracles was not so general but was given out of grace only to
some persons. For example, about Gregory, who was called “Miracle-
Worker” [Thaumaturgus] because of this, we are told by Eusebius (bk. 7,
ch. 25) and Jerome (Vir. illustr.) that he had been endowed with the power
of performing miracles. Also, miracles used to occur not everywhere in all
places but only in some places so that by them na ons that s ll did not
believe might be invited to faith. Eusebius writes (Histor., bk. 5, ch. 7):
“Immediately a er the mes of the apostles and even at the me of
Irenaeus, these things were s ll occurring not everywhere but only in some
churches.” Also, though Augus ne (De civit. Dei, bk. 22, ch. 8) does list
some miracles that occurred at his me—for instance, the blind man of
Milan who received his sight near the tomb of the martyrs Protavius and
Gervasius, Innocent of Carthage who was freed from a fistula, Innocen a
of Carthage who was cured of breast cancer at the sign of the cross, etc.—
nevertheless at the beginning of the chapter he dis nguishes between that
me when the Gospel had not yet been publicly received in the world and
the la er mes that followed the preaching of the Gospel in all the world.
He says: “I could say that miracles were necessary before the world
believed for this purpose: that the world might believe. And whoever s ll
looks for prodigies in order to believe is himself a great prodigy, because he
does not believe, though the world does.” Augustine, De utilit. credendi,
ch. 16: “Such” (salutary) “miracles were done at that me when God
appeared to men in the true Man, as was sufficient. The ill were cured,
lepers cleansed, walking was restored to cripples, sight to the blind,
hearing to the deaf, etc. Thus divine authority at that me was moving
errant souls of mortals toward itself. ‘Why,’ you ask, ‘do these things not
happen now?’ Because they would not move people unless there were
wondrous acts; but if they became ordinary, they would not be wondrous,
etc. Therefore they were done at the most opportune mes so that when a
mul tude of believers had been gathered and enlarged, the useful
authority in these [wondrous acts] might be transformed into their manner
of life.” He expresses this opinion of his as follows (Retract., bk. 1, ch. 14):
“I have said this because not so many nor all miracles are being performed
now, not because no miracles are happening now.” De vera relig., ch. 25:
“We have heard that our ancestors, on this level where they ascended
from visible things to eternal ones, performed visible miracles—for they
could not do otherwise. This happened through them so that they would
not be necessary for their descendants. You see, when the catholic church
was spread and established throughout the world, those miracles were not
permi ed to endure into our mes, lest the soul always look for visible
things and lest the human race become cold because of familiarity with
such things, by whose newness it was ablaze.” He explains these words as
follows (Retract., bk. 1, ch. 13): “This is indeed true, that when a hand is
placed on the bap zed, they no longer thus receive the Holy Spirit in order
to speak in the tongues of all na ons or that the sick are now healed by the
passing shadow of a preacher of Christ. It is clear that, if any such things
happened then, they ceased later. However, what I said must not be taken
to mean that no miracles in Christ’s name are now believed to occur, etc.
A er all, so many things occur in these days that we cannot be familiar
with them all, nor can we list those with which we are familiar.”
Chrysostom, on John, homily 23, not far from the beginning: “Is there not
now a request for people to try to do miracles? Surely, there are even in
these mes of ours those who ask why these signs are not now being
done. If you are faithful as is necessary, if you love Christ as you must love
Him, you do not need signs, for signs are given to the unbelieving.” On 1
Corinthians, homily 6, just before the middle: “Then” (at the me of the
apostles) “miracles were done for a useful purpose, and now they are not
being done also for a useful purpose, etc. The more obvious and necessary
are those things that are done, so much the more is faith diminished.
Therefore the more obvious the sign was that was shown, the more the
reward of faith is diminished.” Opus imperf., homily 49:
In former mes, it was shown in many ways which group is Christ’s church and which is
heathenism. Now, however, there is no way to know, for those who wish to know, which one
 is the true church of Christ except through the Scripture alone. In former mes, people
learned through signs who the true Chris ans are and who the false ones are; for, as long as
there was a calling to faith from faithlessness, the servants of Christ performed signs,
because signs are tes monies of a divine call, that the truth of preaching may be
commended through miracles. When the call ceases, a misleading will begin that will call
people away from faith to faithlessness. As a result it happens that the performing of signs
has been taken away completely. But it is found more among those who are false Chris ans
that fic ons are being performed. It is just as Peter explains, according to Clement, that
power will be given to the An christ even to do abundant signs.

Damascenus, Orth. id., bk. 1, ch. 3: “We have received neither the gi of
miracles nor the gi of teaching,” etc. Many miracles are a ributed to
Bernard, but he admits (Sermon de Benedicto) that he did not perform
miracles. He says: “Although we do not have our own miracles, those of
our patron ought to be a great comfort for us.” And in Sermon 1 in die
Adscens.: “Who now casts out devils? Who now speaks in tongues?”
Tarasius (Second Council of Nicaea, act. 4) speaks as follows: “Why do our
images today perform no miracles? I respond with the apostle: ‘Miracles
are not given to believers but to unbelievers.’ ” Gregory, Homily 29 in
evangel.:
My brothers, do you not believe because you do not do those signs? These things, however,
were necessary at the beginning of the church that the mul tude might grow toward faith.
When we plant trees, as long as we pour water on them, so long will we see them take root.
Once they have set a root, the irriga ng will cease. ** In order for the mul tude of believers
to grow in faith, it had to be nourished with miracles, etc. Today the church surely does
spiritually what it used to do physically through the apostles. Indeed, those miracles are
greater that raise up souls rather than bodies. Therefore, my beloved brothers, if you wish,
you are doing these signs with God as their author. **

Moral., bk. 27, ch. 11:

When some people hear the marvelous works of the apostles—that, a er receiving the Holy
Spirit, they raised the dead with a word, drove devils from the obsessed, removed illnesses
with a shadow, etc.—because they do not see these powers in the church now, they suspect
that divine grace has been taken away from the church. They do not know how to ponder
what has been wri en: “A Helper in favorable mes, in tribula on.” The church certainly
needed the help of miracles at the me when the tribula on of persecu on burdened her.
But now, a er the church has overcome the arrogance of unbelief, she no longer requires
signs of powers but only the merits of works. Nevertheless, when a situa on demands it,
she shows these miracles through many people. To be sure, it is wri en that the gi of
tongues is a sign not for believers but for unbelievers. Therefore, now that all people are
believers, what cause demands that signs be done?
And later: “Although now God does not o en use signs of powers through
the lives of believers, He nevertheless never departs from those same
believers through the virtue of works.” So, then, miracles also were done in
the later centuries, but neither so many nor so frequently as in the early
apostolic church and in that which immediately followed it.
There is no divine promise that in these la er days of the church
miracles would be done by those who are true believers. On the contrary,
there is a promise about the An christ who “sits in the temple of God,”
that he will mislead the world through his “lying miracles.” Accordingly,
Abbot Trithemius concludes (QQ. ad imper. Maxim., bk. 8, q. 3): “Today
true Chris ans should neither ask for nor await any miracles.” Discip. de
temp. (sermon 12) adds: “At the me of the An christ good people will
not perform miracles, and in this their steadfastness will become
apparent.” Gerson (Contra sectam se flagellan um) writes very beau fully:
“As the world grows older, it endures the fantasies of false miracles in the
same way as an old man is deluded by various dreams.” From this he
concludes that “today, miracles are usually suspect.” Gerson (Exposit.
pass.) draws the following conclusion: “Miracles of past mes” (which the
apostles and especially Christ did to confirm heavenly doctrine) “ought to
be enough for you if you believe them. If you do not believe them, surely
you would put no confidence now in those that you might see and hear. In
fact, you would despise them, slander them, and censure them. Certainly
that is not any miracle which makes me believe more strongly in God than
that I believe in Him because of His grace. It is sufficiently clear to me that
there is no miracle so great that His divine power could not do one a
thousand mes greater.”
In the same vein, the Papist writer Didacus Stella writes (on Luke 11):
“Believe the Gospel that has been confirmed with miracles. You will ask,
however: ‘Is it not in harmony with reason that faith be confirmed with
miracles at this me too?’ No, for now they would provide more damage
than benefit, even though they were necessary at the beginning of the
church. When a child cannot walk, he is assisted by a carriage, which is
only a hindrance to a grown man.” So, too, Acosta (De proc. Indor. sal., bk.
2, ch. 9): “When human protec on was completely absent, the Chris an
religion was established with divine miracles, but our mes are much
different,” etc. Acosta (ibid.) argues on the basis of Chrysostom: “A faith
that is already sufficiently established does not need to be confirmed with
new miracles. In fact, not to have signs now is more beneficial because it is
of greater merit to believe without them.” Cornelius Mussus (Concion.
dom. Pentec., p. 412): “Those signs at which we are to wonder rather than
imitate have ceased among us. They abounded everywhere in the early
church. They included healing the sick, raising the dead, cas ng out devils,
conver ng na ons to the faith, etc. Those signs were done to establish
religion. Now that it has been established, they are unnecessary.” Before
those writers, Bishop Roffensis (Advers. Luther. de cap v. Babyl., ch. 10, at
the beginning of this argument) wrote: “Christ promised that His disciples
would cast out devils. We see very clearly that this promise is given no
effect in these mes, for there is now no one who physically casts out
demons or cures illnesses. Yet we certainly do not doubt that there are
very many who have the same faith, equally great, with the ancient
believers. Yet that was not an empty promise which He did not want to
have permanent efficacy. It was instead a promise for the me when the
church was an infant and growing.” All of this proves clearly that miracles
are not required in all mes of the church. How, then, can they be a
genuine and proper mark of the church, since they are not perpetual?

Third, miracles without doctrine prove nothing

§ 276. (III) If miracles do not have truth of doctrine joined to them, they
prove nothing. Therefore alone and of themselves they are not a genuine
and infallible mark of the church. The antecedent can be confirmed with
many tes monies. Deut. 13:1–4:
If a prophet arises among you, or a dreamer of dreams, and gives you a sign or a wonder,
and what he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, “Let us go a er other gods,” which you
have not known, “and let us serve them,” you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or
dreamer. The Lord your God is tes ng you, to make it clear whether you love Him with all
your heart and with all your soul. Follow the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His
commandments and hear His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him.

With this divine oracle the Israelites clearly were forbidden to decide about
the doctrine of any prophet solely on the basis of a miracle and to follow
one who confirms his idolatrous doctrine with a sign or wonder. On the
contrary, they are commanded to hold onto no doctrine of that wonder-
working false prophet and firmly to keep the commandments of the Lord
and embrace His voice alone. In these words are expressed the norm and
rule according to which we must make our pronouncements about
miracles. Those miracles that draw people away from the Word of God and
from faith in the true God to false doctrines and the worship of idols must
not be considered as divine but as diabolical miracles. It also expresses the
reason why God permits such miracles to be done by false prophets with
the power of the devil: to test and inves gate us as to whether we want to
cleave to Him and to His Word alone and so to serve Him with all our heart.
From this we conclude clearly that not all miracles occur to confirm
doctrine but that some are done to inves gate people. Augus ne (De Trin.,
bk. 3, ch. 7) rightly declares in regard to the miracles of the Egyp an
magicians: “The power to perform some miracles was given them either to
deceive the decei ul Egyp ans, or to admonish the faithful not to desire
greatly to do anything like that, or to exercise and reveal the pa ence of
the righteous.”
** Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 14: “Before the approval of the
church it is not evident or certain with the certainty of faith that any
miracle is a true miracle, because it is not evident to us with certainty that
something false is not among it, that it is not an illusion of the devil. For
though the devil cannot perform true miracles, yet he can do them in
appearance—even the greatest miracles.” **
Trithemius, Resp. ad octo quaest. ad imper. Maxim., q. 3: “If any
miracles are done where truth is not cul vated, it is not God but the devil
who is working. Because God is truth, He does not establish false religions
and therefore has never illumined a lie with His miracles.”
That we may make the sense of the Mosaic passage more clear, we
connect the passage Deut. 18:20–22 with it: “But the prophet who, being
corrupted with pride, shall speak in My name things that I did not
command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain. And if
in silent thought you answer: ‘How can I know the word that the Lord has
not spoken?’—you shall have this sign. Whatever that prophet speaks in
the name of the Lord and it does not come to pass, that thing the Lord has
not spoken; the prophet has forged it presumptuously, and you shall not
fear him.” The Israelites are being taught that they must consider as a false
prophet him who predicts that something is going to happen, to which the
outcome does not correspond. From this, however, they should not
conclude that all of those to whose predic ons the outcome corresponds
are to be considered true prophets and sound teachers. Therefore in Deut.
13:1 they are clearly forbidden to follow that prophet who tries to en ce
them into idolatry, even if a subsequent fulfillment proves the truth of his
prophecies. From this we draw the immovable conclusion that no claim
about doctrine can be made solely on the basis of predic ons and
miracles. On the contrary, one must pass judgment on predic ons and
miracles on the basis of doctrine. Miracles are tokens and seals of doctrine.
Therefore just as a seal torn from a le er proves nothing, so also miracles
have no value without doctrine. When the rich man from his sumptuous
life was put into the fires of hell and asked Abraham to send Lazarus back
to his brothers who were s ll among the living to convert them with a
miraculous predic on, he received the following answer (Luke 16:29):
“They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them.” These words
give a higher priority to the doctrine of Moses and the prophets than to
the appearances of the dead and all miracles. Peter, who had seen the
miraculous transfigura on of Christ on Mount Tabor, adds (2 Pet. 1:19):
“We have the surer prophe c Word.” Here he is not comparing with each
other the conversa on of the prophets and the voice of the heavenly
Father heard at the transfigura on, because the same voice sounded
through the prophets. Rather, he is comparing Christ’s miraculous
transfigura on and Moses’ and Elijah’s miraculous appearance with the
prophe c Word, and he says that this Word is far more sure and be er
established than those miracles. A er all, miracles do not provide as solid a
founda on for faith as does the Word of God. An observa on of
Chrysostom belongs here (on John, at the very beginning of homily 23):
“The disciples who followed Jesus were more sure not only because of the
signs but also because of the teaching. Those who were more dull in their
thinking were a racted by signs; those who were more keen, by
prophecies and doctrine. Those who would believe because of doctrine,
therefore, were more steadfast. In fact, He even called them blessed,
saying, ‘Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.’ ”
Augustine, De consensu evangel., bk. 4, ch. 10: “Christ says to the ruler:
‘Unless you see signs and wonders, you will not believe’ [John 4:48]. He
wants to li the mind of the believer far above all changeable things in
such a way that He does not want believers to look for those miracles that,
though divinely occurring, are performed in regard to the mutability of
corporeal things.”
§ 277. But, you say, if this is so, why does Christ so o en appeal to His
own miracles to draw His hearers by them to faith? John 5:36: “But the
tes mony that I have is greater than that of John; for the works that the
Father has granted Me to accomplish bear witness about Me.” John
10:37–38: “If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe
Me. But if I do them, even if you do not believe Me, believe the works,”
etc.
We respond. Besides the fact that a dis nc on must be made between
the condi on of the Chris an church as an infant and as grown (as we
pointed out a li le earlier), we do not say absolutely and simply that
miracles prove nothing, but that miracles without doctrine prove nothing.
Therefore doctrine must be joined with miracles, which are used to
confirm that doctrine. If the doctrine agrees with that which has been
revealed through Moses, the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, then the
miracles also that are performed to confirm that doctrine must be
considered divine. But if that doctrine, for whose confirma on miracles are
performed, conflicts with the heavenly doctrine revealed to mankind
through Moses, the prophets, Christ, and the apostles, then we cannot and
should not consider them as divine, as we conclude clearly from the
statement of Moses. Thus Christ Himself, as credible in Himself and as
Truth itself, was appealing not only to His miracles but also to Moses and
the prophets. From their wri ngs He confirmed His dogmas (Matt. 5:17;
11:3; 22:29; John 5:39; etc.). He also did not usually put His miracles
ahead of His sermons but His sermons ahead of His miracles. Tertullian
discusses this subject very well (Adv. Marcion., bk. 3, beginning of ch. 3):
“You say that there was no necessary order of this sort because by these
things and through examples of His powers He was going to prove that He
was the Son of God, that God had sent Him, that He was the Christ of God.
But I will also deny that this appearance alone was suitable for Him as
proof, for He later dismissed it. To be sure, He makes known that many will
come and do signs; yet He also shows that people should not, because of
this, establish a rash confidence in miraculous signs and powers, which is
very easy even among false christs.” In Acts 17:11 the Bereans saw the
apostles perform many miracles; yet they did not pass judgment about
doctrine on the basis of these alone but compared the preaching of the
apostles with the Scriptures. Because they grasped that it was in
conformity with Scripture, they claimed that both the doctrine and the
miracles were true. The Holy Spirit commends them because of this. In this
way, though equipped with the gi of miracles, the apostles proved their
doctrine from the wri ngs of Moses and the prophets (Acts 26:22; Rom.
3:21; etc.). Thus Theophylact is correct in wri ng (on Luke 9): “Christ
teaches that the person to whom doctrine is entrusted should preach and
perform miracles. Then his preaching is confirmed through the miracles
and the miracles through his preaching.” The one demands the help of the
other, and they both work together in a friendly manner. On the other
hand, “every revela on is suspect that the Law with the Gospel do not
prove,” as that familiar statement of Gerson puts it. The same claim must
be made about the miracles too. Theophylact adds (loc. cit.): “Many have
performed miracles frequently with the help of devils, but their preaching
was not sound. Therefore their miracles were not from God.” In the same
vein, the Jesuit Maldonatus discusses this subject in his commentary on
Matthew 7. A er he had proved from Scripture and the fathers that even
false prophets perform true miracles, he asks the ques on: “So, then, is it
impossible for any argument for the proof of true doctrine to be taken
from miracles?” He answers in this way:
It does not follow that no argument at all can be taken, but only not a necessary argument.
We know that Christ gave His apostles the power to perform miracles in order to confirm His
doctrine. We know that by this power to do miracles almost the whole world was drawn to
the faith. As Augus ne argues, those who deny this make themselves a greater miracle by
removing a miracle. You see, it is more incredible to hold that without any miracles so many
philosophers, so many wise men, believed so few apostles who were so unskilled and who
preached things so incredible to human reason; I say, that is more incredible than those very
miracles we are told they did. Therefore an argument for faith taken from miracles is
probable, because these miracles usually are done through faith but rarely without faith.
They do not necessarily prove the church unless the power to do ordinary miracles obtains.

Those are the words of Maldonatus. His explana on would have been
more complete if he had added that an absolutely necessary argument can
be built on the basis of miracles combined with true doctrine. Ferus,
commentary on Matthew 24: “One must not evaluate doctrine on the
basis of miracles, but miracles on the basis of doctrine.”
 § 278. The rule of Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 10, ch. 16) belongs in this
place: “If these” (angels) “who covet sacrifices for themselves were to
move human souls with their wondrous deeds, but those [angels] who
forbid this and command that sacrifices be made to God alone would by no
means deign to perform those visible, amazing feats, then their authority
must surely be set forth not by the body’s sense but by the mind’s reason.”
From this we draw the obvious conclusion that doctrine is superior to
miracles and that we must not pass judgment about doctrine on the basis
of miracles alone. Augus ne (Contra Faustum Manich., bk. 13, ch. 5) said
in regard to the Manichaeans: “You do not perform miracles. Even if you
were to do them, we would be wary of them in you because the Lord
instructs us and says, ‘Many false christs will arise,’ ” etc. Then he adds this
exclama on: “He so wanted people to believe nothing against the
confirmed authority of the Scriptures, which authority proves its own
trustworthiness in the things themselves.” To the same end he argues that
miracles alone do not prove the church, but that miracles are approved
because they are done in the church. His words read as follows (De unitate
eccles., a er the middle of ch. 16):
Let them (the Dona sts) not show whether they possess the church except by the canonical
books of the divine Scriptures. We, too, do not say that people must believe that we are in
Christ’s church because that which we hold was recommended by Optatus of Milevis or by
Ambrose of Milan or by countless other bishops of our communion, or because it is
preached in the councils of our colleagues, or because throughout the world in holy places
which our communion frequents so many miracles of hearing or healing are performed—for
example, as those who ask can hear from many, the bodies of martyrs hidden for many
years were revealed to Ambrose, and at their bodies a man who was very well-known to the
city of Milan and blind for many years received his eyes and sight; or because he saw in a
dream and he was taken up by the Spirit and heard either that he should not go over to the
party of Donatus or that he should depart from the party of Donatus. Whatever such things
are done in the catholic church must be approved because they occur in the catholic church.
The church is not revealed as catholic because these things occur in it. Our Lord Jesus
Himself, though He had risen from the dead and had offered His body to the eyes of His
disciples to be seen and to their hands to be touched, lest they would think that they had
experienced a trick, judged that they should be strengthened rather by the tes monies of
the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, and showed that the things had been fulfilled
which had been foretold about Him so much earlier. So also He commended His church and
said that repentance and forgiveness of sins were being preached in His name, etc.

What could have been said more clearly in favor of our posi on: that one
must judge doctrine not on the basis of miracles alone but on the basis of
the Holy Scriptures?
Bellarmine objects: “Augus ne speaks in the opposite way in his book
Cont. epist. fundam. (chs. 4 and 5), where he says that the church is
demonstrated from miracles and not from the Scriptures and, in fact, that
the Scriptures are demonstrated from the church.” Bellarmine adds the
observa on: “The church is demonstrated from miracles and miracles from
the church, but with a different kind of demonstra on, just as cause is
demonstrated from effect and effect from cause. For the church is
demonstrated from miracles not regarding the proof or certainty of the
thing, but regarding the proof and certainty of its credibility. But a miracle
is demonstrated from the church regarding the certainty of the thing.”
We respond. (1) In Cont. ep. Fundam., chs. 4 and 5, Augus ne is
speaking about the miracles of the early church. He says: “The agreement
of peoples and na ons holds me in the bosom of the church. I am held by
the authority begun by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by love,
strengthened by age.” But now, the nature of the apostolic and early
church is different from that of the church of these la er mes. Concerning
miracles that would be performed in the early church there are prophe c
oracles (Isa. 35:5; Joel 2:28; etc.). But nowhere in the Scriptures are there
prophecies that in the la er days of the church true teachers ordinarily
would do miracles. In fact, the contrary is found in them, namely, that false
prophets and the An christ would mislead many with their miracles (Matt.
24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9).
(2) Augus ne does not a ribute to miracles a conclusive and infallible
power to demonstrate the church, but only a probable power. He adds
that, if the Manichaeans could prove from the Scriptures the truth of
which they boast, he would omit the miracles and other things that he
men ons in the same place and go over to their side. He says: “Among you
only the promise of truth is heard. If this were proved so clearly that it
could not come into doubt, I would have to put it ahead of all those things
by which I am held in the catholic church.”
(3) Nowhere does Augus ne say that the church is proved on the basis
of miracles alone. Rather, he says that “he is held” in the catholic church by
an authority begun with miracles, by the agreement of peoples and
na ons, by the succession of bishops, by the name “catholic,” etc. Here he
does not men on miracles alone nor does he a ribute to them an infallible
power to demonstrate [the church]. Rather, he prefers truth demonstrated
from Scripture to everything he lists.
(4) If “before the approval of the church one cannot be certain with the
certainty of faith that any miracle is a true miracle” (which Bellarmine
asserts here in clear words), with what semblance of truth can anyone say
that the church is demonstrated by miracles?

Bellarmine’s arguments in favor of miracles

§ 279. Let us see how Bellarmine tries to prove that miracles are a true
and proper mark of the church. He begins by se ng forth two founda ons:
one, that “miracles are necessary to convince people concerning a new
faith or an extraordinary sending”; the other, that “they are effectual and
sufficient.” On the basis of the first he promises to prove that the church
does not exist among his adversaries; and on the basis of the la er, that it
does exist among the Romanists.
To confirm his first founda on he produces: (I) The tes monies of
Scripture:
In Exodus 4 when Moses was being sent to the people by God and said, “They will not
believe me nor hearken to my voice,” God did not answer him: “They should believe
whether they want to or not.” Instead, He gave Moses the power to do miracles and said:
“that they may believe that the Lord has appeared to you.” And in the New Testament, Matt.
10:7–8: “Preach as you go, saying, ‘The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ Heal the sick, raise
the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.” John 15:24: “If I had not done among them the
works that no one else did, they would not have sin.”

(II) He produces this argument:

He who is sent ought to show his authority by the witness of him who is sending him;
otherwise no one is bound to accept him. But anyone who is sent to preach is sent either by
God through ordinary prelates or extraordinarily by God alone. And indeed, he who is sent
through an ordinary prelate ought to show the tes mony of the ordinary prelate, namely,
his le er secured with a seal. On the other hand, whoever is sent by God alone ought to
show the seal of God, and that is nothing other than a miracle. Thus we read in Mark 16:20:
“They went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and
confirmed the message by the signs that followed.” Heb. 2:4: “While God also bore witness
by signs and powers.”

(III) He cites the tes mony of Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 22, ch. 8), who
says that “miracles were necessary that the world might believe.”
 (IV) He cites the consent of Philipp Melanchthon (on Matthew 3), who
says that, when there is great darkness, God calls new teachers and always
adds miracles that we may know for certain that those men have been
called by God.
We respond. (1) A faith is called “new” in two ways: either because it is
truly (τῷ εἶναι) new or because it is merely apparently (τῷ φαίνεσθαι)
new. You see, it o en happens that something is said to be “new” when it
is renewed, though it may be old.
(2) A sending is said to be “extraordinary” also in two ways: either with
respect to the order then publicly accepted in the church or with respect to
the order that God has established. The former is related to the aboli on
of corrup ons that are commonly accepted; the la er, to the changing of
the worship that God ins tuted. The arguments of Bellarmine prove (if
they prove anything) that miracles are required for a new faith in the prior
sense and for an extraordinary sending in the la er sense. But our faith,
the faith that we confess, is not new but is in every way conformed to the
ancient faith set forth in Holy Writ; and the sending of Luther and of his
fellow priests was not extraordinary in the la er sense but ordinary.
Therefore the Papists should not demand external miracles from us.
** Becanus, De vocat. ministr., thesis 45: “Among the other aids of His
sending Christ s ll needed miracles.” However: (1) Some persons, such as
Aaron and the prophets, lacked miracles. (2) Miracles were lacking in
certain ac ons, as when the Samaritans believed Christ without a sign
(John 4:42), or when the Bereans believed Paul (Acts 17:11), or when
Lydia believed Paul (Acts 16:14, etc.), when the people of Jerusalem
believed Peter (Acts 2:37), when the Jews believed Apollos (Acts 18:28).
Things that belong together necessarily and always are never separated.
But signs and proof of being sent are separated. In these last mes one
could not confirm an immediate call with miracles: (a) Because God
establishes miracles as signs of the An christ (Matt. 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9).
(b) It pleased God to remove the various means of ac ng that He used
formerly in the cause of faith and to bind people to His Word, which He
was also going to use as “the breath of His mouth” in the destruc on of
the An christ (2 Thess. 2:8). (c) The reason why signs and miracles once
were required is nothing else than that thereby people were being referred
to the prophecies of the prophets (Isa. 35:5; Deut. 18:22). Because we
lack this and because Christ does not order us to test our teachers in this
way, it is right for us to desist from this as something self-chosen.
Grodicius, Post., p. 184: “Miracles are the infallible token of one whom God
has called immediately.” Costerus, Dom. 3. Adv., p. 46: “God does not
usually send any well-known people to the church as reformers to
introduce some change in behavior without signs.” We respond. Although
God usually has made the extraordinary calling of His ministers
conspicuous with many miracles—not that the truth of the Word might
depend on the authority of miracles (Deuteronomy 13), but to strike down
more forcefully the stubbornness of the wicked and also to help the
weakness of the infirm—we nevertheless deny that miracles are absolutely
necessary for every divine and extraordinary calling. **
(3) It cannot be proved from the Scriptures that miracles are necessarily
required for a faith that is new in the la er sense and for a sending that is
extraordinary in the prior sense. In fact, the opposite conclusion is drawn
from them. Look how o en the pious kings and prophets in the church of
Israel removed corrup ons of doctrine and the worship of Baal, and yet
they did no miracles! Look how o en orthodox bishops of the New
Testament cleansed the church of Arianism and other heresies; and yet
they were not all equipped with the gi of performing miracles!
(4) They are also called miracles in two respects. First, some of them
meet the eyes outwardly and provide a great display, for instance, raising
the dead, giving sight to the blind, healing the lame. Second, some of them
occur through the inward power of God and do not strike the eyes
outwardly, for instance, a teacher being s rred up divinely, being adorned
with singular gi s of the Holy Spirit, his doctrine being propagated with
wonderful success against the efforts of his adversaries, etc. If we are
speaking about miracles taken in the prior sense, we deny that they are
required in the reforma on of the church or in an extraordinary sending,
because we are told expressly in the case of John the Bap st, through
whom God reformed the corrup ons of the Israelite church (John 10:41):
“John did no signs.” If the ques on is about miracles taken in the la er
sense, they cannot be denied to our church. “Rome the world conquered;
her the pope o’erawed. And she prevailed by force, and he by fraud; How
much than both was Luther greater s ll, Who conquered both with but a
single quill!” Again: “Luther has overthrown Leo X with a great slaughter.
Do not ask about his club; it was his pen.” And again: “Without the power
of the sword, armed with no weapons, one man by the power of the Word
crushed the immense power of all the world.”
(5) If miracles are necessary only for a new faith and for an
extraordinary sending, then not even the Papists themselves have true and
necessary miracles, for they boast of neither a new faith nor an
extraordinary sending. Instead, they glory in the an quity of their faith and
in the perpetual authority of an apostolic sending.
§ 280. Now that we have set forth these points, we can easily respond
to Bellarmine’s arguments. (1) The calling of Moses was immediate and
u erly extraordinary. He was completely unknown to the Israelites, and
that miraculous work—the libera on from Egyp an bondage—was totally
extraordinary. Therefore it was necessary that he have miracles to prove
his calling and preaching. Furthermore, at this me the Israelites did not
yet have Scriptures that they might have been able to learn from them the
will of God about that wonderful benefac on. We, on the other hand, do
have the Scriptures, received by the public consensus of the church. From
them Luther proved his teaching and to them alone he appealed. He never
boasted of an immediate calling, but because he had been sent mediately
and ordinarily to preach the Gospel, he wanted to preach and had the
obliga on to preach it according to God’s will revealed in the Scriptures
and free of stains and corrup ons.
(2) At the beginning of the New Testament, miracles were necessary to
establish publicly the coming of the Messiah, about whom there was a
prophecy that He would prove His sending and doctrine with miracles (Isa.
35:5). Today, however, there is no such need for miracles because the
preaching of the Gospel has been accepted publicly throughout the world.
To this are related the statements of the ancients that we cited a li le
earlier on this subject [§§ 273–75, 277–78].
(3) From Christ’s words (John 15:24): “If I had not done among them
the works that no one else did, they would not have sin,” one can by no
means conclude that people should have no confidence at all in those
teachers who come without miracles, even if they teach a doctrine in
conformity with Scripture. Otherwise the Jews would have acted correctly
in not believing the teaching of John the Bap st, who performed no signs,
though in Luke 7:30 Christ accused the scribes and Pharisees under the
charge that they rejected the purpose of God and were not bap zed by
John the Bap st. Christ is speaking compara vely, however, meaning not
that the Jews would have no sin, but that they would have not so much sin
if Christ had not confirmed His teaching with so many and such great
miracles. For the sake of comparison we can provide here Christ’s
statement in Matt. 11:21 and 23: “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you,
Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and
Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.… For if
the mighty works done in you” (Capernaum) “had been done in Sodom, it
would have remained un l this day.” Here Christ is not excusing the people
of Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom from every sin but from as great a sin as he
a ributes to the inhabitants of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum—that
they had not been called to the fellowship of the church by so many and
such majes c miracles, and therefore they were not held bound by so
great a guilt for so serious a sin.
(4) If someone acts or teaches contrary to the order publicly received, if
that order is corrupt, it is not necessary for him to confirm his call and
teaching with miracles. It is enough if he has a call from those to whom the
church has given the responsibility of calling and if he confirms his doctrine
from Scripture. Therefore, because Luther did not boast of an immediate
sending but was called to the ministry in the ordinary way, and because he
did not advance a new doctrine but cleansed the old one of new
corrup ons, they ought not demand miracles of him. Otherwise, with far
greater jus fica on the Pharisees could have demanded the same of John
the Bap st.
(5) Augus ne does say: “Miracles were necessary for the world to
believe,” but he adds the clear statement: “Whoever now looks for
miracles” (that is, now that the doctrine of the Gospel has been publicly
received) “is himself a great wonder.” He is making a dis nc on, therefore,
between the faith of Christ that is to be spread and the faith of Christ that
has been spread, between the state of the early church and its final mes.
He also adds a clear reason why, once the doctrine of Christ had been
confirmed, there was no longer a need for miracles. He says: “The canon of
Holy Writ, which had to be proclaimed widely, causes those things” (the
ancient miracles that Christ and the apostles performed) “to be men oned
everywhere and to remain in the memory of all peoples.”
Bellarmine’s excep ons
§ 281. Yet Bellarmine has found something that he wanted to set
against all this: (1) That our doctrine is new and conflicts with all an quity.
We respond. Earlier [§§ 169, 203, 207–27] we showed the contrary. No
one would say that what has come down from the Ancient of Days and can
be shown in the ancient documents of the Holy Scriptures is new. Yet
whatever dogmas our church professes come down from the Ancient of
Days and can be demonstrated in the ancient documents of the Holy
Scriptures. Therefore, etc.
(2) He says that it is evident that we teach otherwise than the ordinary
pastors teach and that it is also evident that we have not been sent by the
ordinary pastors. Therefore he says that our doctrine neither ought nor is
able to be accepted safely unless our sending is demonstrated by a divine
tes mony.
We respond. The prophets who purged the church of the worship of
Baal and of foreign doctrines likewise were teaching otherwise than the
ordinary pastors—the Levi cal priests. John the Bap st likewise taught
otherwise than the ordinary pastors—the scribes and Pharisees.
Nevertheless the Israelites not only safely were able but were even bound
to have faith in their teaching, even if they did not confirm their sendings
with any external miracle. Our ministers teach nothing other than what the
apostles and pastors of the early church taught. Those who boast that they
are the successors of the apostles ought to conform themselves to them.
They ought not demand from our people that they have greater respect for
what the apostolic successors teach than for what Christ and the apostles
taught. Earlier, in our examina on of the fi h mark [§ 200], we spoke
about what he adds: that “Luther was not sent by the ordinary pastors.”
(3) “John indeed did not perform miracles; yet many great things were
done in him. For instance, he was born of a barren old woman; his father
became dumb, and his tongue was loosed at his son’s birth; he leaped in
the womb; from boyhood he lived in the wilderness.”
** Becanus repeats the same excep on (in his disputa on De vocat.
minist., th. 46), namely, “that many miracles were performed around
John.” We respond. (1) Most of the hearers who were a ached to John
never knew them nor heard about them. (2) Others had buried them in the
darkest forge ulness, and so the signs were not done close to John’s
hearers, not even at the me when there was a need to prove his calling.
(3) Nor were they done for this effect or purpose: that they might
demonstrate such a great calling to others, that many might be called
without means—for these do not agree. How many miracles happened in
the presence of the people of Israel! How many near the paraly cs, lepers,
those possessed by devils, etc., whom Christ freed! How many in the
presence of Miriam, Naaman of Syria, the friends of Daniel, etc.! **
We respond. These things were known not to everyone nor to the en re
people but only to a few in the vicinity (Luke 1:65). Also, they were done
before John entered upon his office of teaching. The Papists, however,
demand external and obvious miracles by which the teachers are to
confirm their sending. Therefore they are not asking in whom the miracles
are done, but by whom they are done. If those miracles of John had been
known publicly or had been considered as miracles in the proper sense,
why did the Jerusalem Sanhedrin ask him what call he had to teach and
bap ze (John 1:25)? Why, too, did the people say (John 10:41): “John did
no sign”? Maldonatus comments as follows on these words: “In this word a
double argument appears to have been involved. One is that John never
performed a miracle, and we believe him; all the more, then, ought we
believe this Christ,” etc. Salmeron, vol. 4, Hist. evang., part 2, p. 264: “Just
as many other prophets, John did no signs.”
If Bellarmine thinks that miracles, so called for any reason, are enough
to prove a divine sending, even though they may not strike the eyes with
external splendor, then we set against him the wonderful success of the
teaching of the Gospel, the unique gi s of teaching in Luther, the defense
of Luther against the countless threats and plots of his very powerful foes,
etc. As to the fact that Bellarmine numbers among the miracles performed
in John “his dwelling in the wilderness from boyhood,” we note the words
of Chemnitz (Harm., ch. 16, p. 295):
There are various debated points about that wilderness of John. Many take it to be a
pathless place where he lived among the beasts beyond the sight of all people. Nicephorus
narrates the tradi on that, when Herod sought out the children around Bethlehem for their
cruel slaughter, John’s mother, Elizabeth, with her li le son fled to a wilderness place to
hide. John stayed in that wilderness later, to which he had come at that occasion. This idea
has an appearance of truth, but Luke says that the Spirit and the hand of the Lord were with
John, so that all were saying about his boyhood and adolescence: “Who do you think that
 boy will be?” John, therefore, did not spend his boyhood and adolescence in a pathless
wilderness among wild animals and away from the sight and conversa on of people. The
Hebrews have dis nct words for “wilderness” and “solitude.” Passages of Scripture tes fy
that a wilderness is less cul vated, less fer le land (Isa. 32:15; Jer. 12:10; Matt. 14:15; etc.).
Thus his dwelling place in the wilderness was quite sca ered, uncrowded, and uncul vated,
just as in other places.

(4) Bellarmine says: “John was a priest’s son, and thus was a priest and
an ordinary minister.”
We respond. If the Jerusalem Sanhedrin had considered him a priest
and ordinary minister, they would not have sent a lega on to him and
complained that, having seceded from the temple, he was teaching and
bap zing in the wilderness. “John was in the wilderness un l the day of his
manifesta on to Israel” (Luke 1:80). Therefore he had not been sent in his
adolescence to those schools that had been established in great number in
Jerusalem for students of theology, those who at some me would be
priests (Acts 6:9), to learn literature there. Nor was he admi ed into a
college of priests to minister in the temple in the place of his father.
Instead, he lived in the wilderness, and in an extraordinary manner God
made him suitable for such a great ministry. God had also done this before,
when He wished to restore a collapsed religion with an illustrious,
immediate call, as is clear from Amos 7:15. These are the words of
Chemnitz on this passage.
Therefore we urge this argument: The ordinary Levi cal priests
administered their office inside, not outside, the temple. John the Bap st
administered his office not inside the temple but outside of it in the
wilderness. Therefore he was not an ordinary Levi cal priest. Also, no
Levi cal priest administered a new and unusual ceremony, such as
Bap sm. Therefore he was not an ordinary Levi cal priest. Christ bears
witness about John that he was “more than a prophet” (Matt. 11:[9]).
How, then, can he be put on the list of Levi cal priests and ordinary
ministers?
(5) “John taught nothing contrary to common doctrine nor did he
separate himself from the other priests and people. Although the princes
and Pharisees hated him because he was preaching Christ, yet they did not
dare disapprove of him when Christ asked them (Matthew 21) what they
thought about John’s Bap sm. Also Josephus (An q. Jud., bk. 18, ch. 10)
tes fies that the Jews considered John among the foremost men in
righteousness and uprightness. What the Centuriators say, therefore, is a
lie: that the priests and Pharisees considered John a here c.”
We respond. On the contrary, as Bellarmine denies this, he clearly is
being deceived. Luke 7:30: “The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the
counsel of God against themselves, not having been bap zed by John.”
Verse 33: “For John the Bap st came neither ea ng bread nor drinking
wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ ” Toletus comments on this passage
as follows: “The Pharisees and scribes or teachers of the Law did not at all
believe that God had sent John. They rather despised this counsel of God
and concluded that John led an austere life by the power of the devil.” The
ques on in John 1:25 also belongs here: “Then why are you bap zing if
you are neither the Christ nor Elijah nor the prophet?” If they did not
consider him a here c, why were they not bap zed by him? Why did they
a ribute a devil to him? Why did they s r up a controversy about his call?
No one could say anything more absurd than what Bellarmine declares,
that “John taught nothing contrary to common doctrine and did not
separate himself from the other priests and people.” Or was it not against
common doctrine to teach that the en re Levi cal worship should be
abolished, that their sacrifices were types of the one sacrifice which the
Messiah would offer on the altar of the cross (for which reason John calls
Him “the Lamb of God”), and that the Messiah was near? Or did John not
separate himself from the other priests and the people when in the
wilderness, outside of the temple, he began the new ceremony of Bap sm
and called the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to his Bap sm a “brood
of vipers”? The evangelist (Matt. 21:[26]) explains in the same place why
they did not dare disapprove of John’s Bap sm. It was not because they
had honorable feelings about his person or Bap sm but because “they
were afraid of the crowd, which considered John a prophet.” Josephus also
speaks about this judgment of the common crowd (Antiq., bk. 16, ch. 10).
As regards the Pharisees, Jerome (on Matthew 17) writes that “they
agreed to the murder of John.” This is concluded clearly from the Gospel
account, for they cover up the violence of Herod with his hatred for John
the Bap st. And not only did that deed not displease them, but they
immediately began to develop plans to oppress Jesus, too, whom John had
commended (John 1:15). Consequently, Christ says (Matt. 17:12) that “the
Son of Man will suffer at the hands of those” who had done the same thing
to the Bap st earlier.

Whether miracles are sufficient tes monies of faith

§ 282. Bellarmine confirms his second founda on, that “miracles are
effectual and sufficient tes monies of faith,” in this way: “True miracles
cannot be performed except by the power of God, for we call that a
‘miracle’ which surpasses the powers of all creatures and thus is a wonder
to all creatures. This is why Scripture calls them ‘the tes monies of God.’
Therefore whatever a miracle confirms, the tes mony of God confirms. But
God cannot be witness to a lie. Therefore whatever a miracle confirms is
necessarily true.”
We respond. (1) We concede that true miracles cannot be done with
any power except divine power. Yet those are o en considered true
miracles which are only wondrous deeds and are done by the work of the
devil. From outward appearance true miracles cannot be discerned from
false ones, divine miracles from diabolical ones. Therefore the judgment of
the Spirit must be added, which is rendered about miracles on the basis of
doctrine.
** Bellarmine (De Rom. pont., bk. 3, ch. 15) argues: “True miracles
cannot be dis nguished from false ones because the ra onale as to which
are true and which are false is hidden.” **
(2) God gives the power to do miracles even to false teachers, not to
prove the dogmas of here cs but either to test the devout (Deut. 13:2) or
to confirm those dogmas that the here cs are s ll keeping sound and
complete. Toward the end of this chapter, Bellarmine himself writes about
the miracle of Paul, the bishop of the Nova ans, that “this was done not to
confirm the faith of the Nova ans but catholic Bap sm.” We said more
about this earlier [§ 273].
(3) We cannot absolutely and simply concede what Bellarmine adds,
that “miracles are done either to strengthen faith or to illumine the glory
of a saint in such a way as to show that this man is truly a saint.” You see,
some mes those people perform miracles to whom Christ will say on the
Last Day: “I never knew you” (Matt. 7:22–23). But how can we say about
them that they are truly saints? Thus what is claimed by the gloss on the
word miracula ([Ius canonicum,] extra de reliq. et venerat. sanctor., c.
audivimus) is correct: “We should not immediately venerate as a saint
anyone who performs miracles” because (according to [Ius canonicum,] c.
teneamus, 1, q. 1): “Miracles are some mes done even by evil people.” In
regard to this subject Bellarmine should listen to himself, for he argues (De
grat. et libero arbitrio, bk. 1, ch. 10, § secundo quaeri potest):
No one can doubt that graces freely given can be separated from the grace that makes one
pleasing. The apostle tes fies (1 Corinthians 13) that there can exist without love the gi of
tongues, prophecy, wisdom, knowledge, and faith. But it is evident that love is either the
very grace that makes one pleasing or its indivisible companion. In reference to this, the
Lord says in Matt. 7[:22–23]: “Many will say on that Day of Judgment: ‘Have we not
prophesied in Your name, and have we not performed many powers?’ Yet they will hear: ‘I
do not know you. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ ” Finally, even the soothsayer
Balaam prophesied many true things about Christ (Numbers 22–23). Caiaphas, who
otherwise was a very wicked man, prophesied when he was high priest for that year (John
11[:49–52]). Yet we must not deny that very frequently graces freely given are combined
with the grace that makes one pleasing. As Gregory teaches (on Ezekiel, homily 17): “God
endows His servants outwardly with gi s of this kind so that what they are inwardly in the
sight of God may be apparent.”

Those are Bellarmine’s words. From this we draw the clear conclusion that
it is not a ma er of eternal and unchangeable truth that “he who performs
miracles is truly a saint.” A er all, true sanc ty has no place without love,
and love can be missing from the faith of miracles.

Whether miracles abound in the Roman church

§ 283. The second sec on. Do miracles abound in the Roman church?
We could treat the en re subject with short shri and enclose it in this
syllogism: Miracles that are performed in the Roman church confirm either
prophe c and apostolic doctrine, or corrup ons, supers ons, and
idolatrous worship. If the former is true, he must prove from Holy Writ that
the doctrine of the Roman church as it is today agrees in every detail with
prophe c and apostolic doctrine. If the la er is true, we should pay no
a en on to those miracles. In order for us to be able to pass a more
accurate judgment about those miracles that the Papists boast of so highly,
we shall divide them into certain classes. But, first, we shall set down this
necessary warning: some tales about miracles celebrated in the Roman
church are false and fic ous, even in the judgment of the more sane
Papists themselves. Abbot Petrus Cluniacensis, bk. 5, Le er 29: “You know
how the false songs in God’s church displease me,” etc. There, among
other things, he lists a hymn of St. Benedict that contains twenty-four lies.
Lindanus (De interp. Script., bk. 3, ch. 3) men ons an old complaint of
Bishop Agobard of Lyons and writes that the bishop corrected the book of
an phons by cu ng out of it “the many superflui es, levi es, falsi es,
blasphemies, and fantasies that he saw there.” Lindanus adds: “If this
bishop were alive now and saw our missals and books of an phons—God
Immortal!—with what name would he describe them?”
** Gelasius, [Ius canonicum,] dist. 15, c. sancta Romana: “According to
ancient custom, with singular cau on, the deeds of the martyred saints are
not read in the holy Roman church because the names of those who wrote
them down are completely unknown, and what they wrote is believed to
have been wri en by infidels or idiots and is superfluous or less apt than
the order of the subject actually was.” Jean Gerson (Declarat., quae
veritates sint credendae de necessit. salut. part. 1) lists “the legends of the
saints among those truths that only contribute to the nourishing or
fostering of a religious piety of devo on, where devout piety is a greater
considera on than certain truth.” Lindanus (De opt. Script. interpret.
genere, ch. 3, p. 103) admits: “The breviaries and, among them, the new
Roman breviary” (about which he says, “It otherwise does not escape the
censure of teachers and the devout for many just reasons”) “prescribe
some feasts of the saints about which I myself have doubts as to whether
their names have been sufficiently validated.” **
Ludovicus Vives, a very serious and learned man, puts together the
following complaint about the stew of lies in the Legenda Aurea:
Men on of these things done by great men o en brings back to my mind that great sorrow I
so o en felt when I thought to myself how diligently and with what care the deeds of
Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio, Pompey, Caesar, and other leaders—and those of Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle, and other philosophers—were wri en and fixed in permanent memory so
that there is no danger that they will ever die out. On the other hand, the deeds of the
apostles, martyrs, and, finally, of the saints of our religion, either of the growing church or
already grown church, are covered with great darkness and are nearly forgo en. It would be
so much more frui ul to know or to imitate those than the deeds of generals and
philosophers; for, with only a few excep ons, the things that have been wri en about them
are corrupted with many fic ons. Whoever does the wri ng indulges his own affec on and
sets forth not what the saint did but what he wished he had done. The result is that the
mind of the writer rather than the truth dictates the saints’ lives. They were the people who,
 leading in the place of great devo on, invented li le lies instead of religion. This, too, is
dangerous, lest faith be deprived of true things due to false, and it is unnecessary that for
our piety as many things be true as false, just as cowardly and useless soldiers are more of a
burden than a help.

** (Pope Gelasius rejects the legends of some of the “saints” whom the
Roman church venerates, such as St. Quirinus, St. George, and St. Judith, as
“fic on and wri en by here cs,” [Ius canonicum,] dist. 15, c. 4. They write
about St. Anthony in the Chron. Minor., part 5, ch. 21: “He could preach
with such efficacy that a religious woman listened to him about two
thousand mes.” See Mar nus Isengrinius, Von der uralten Capelle unsrer
lieben Frauen zu Altenö ngen, printed at Ingolstadt in 1571, and
Hasenmullerus, De mirac. Jesuit., ch. 8, p. 399.) **
[Ludovicus Vives] writes elsewhere as follows:
But perhaps these things have been tolerable, however serious. How important is it that in
sacred subjects this license to lie has crept in or, rather, has been employed openly as, for
instance, the stories that are told of the leprosy of Constan ne and the bath in a child’s
blood, the leprosy of Vespasian, about Gamaliel, Beronice, about the acts of Christ and of
the holy Virgin? We shout and roar about lesser ma ers, but we wink at these things. Yet if
they come into the hands of wicked people, they would make that holy and serious piety of
ours something for them to ridicule and hiss at. Nor are we more scrupulous in handing
down ma ers of more recent memory. The French write French subjects, Italians Italian,
Spanish Hispanic, Germans German, Britons Bri sh, and others in favor of any na on. The
author of these subjects thinks that he has taken up a great responsibility to extol that
na on as much as he can. He does not keep his eye focused on the truth but on the glory of
that na on, etc. In wri ng the accounts of the saints, in which everything should be exact
and absolute, the watchfulness for truth is not any greater. Each of them wrote the accounts
as his emo ons moved him, so that the heart rather than the truth dictated the history. How
unworthy for Chris an saints and people is that history of the saints which is called the
Legenda Aurea! I do not know why they call it “golden,” because it was wri en by a man
with iron lips and a lead heart. What nas er thing can be said about that book? Oh, how
shameful it is to us Chris ans that the most outstanding acts of our saints have not been
commi ed to memory with greater truth and accuracy! etc.

In the Gravamina of the German na on, which all the estates of the
empire, both Papist and Lutheran, delivered to the legate of Pope Adrian at
the Diet of Nuremberg in 1523 (ch. 21), the same complaint is found:
“Those hired shepherds (or perhaps it would be more correct to call them
‘robbers’) provide the simple people of Christ not with the crystal-clear
fountain of the Gospel but with cloudy, polluted pools filled with rubbish
when they teach Christ’s people in the sermon the so-called ‘legends of the
saints,’ which the church has not accepted and which are more like
heathen fables than Chris an and evangelical doctrine.”
** Erasmus, in the argument of Augus ne’s Confession.: “Why should I
men on those who with empty fables and fic ous miracles are eager to
commit the memory of those they favor to the common crowd, and who
o en praise things that the praised person has never done or approved? I
think that there have been some who thought it was pious to kindle a
heart to a zeal for religion with deceits of this kind. I have always detested
pe foggers of this type who do not know how to depict a true image of
piety but who deceive with their lies the disciples of Him who is the Truth.”
**
Lauren us Valla, Orat. de donat. Constant.: “Our storytellers bring in
talking idols everywhere.” Dante the Floren ne (cant. 29) says:
“Everywhere fables are being told, and the people are being fed with the
wind.” Melchior Canus, Loci commun., bk. 11, ch. 6: “We cannot deny that
some mes the most serious men, especially in describing the wondrous
feats of the saints, received widespread rumors and in their wri ngs
recounted them to their posterity. In this ma er, it seems to me, either
they indulged themselves too much, or at least the common crowd of the
faithful, because they thought that the common crowd not only believed
these miracles easily but also demanded them very earnestly, and they
thought that it pleased the noblest authors [to hold] that the true law of
the history is to write what the crowd believes is true.”
** And later: “I am not here excusing the author of that book tled
Speculum exemplorum” (Jacobus de Voragine, bishop of Genoa) “nor also
of the history that is called the Legenda Aurea. In the former you will read
monsters of miracles rather than true miracles. A man with iron lips and a
lead heart wrote it, or at least with a mind not sufficiently serious and
prudent.” Ibid.: “I say this with greater sorrow than insult: Laer us wrote
the lives of the philosophers more seriously than Chris ans have wri en
the lives of the saints. Suetonius has set out his account of the Caesars
with far less corrup on and far greater integrity than Catholics have set
forth the accounts not of emperors, but of martyrs, virgins, and
confessors.” **
Cornelius Agrippa, De vanit. scient., ch. 97: “The rest piously write their
histories of the saints and add their lies. They forge relics, fabricate
miracles, and make up terrible tales.” Erasmus (in a le er to Archbishop
Albert of Mainz prefixed to his Method. theologiae, p. 9): “Now dreams
more worthless than Sicilian junk, now the dreams of some mad old man
or even of some old woman have crept in here. Day by day more and more
are creeping in.” Erasmus writes elsewhere: “Why should I men on those
who with empty fables and fic ous miracles are eager to commit the
memory of those they favor to the common crowd, etc.? I have always
detested pe foggers of this type who do not know how to depict a true
image of piety but who deceive with their lies the disciples of Him who is
the Truth.” John Capgrave’s Legenda de sanc s Britannicis are filled with
fables.
But neither can the reports of the Jesuits about the miracles of Igna us
create any certain confidence. Maffeius (De vita Igna i, bk. 2, ch. 5) and
Ribadeneira (bk. 2, ch. 12) report: “Accompanied by two associates, Petrus
Faber and Jacobus Lainez, Igna us invoked God in a temple not far from
Rome. God appeared to him in his rapture and commended His Son, Jesus,
to Igna us and his associates. Jesus promised that He would be their
protector and added: ‘I will be favorable to you at Rome.’ ” But the
Catechismus Jesui cus (bk. 1, ch. 8) argues with several arguments that this
was the appari on of a lie: (1) Because Maffeius adds that this was the
reason why Igna us gave the name “Jesuits” to his society a er the pope
had confirmed it, though he had used it earlier in the pamphlet he had
humbly offered Pope Paul III. In that pamphlet the enclosed bulls of the
year 1540 say, “Whoever wants to go into service under the banner of the
cross in our society, which we want to be iden fied with the name of
Jesus,” etc. (2) Because Jacobus Lainez, who was the general a er Igna us,
did not reveal that to his agent Congordanus nor to his lawyer Versor,
though the parliament of Paris accused them because of this ambi ous
name. (3) Because the Jesuit Montaignes (De la verité defendue, ch. 66)
says: “The pope gave that name to the Society.” La. Fon. (ch. 35) a ributes
the same thing to the pope, but neither of them men ons this vision of
Igna us. Lermaeus (Introd. in artem Jesuit., p. 8) adds: “That Jesus who
appeared to Igna us Loyola wore the garb of a monk, the sort of robe that
the Jesuits wear today. When Igna us fell into a lethal disease at Rome,
that same Jesus who had appeared to him along the way again revealed
Himself to be seen by him, this me disguised as a dog, and frequently
struck him down with fearful growls.” But who would think up without
blasphemy any such thing about our Savior, Jesus Christ, the Son of God
and of the Virgin? The same authors, Maffeius and Ribadeneira, report:
“Igna us had a vision in which God the Father showed him all the tools He
had used to create the world. Peter also appeared to him, and later the
Virgin Mary. Twice the devil tempted him visibly. He saw the Trinity in
heaven and Christ bodily in the host. He saw the soul of his associate
Hosius ascending into heaven wearing a more splendid and illustrious habit
than the rest,” etc. These writers, however, are witnesses in their own case.
They tell that they heard those things from Igna us. They are not
eyewitnesses. They add that Igna us saw and did these things before the
order was confirmed by the pope. However, there is no men on of them in
the bulls of the popes. Furthermore, in an ac on before the parliament of
Paris, Pasquier asked of the Jesuits what miracles Igna us, the founder of
the Society, did. Yet Jacobus Lainez, the associate of Igna us and his
successor as general, reported none of them. Ludovicus Lavaterus (De
spectris, part 1, ch. 9) tells the account of a Jesuit from Augsburg who
transformed himself into a devil and then was stabbed by a dagger. Who,
then, would want to put confidence in those uncertain reports?
** Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 14: “In our century, Francis Xavier, a
presbyter of the Society of Jesus, became renowned for all kinds of
miracles among the Indians.”

Osorius, Concion., vol. 4, sermon on the death of Xavier: “This Xavier

was the apostle of the New World. He performed countless miracles, cast
out devils, restored sight to the blind.” But on the contrary, the Papist
writers themselves make the trustworthiness of those miracles dubious.
Franciscus de Victoria, royal professor at the academy of Salamanca in
Spain, Relect. 5: “It is not quite clear to me whether our men have set forth
and declared the Chris an faith to the unbelieving Indians in such a way
that the Indians are bound to believe under threat of a new sin. I hear of
no miracles, no signs, no examples of a very religious life. On the contrary, I
hear of many scandals and wickednesses. As a result, it seems that the
Chris an religion has not been preached to them suitably and piously
enough that they would be bound to assent to it.” Xavier himself, who
wrote fi y familiar le ers about Indian affairs, says nothing about healing
the blind, crippled, deaf, and dumb. De reb. Indicis, bk. 2, Le er 3, reports
a miracle of nature about a nursing goat that fed its kids with milk. He
would not have passed up miracles of grace, had he done any by divine
power. They make the excep on: “This is an argument of modesty, not of
powerlessness.” Yet we read about the apostles (Acts 14) that, when they
crossed over, they told what great things the Lord had done through them;
and (in ch. 15) they declared what God had done through them. Ferus
comments in this way on those passages: “The apostles made known the
power of the Holy Spirit so that many were expressing their thanks to God
for the grace He had conferred upon the heathen, and that they were
being strengthened by their common faith. One should boast about these
if God’s glory is promoted by them so that a neighbor is helped. They are
not recommending themselves but God’s works, just as Christ commanded
the man who had been demon-possessed: ‘Go and tell what great things
the Lord has done.’ ” Moreover, they do not have the miraculous gi of
tongues that is most highly necessary for the conversion of the Indians.
(Morton, part 1, p. 488.) Acosta, De salut. Indor., bk. 6, ch. 4: “What is our
preaching? What is our confidence? Surely, we have done no signs.”
Chapter 12: “We have produced no wonders by which to confirm the
voices of the Gospel.” Chapter 17: “Nor is there any need. Shining with
good works before men so that when they see them they will glorify your
Father, who is in heaven—that is the miracle most powerful for
persuading.” **

Some Papist miracles are, first, decep ve

§ 284. The miracles that are celebrated as true in the Roman church are
of various and differing kinds. (I) Some are decep ve and lying, made up by
the trickery of very wicked people. Because of this Lyra once complained
(on Daniel 14): “Some mes the greatest decep on of the people occurs in
the church as a result of miracles fabricated by priests.” Also, Astexanus
(Summ., bk. 6) writes about relics: “Those who for the sake of devo on
come to some church because of the miracles that take place there should
not be deceived by false and pretended proofs as is generally done at an
opportunity for profit.” When Pope Celes ne V was considering the
reforma on of the Curia, Boniface VIII, who later became his successor in
the papacy, arranged for someone to pretend that he was an angel and
thunder out through a tube directed into the pope’s bedroom: “Celes ne,
leave if you wish to be saved.” Celes ne was deeply s rred by this miracle
and returned to eremi c life. Balaeus, Nauclerus, Massaeus, and others
report this miracle, from which the proverb about that Boniface began:
“He came in like a fox, ruled like a lion, and died like a dog.” Gregory VII
plo ed against the life of Henry III: while the emperor was praying in a
temple, he arranged for a man to throw a huge rock down on him from a
higher place in such a way that it would seem that he had perished by a
divine miracle. But it happened by the just judgment of God that that
minister of such wickedness fell along with that dislodged stone (Cardinal
Benno, Vita Gregorii).
** Selnecker (Exam., part 4, p. 537) cites this account from Nicolaus
Palladius, the Dane:
Several years ago some monks became discontented with the dead figure of Christ hanging
on the cross. They wrote to a wonder-worker that he should make them a living crucified
Christ. He responded: “If I make Him living, you will perhaps kill Him again.” Finally, they
convinced him with their requests and gi s, and he made a crucified figure as if alive, a
movable head on the cross, movable eyes and lips. They placed this image of the crucified
Christ in their temple over the door to the choir. For a long me it deceived a great
mul tude of people. Every me a great crowd of people would come in together to see and
venerate the statue, some monk standing behind the idol would pull the cord that turned
the idol’s head as if unwilling to look at or listen to them. As a result, they would suffer great
consterna on of their minds. The monk would immediately cry out, saying, “Give and
contribute richly to us poor brothers; then He will again turn His peaceful countenance upon
you.” Then the people began to offer their gi s at the altar. In the mean me the monk
pulled another cord that turned the image’s head back toward the people as if He had
indicated that He was pleased with their gi s. Finally, the idol was exposed, and the
monastery was destroyed.

Hasenmullerus, ch. 8, p. 299: “Most of their miracles have been fabricated.

They list a supply of them every day between eleven and twelve and from
six to seven.” **
In order to build confidence in their dogma about the concep on of
Mary in original sin, the Dominicans stooped to the assistance of tricks, an
example of which was published in 1509 about the Dominicans of Bern.
There the monks hid themselves in a statue of the blessed Virgin skillfully
constructed for this purpose. As they made the statue do marvelous
gestures, they convinced the people that Mary sighed, lamented, cried out,
shed tears, and gave responses to those who asked her ques ons. A
subprior would wrap himself in a linen shroud, burst into the cell of
Brother Johannes Jezerus, a simple man, and would pretend that he was
now Barbara, now Catherine of Siena, now the blessed Virgin. Some mes
he would even drive an iron spike through Johannes’s hand, etc. But this
fraud was exposed, and the ins gators of this crime were burned. See the
en re report of this account in Wolf (Cent. 16, p. 10), Philipp (Chron., bk. 5,
p. 703), and Lavater (De spectris, part 1, ch. 7).
As far as the Franciscans are concerned, Sleidanus (Comment. de stat.
relig., bk. 9, year 1534, p. 221) and, from him, Osiander (Hist. eccles., cent.
16, bk. 2, ch. 26) men on a similar trick. At Orléans in France, a praetor’s
wife had taken care in her will to specify that she be buried without pomp
and mourning. Her husband, therefore, who loved the memory of his wife,
followed her request. He gave the Franciscans, in whose church she was
buried near his father and grandfather, only six gold coins as a gi . They
had hoped for a much larger reward. Then, when he was cu ng mber
and selling it, the monks asked that he give them wood for free, but he
refused. They were quite unhappy about this. Because they now thought
less of him than before, they began to plot this pa ern of revenge: that
they would say that his wife was damned forever. The plo ers of this
tragedy were Colimannus and Stephanus Atrebatensis, both doctors of
theology. The former was an exorcist, and all the equipment he generally
used in ma ers of this type he had in readiness. They arranged the trick as
follows. They put a young novice above the ceiling of the temple. In the
dead of night, when they would generally come to mumble their prayers,
he caused a great noise; they used adjura ons and exorcisms, but he spoke
nothing. Ordered to give a sign as to whether or not he was a dumb spirit,
he raised another uproar and made much noise. Now the founda on had
been laid. Quite a few ci zens and, in fact, great crowds, including
students, came. They told what a tragedy had befallen them and requested
that they should not let their evening prayers be disturbed by that. When
they had come and begun their prayers, the novice upset the crowd from
his lo y place. When they asked who he was and what he wanted, he
made signs that he was not allowed to speak. They ordered him to respond
to their ques ons with signs. Now, they had made a hole in the ceiling so
that if he put his ear close he could hear and understand the voice of the
exorcist. Next, he had a board at hand that he would strike when asked, so
that it could be heard below. The exorcist asked him first if he was of the
number of people who were buried there. Then he listed name by name in
order many of those whose bodies had been buried there. When he came
to the name of the praetor’s wife, the novice gave a sign and indicated that
he was her spirit. “Whether she was damned and for what merit or sin?
Was it because of greed, lust, pride, or love not shown? Was it because of
Lutheranism? What did she want to accomplish with her noise and
restlessness? Did she want the body that had been buried in a holy place
to be disinterred and buried somewhere else?” He responded to all of this
with signs, just as he had been ordered. He would give a posi ve or
nega ve response by striking the board two or three mes. To learn how
that deceit was finally detected, see ibid.
At the me of King Henry VIII of England, there was a statue called “The
Image of Grace” that was equipped with wheels and weights in such a way
that someone si ng in the hollow within it could move individual parts of
the idol—mouth, hands, eyes, lips, etc. It would reach out its hand to those
offering gi s. It gave a mournful look to those who gave too li le, a happy
look to those who gave much. This statue was destroyed by the work of the
Baron Cromwell, and its equipment, wheels, and weights were displayed to
the people at the cross of St. Paul in London (Fox, Martyr., p. 1188).
An machiavellus (bk. 2, de relig., theor. 2, p. 256) recounts a similar
example of trickery. In Paris at the workshop of a painter there was an old
board with a painted image of the Virgin on it. The painter customarily set
out that board in front as a sign of his shop. A parish presbyter from a
neighboring district bought it for a few pennies. He bored two holes at the
eyes of the likeness. At the me when the vines shed tears, he cut off some
twigs of the green shoots and fit them so carefully to the holes that the
pain ng seemed to weep. Why go into further detail? It brought in from all
direc ons such a throng of pilgrims, such a heap of gi s, that the painter,
deeply moved by the report of the miracle, went to see it with his wife.
That was what revealed the trick, for they recognized the board that had
lain so long in his shop and divulged the scandal. So, by the judgments of
the court, that parson was condemned to capital punishment, and the
board was broken to pieces.
In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, chapter on the invoca on of
saints [XXI 34], the confessors say: “In a certain monastery we have seen a
statue of the blessed Virgin. It moved as though by itself, by trickery,
seeming to turn away or to nod to those making a request.” Stumpffius
(Chron. Helvet., bk. 13, ch. 34) notes: “Some statues of the saints had
hollowed out heads, and when oil was poured into those hollows, they
seemed to weep.”
Erasmus (Le ers, bk. 22, to a bishop, p. 229) recalls that there was a
parson who intended to prove the appearance of souls. On a Saturday
night he secretly let loose in the cemetery live crabs with lighted candles
a ached to their backs. When these appeared among the graves, it was a
terrible thing to see at night, and no one dared to come too close. All the
people were astonished and upset. The parson taught his people from the
pulpit that these were the souls of the dead that were demanding Masses
and alms to be freed from the torment of purgatory. Finally, the deceit was
exposed because in the morning they discovered some crabs with
ex nguished candles, which the parson had not gathered up. In regard to
the Jesuit Father Jus nianus, he is said to have pretended to be leprous at
Rome that he might make a miracle out of his healing. That fraud was
discovered, however.

Second, some are magical

(II) Some Papist miracles are magical. That is, they are performed
through the art of magic by the work of the devil. Gerson, Contra
impugnat. ordin. Carthus.: “Many miracles are not displays of Chris an
faith but of the art of magic. Simple people accept them as miracles of
holiness.” Franciscus de Victoria, Relect. 12, de arte magica: “Although
people use the sign of the cross and only religious words in doing
wondrous feats, yet there are special, determined rituals and observa ons
performed at certain mes according to a certain posi on of the stars, or
with a certain number of crosses and candles in such a way that an effect is
hoped for in no other way; it is certain that this is not grace but magic.” But
how this has been used in the papacy! What have they used more
commonly than exorcisms and incanta ons? Brenz men ons examples of
these (Confess. Wirtenberg., vol. 1, p. 478, ch. de bap smo). Cardinal
Benno tells a story about Gregory VII that “when he took off his gloves, fire
leaped forth like sparks.” Simple people undoubtedly took that to be a
miracle. To perform such miracles was not difficult either for monks or
even for the popes themselves, because many of them were highly skilled
in the arts of magic, something that historians have proved with many
examples.

Third, some are absurd and shameful

(III) Some are absurd and shameful, unworthy of those to whom they
are a ributed. In the Specul. historial. of Vincen us (bk. 6, ch. 87) and in
the Stellarium coronae (bk. 12, ch. 3, last part) such a miracle is told:
There was an abbess of devout and holy life in religion. She would scold the insolent sharply,
and in this way she s rred up the great indigna on of those people against herself. It
happened one day that she, made too jovial from inebria on and wine, was kindled with a
lust for luxury and, fornica ng with her servant, she conceived a son. Her nuns soon
recognized her pregnancy as her belly swelled, and they plo ed against her all the more,
because they hated her for correc ng them earlier. They exposed what she had done and by
le er and messenger asked the bishop to come to depose and dismiss her from the cloister
with shame. The abbess knew ahead of me that the bishop was coming, so she went into
the oratory of the blessed Virgin, wept profusely, and spoke as follows: “O most blessed
Virgin, you are the refuge for sinners, a helper in every tribula on. Consider now my present
shame. Because of the wickedness of my sin I am unworthy to come into your presence.
Your kindness, however, superabounds where sin abounds.” Thus wearied by her weeping,
the abbess fell asleep. In a dream the blessed Virgin appeared to her and said: “Because I
am the advocate of sinners, it is not right for me to desert those who are of a contrite heart.
On your behalf, therefore, I have obtained from my Son remission of your sins and
deliverance from your shame.” Then the Virgin ordered two angels who were standing near
to deliver her of the weight of her child and to carry her son to some man of good
reputa on to be reared for five years. When the abbess awoke, she found that she had been
delivered from her pregnancy. Behold, when the bishop came boldly, she greeted him
honorably. He pushed her aside with a rebuke un l he should seek out the truth of the
accusa on through honorable persons.

(Vincen us adds that they were two clergymen.)

She was found to be clean, and the bishop immediately asked her to pardon him. When he
wanted to punish the nuns because of their defama on of her, the abbess disclosed to the
bishop in her confession the truth of the ma er and indicated that a miracle had occurred.
When the bishop learned the truth about the boy, he himself along with the upright man
 raised him and brought him to adult age as a person of good behavior, to the praise of the
blessed Virgin.

The same Vincen us reports, bk. 6, ch. 85: “The blessed Virgin poured out
her milk and restored the tongue of some clergyman. She came right up to
the bed of the sick man and appeared to uncover her breasts and put them
into the mouth of the sick man. When his tongue was covered with the
dew of her holy milk, it immediately recovered its wholeness.” Hondorpius
(in the Specul. historial.) men ons something similar in the case of a
madman. Every day he had recited the Angelic Saluta on in honor of Mary
and because of this had received as repayment from her that “she repaired
for him his tongue bi en and lips chewed in his madness by dripping her
milk on them.” Johannes de Lambsheim (De ins tu one rosarii B. Virginis)
reports: “The blessed Virgin once entered the cell of a monk named
Alanus. She arranged her hair into a ring for him, betrothed herself to that
monk, kissed him, gave him her breasts to be touched and sucked, and
finally became as in mate with him as a bride usually is with her
bridegroom.” Discipulus de tempore, Miracul. Mariae, example 24: “For
fi een years Mary took the place of a nun called Beatrice in the convent,
while she indulged in fornica on in a public whorehouse.” But who would
not hate those absurd and shameful lies that are close to, or no different
than, blasphemies hurled against the holy God-bearer?

Fourth, some are laughable and childish

(IV) Some of their miracles are laughable and childish, u erly different
than the miracles of Christ and the apostles. Baronius (Annal., anno Chris
805, no. 3) reports the following miracle from the history of France:
Charles, king and emperor, as was customary for hunters, assigned for hun ng some nearby
places suitable to that purpose. While he was driving the wild animals there from his forest,
he pursued among them a bear of wondrous size. The bear was wearied because of the
great distance of the chase. It had no place to escape because the plains extended broadly
in all direc ons. Death threatened it. As it was about to be caught, it gave up its constant
changing of direc on and ran quickly and in a straight line to Morsella and burst into the
church of St. Salvator. There something happened that is easier to be amazed at than to
speak about. For God, who, as it is wri en, saves men and beasts, somehow changed the
beastly mind of the bear and formed in it a power to reason and understand. You could see
it go up to the relics of the holy Virgin and lie down under so great a protec on, secure from
the commo on of its pursuers. Then, forge ng it was a beast, it bent its neck and humbly
 bowed its head. It licked the feet of the nuns as they drew near and was gentle with all of
them in the custom of playful ki ens. In this way it indicated clearly that it had been
protected by the support of the maidservant of God and that it was now prepared to be of
service to her with its obedience, etc. Then the bear from the forest began to be a member
of the household and spent the rest of its life among the nuns of that place exactly as it was
ordered.

John Capgrave (Legend. de sanc s Britannicis) tells this story in his life of
St. Aedus: “That holy man gave eight sheep to eight hungry wolves
because he felt sorry for the famished wolves. A erward, because of his
prayer, he took the same sheep that the wolves had already devoured out
of their stomachs unharmed.” In his life of Bernacus he tells: “A er thieves
had killed a cow of that Bernacus, had chopped it into pieces for no reason,
and had thrown them into a ke le, they heard the sound of its lowing
coming from the ke le.” In his life of Dunstan he tells: “Dunstan had given
the devil a wretched bea ng. The holy man had broken a s ck on the
devil’s back.” The story is told of Bernard that he excommunicated
mosquitoes; of Boniface, that he forced a fox to restore chickens it had
devoured, etc.
** Here we should men on the account “of the bees that sang sweetly
around the pyx containing the sacrament; about the roasted rooster, cut
into four parts, yet running, contrary to expecta on,” etc. **
In the Liber conformitatum, many of Francis’s miracles are reported, for
instance: “Once, when Francis was preaching, a donkey among the people
began to bray. Francis told it: ‘Be quiet, brother donkey, un l I finish my
sermon.’ As soon as the donkey heard that, it lay down calmly at Francis’s
feet.” Ibid.: “While saying a Mass, Francis found a spider in the chalice.
Being unwilling to throw it out, he drank it along with the blood [of Christ].
Later he rubbed his leg and scratched where he felt it irrita ng him, and
the spider came out of his leg without harming the brother. Francis also
once warned a sheep to pay a en on to the divine praises and to be
careful not to offend any of the brethren. When the sheep heard the
brothers singing in the choir, it entered the church, u ered its own
blea ng, and knelt before the altar of the Virgin Mother of the Lamb as if it
was eager to greet her.” (Ludovicus Granatensis, Conc. 4, de festo Francis.)
But when Christ and His apostles taught on this earth, did they perform
such laughable and childish miracles? Whatever miracles they performed
had to do with the salva on of humans and not with amazement alone.
Fi h, some confirm idolatry
(V) Some of their miracles confirm idol-madness, supers ons, and false
worship, such as purgatory, the invoca on of saints, transubstan a on,
bread worship, the venera on of images, etc. These dogmas are directly
opposed to the Holy Scriptures. Therefore in regard to them we must hold
to the rule given by God in Deut. 13:1. We find many more such miracles in
Gregory’s four books of Dialog., in the Specul. historial. of Vincen us, in
the Historial. of Archbishop Antoninus of Florence, etc., and in similar
books. About these miracles Machiavelli (Hist. Florent., bk. 1, to Clement
VII) makes a correct judgment: “Miracles of the modern church conflict
with the faith of the ancient church.” In the Second Council of Nicaea (act.
4), it is reported: “A monk was tested by a spirit of unchas ty. When the
monk had resisted much and for a long me with fasts and prayers, the
tempter appeared to him and said, ‘If you want to be rid of me, you will
stop venera ng this image,’ which was a picture of the Virgin Mary.”
What Mar n Isengrinius reports to sanc on the invoca on of saints is of
the same sort: A possessed girl was led by a special revela on of Mary to
the Chapel of the Virgin in Altö ng. He writes that she was not at all
moved when the litany was chanted, with P. Canisius as the officiant, nor
when he invoked the mercy, freedom, and help of God. The devil passed
through all that with deaf ears, as it were. But when the Lauretan litany of
Mary began, then Satan started to be upset, to cry out, and rage within the
possessed girl. Canisius grabbed up the old image of Mary and put it on the
head of the possessed girl. At this the devil finally cried out: “O woman,
why do you step on me and crush my head?” When it had to come out of
the possessed girl, it was enjoined to recite several mes, through the
mouth of the girl who had been possessed, the Lord’s Prayer and the
Angelic Saluta on as sa sfac on. A er it had done this, though forced
against its will, it finally complained with an indignant and miserable groan
and said, “See, John does not want to invoke the saints, though we devils
are forced to do this against our will.” Therefore when he had li ed up his
hands and had knelt, the now humble and devout devil recited the Lord’s
Prayer and then came to the Angelic Saluta on: “Hail, Mary, full of grace.”
As he was saying this, he combined the following prayer with it in a deep
and devout voice: “O Mary, may your grace and mercy rest upon all who
come to visit this chapel. O pray for all of them!” Finally, the devil le ,
leaving behind his stench as usual.
There was such a miracle in 1516 when people from all over Germany,
as though seized by an enthusiasm, came to the temple of Maria Formosa
in Regensburg. Sebas an Franck writes about it in his Chron.:
Around 1516 Balthasar Hubmeier, a theologian at Regensburg, so inflamed the civil
government with his sermons against the Jews that they tore down their synagogue, and in
its place they erected the church of Blessed Maria Formosa. Because she was said to have
performed all sorts of miracles, her reputa on spread far and wide throughout Germany.
Soon, so great a concourse of pilgrims began to occur that neither the temple nor the
monastery, or scarcely even the city itself, which was large and truly royal otherwise, was
sufficient for so great an assembly. Then the uproar increased so that anyone who, even in
passing, had remembered Maria Formosa in Regensburg was seized as though by an
enthusiasm. A person would leave behind parents, spouse, and children and hasten day and
night with an unbroken journey, neither gree ng nor acknowledging anyone along the way.
Neither threats nor bonds could hold them back. To the place of the accursed statue they
would bring the tools of their trade (for this insanity would usually strike common people
and ar sans), which they had in hand when they were moved. You would have seen women
dragging children, old men supported by staves, children holding out a crust of bread or
piece of fruit as an offering, the sick crawling along with their linens and bedclothes. At the
same me they all were heedless of food, drink, and sleep. They were deaf, dumb, and
blind, though their eyes were open. A er they had entered the temple, they were not all
affected in the same way. But those who had come to the greatest grace, as the sacrificers
kept persuading them, would fall down without saying a word as if thunderstruck as soon as
they caught sight of the shapely [formosum] statue. When they had recovered their senses
along with their frenzy, they would profess that they had been freed from all their ailments,
etc.

However, because these and similar miracles were performed not to

confirm prophe c and apostolic doctrine but rather to corrupt it, there is
no doubt that Satan is their source, regardless of how miraculous they
appear. (For a long list of these miracles gathered from Vincen us, from
the author of the Mariale, from the Discipulus de tempore, and from
others, see Dr. Binder, Theolog. scholas ca, ch. 9, pp. 213ff.)

Sixth, some confirm ar cles of doctrine that are s ll sound

(VI) Finally, even if some true and divine miracles were done in the
Roman church, especially among the Indians and the peoples of the New
World, this s ll would not prove that each and every ar cle of doctrine set
forth in the Roman church is of certain and immovable truth. In fact, about
those miracles the same thing can be said that Bellarmine says about the
miracles of the Nova ans, namely, that “those are done to confirm that
which is s ll sound and unharmed in doctrine, so that the heathen may be
converted to the faith of Christ the more quickly.” But one cannot say that
they occurred to confirm that which is spoiled and corrupt in the doctrine
of the Roman church.
** It is evident that the Jews and Samaritans whom the king of Assyria
had le in their own lands a er carrying off the ten tribes did not have the
pure religion and worship of the true God. Nonetheless God sent lions
against the Assyrians and other foreign na ons who had been brought into
Samaria, but spared the na ves. Was this in confirma on of impious
worship? Certainly not. Rather, it was to confirm the Jewish religion
contained in the Law. **

Bellarmine’s boas ng about the miracles of the Roman church

§ 285. A er lis ng the miracles of the first fi een centuries (about
which miracles we can easily judge from what has been said earlier),
Bellarmine boasts that
even in our mes miracles are being performed in the Roman church. In this century of ours,
Francis of Paola became renowned for his many miracles, as we find in a bull in Surius. Also,
Father Francis Xavier, a presbyter of the Society of Jesus, became famous for all kinds of
miracles among the Indians. It is evident from the Indian le ers of those who were involved
with him and which they sent here that he cured paraly cs, deaf, dumb, and blind people;
that he called a dead man back to life; that when he died and was being taken from Malacca
to the island of Goa, he s lled a storm at sea; finally, a er his own body had been dead for
fi een months, it was discovered completely whole and sweet-smelling, though it had been
lying covered with a stone for many months. There is no doubt that it is s ll being preserved
whole and fresh to this day.

** Bartscius, Dom. 3. adv., p. 247: “In no century has the church

completely lacked the witness of miracles. If not at another me, this is
especially clear at this me. On the other hand, the Evangelical ministers
are and always have been totally des tute of them.” **
We respond. (1) It would not be wrong to doubt the trustworthiness of
those miracles, because in these neighboring regions we have experienced
no miracles performed by Jesuits. They have certainly a empted many and
finally ceased trying a er a lack of success.
 (2) A doub ng declara on is made about them by Franciscus de
Victoria, royal professor at the academy of Salamanca in Spain (Relect. 5,
propos. 5): “It is not clear enough to me whether our men have set forth
and declared the Chris an faith to the barbaric Indians so well that they
are bound to believe under the threat of a new sin. I hear of no miracles
and signs, nor examples of a very religious life, but on the contrary, many
scandals and impie es. Consequently, it seems that the Chris an religion
has not been preached to them in a sufficiently apt and pious way such
that they would be bound to assent to it.” To this pertain also those points
of Acosta (De procur. Indor. salute, bk. 6, ch. 4): “What is our preaching?
What is our confidence? Surely, we have done no signs.” Chapter 12: “We
have produced no wonders by which to confirm the voices of the Gospel.”
Chapter 17: “Nor is there any need. Shining with good works before men
so that when they see them they will glorify your Father who is in heaven
—that is the miracle most powerful for persuading.”
(3) If the Jesuits had been equipped with the gi of miracles, that which
was of the greatest need for conver ng heathen would especially have
been given to them, namely, the miraculous gi of various tongues, just as
the apostles who were sent to preach the Gospel to unknown peoples
were divinely endowed with that gi (Acts 2:4). The Jesuits themselves
complain, however, that they lack that gi and that, as a result, significant
delays hinder them in conver ng the heathen. Nicolaus Pimenta, Epist. ad
Claudium Aquav., p. 14: “Franciscus Corsi, a father of our Society, writes to
his brothers as follows, saying, ‘I am completely busy in learning Persian.’ ”
Ibid., p. 80: “As regards the work of conversion, by my vice—inasmuch as I
am ignorant of the language—Father Fernandez says that there has been
li le effect.” Acosta, De Indor. salut. procur., bk. 1, ch. 2: “They say that the
race of mortals was once confounded with seventy tongues, but the
Indians differ among themselves with seven hundred languages and more.”
Book 4, ch. 8: “Consequently, our impediments in preaching God’s Word
are very great.” Chapter 9: “Quite correctly the founder of our Society,
Igna us, has commanded the public reading of the Indian language, for
such assistance is very necessary to develop an ability to declare the divine
Word among the heathen.” Xavier himself, bk. 3, Le er 5: “If we become
skillful in the Japanese language, I have no doubt that very many will
become Chris ans. God has seen to it that we are learning it quickly. Then,
finally, we shall be performing a Chris an work, for now we are going
among them like dumb statues.” Therefore, because the Jesuits lack this
necessary gi of tongues, who will place any credence in their tales about
other less necessary miracles?
(4) Hora us Tursellinus, from whom Bellarmine recounts those miracles
of Xavier (bk. 2, ch. 3) adds: “In India, Xavier began commonly to be called
an apostle, just as had happened previously in Portugal. Later he received
his cognomen from ‘Xaverius’ as if from ‘head,’ and that spread to his
associates.” They should have restrained themselves from that name. In bk.
5, ch. 16, he tells this episode: “When the body of Xavier was brought to
Goa, a great candle an ell long was lighted. It burned con nuously for
twenty-two days and nights and was not burned away.” This miracle,
however, is not in harmony with the apostolic miracles.
(5) Xavier himself is quieter than a fish about these miracles that he
performed. He wrote fi y le ers about ma ers in India, but we find
nothing in them about healing the dumb, the crippled, the blind, etc., or
about raising the dead. Furthermore, one cannot respond that this must be
a ributed to his modesty since, according to the example of the apostles
(Acts 14:27; 15:4), the glory of God shining in the miracles could and
should have been declared free and clear of any accusa on of immodesty.
(6) Even if the Jesuits had performed some true and divine miracles in
the New World, they would have done them not to confirm papal dogmas
of purgatory, the invoca on of the saints, the power of a monarchic pope,
etc. There is a deep silence among them about these par cular rudiments
of the Chris an faith. Rather, they would have done them to confirm the
truly catholic dogmas of the mystery of the Trinity; about the person,
office, and benefac ons of Christ; about Bap sm; etc. This is, a er all, how
Bellarmine responded about the miracles of the Nova ans.

Whether miracles occur in the Evangelical churches

§ 286. The third sec on. Is it true that no miracles occur in the
Evangelical churches? Here Bellarmine insults us shamelessly and says:
“Luther could s r up not even one mosquito.” Others turn it into a fault of
ours and say that we could heal not even a crippled dog. Bellarmine adds
from Staphylus and Cochlaeus: “Luther tried in vain to drive a devil out of a
possessed girl and to call Nesenus back to life, who had drowned in the
Elbe.” Bellarmine repeats this very thing in his book De ecclesia. Also:
“A er Luther’s death, his body was being shipped for burial in Wi enberg
in midwinter when dead bodies keep for many days and was closed up in a
well-sealed n coffin. Despite that, the corpse began to emit so foul an
odor that no one could bear it. As a result they were compelled to
abandon the body along the way.”
We respond. (1) We are proposing not a new doctrine that requires the
confirma on of miracles, but the ancient doctrine that has been confirmed
enough and more by the amazing miracles of Christ and of the apostles.
** Augus ne says: “We are in that body in which they” (the prophets
and apostles) “did miracles.” Therefore Bellarmine should either call into
doubt the prophe c and apostolic miracles, which are the seals of our
religion, or he should show a discrepancy between our doctrine and
apostolic doctrine. **
Therefore we do not in any way need new miracles. As soon as we
confirmed from Holy Writ that our doctrine did not differ from apostolic
doctrine, we also confirmed at the same me that our doctrine does not
lack miracles.
** The Papists laugh at us for including the work of the Reforma on
among the miracles. But Chrysostom (on 1 Corinthians, homily 6) and
Augus ne (De civ. Dei, bk. 22, ch. 8) did not hesitate to count the
conversion of the world that happened through the disciples among the
miracles. Augus ne, Sermon 18 de verb. Dom., col. 76:
Now He is performing greater healings, because of which He did not refuse to show lesser
ones then. Just as the mind is be er than the body, so the health of the mind is more
important than that of the body. Now the blind flesh does not open its eyes by the miracle
of the Lord, and the blind heart does open its eyes by the words of the Lord. Now the mortal
corpse does not rise again; the soul rises again, which was lying dead in a live body. Now the
deaf ears of the body are not opened, but how many people have deaf ears of the heart that
nevertheless are opened by the penetra ng words of the Lord, so that they believe who
believed not, and they live well who lived badly, and they are obedient who were
disobedient. **

(2) There is no divine promise that toward the end of the world the
truth of doctrine must be confirmed by miracles. Instead, we have a
forewarning (Ma . 24:24; 2 Thess. 2:9; Rev. 13:13) that we should beware
of the deceiving miracles of the An christ.
 (3) If we take “miracle” to mean everything that is done by the special
grace and power of God, though that may not meet the eyes like external
miracles, then it cannot be denied that the following must be considered
as miracles: that a poor, unarmed monk a acked the pope, “the wonder of
the world and the terror of kings,” breathing threats, brandishing the
thunderbolt of anathema, mixing things of heaven with the things of hell;
that he severely sha ered his kingdom; that he remained unharmed to the
end of his life despite so many powerful foes plo ng against him openly
and in secret; that he was equipped with singular gi s of prophecy and a
heroic spirit; that he brought to a successful conclusion that miraculous
work, the reforma on of doctrine and the revela on of the An christ; that
evangelical doctrine has been preserved un l now with miraculous success
amid the most savage persecu ons a er being received by so many
kingdoms and provinces, etc. This miracle becomes the more illustrious if
one recalls from the histories how vain was the work of so many powerful
emperors and kings in restraining the pope’s power, and if one considers
with what great torrents of Chris an blood they tried—but in vain—to
hinder the course of evangelical doctrine. The Jesuit Maldonatus
(commentary on Ma hew 7) gives this judgment: “That so many
philosophers and so many wise men believed without any miracles so few
apostles with so few skills who were preaching things incredible to human
reason is far more incredible than those miracles themselves that they are
reported to have done.” If this is true (and it is very true), it cannot be
denied that it is a miracle, or at least the next closest thing to a miracle,
that so many thousands of people were freed by the ministry of Luther and
his fellow priests from the inveterate errors of the papacy.
** Erasmus, Hyperaspist. diatrib. contra Lutherum, p. 5:
I saw learned men walk off into your dogmas. I caught a glimpse of a fatal favor of the world.
I was no ng how much more violently theologians and princes were beginning to resist
le ng this ma er spread any farther and become any stronger. From this I reasoned that
this cause was being carried on not without God, and so I decided to be a spectator of your
tragedy. I thought to myself, according to the statement of Gamaliel, that if God was moving
these things, it was not my part to resist [Acts 5:34–39]. If what was happening had begun
from some other source, it would dissipate on its own. **

(4) Ma hesius (Vita Lutheri) writes: “He himself digested much poison
and was divinely preserved from receiving any harm from it.” Spangenberg
(Chron. Mansf.) relates this story: A doctor of medicine in Poland was
bribed by the bishops of that place to lay his traps to capture Luther at
Wi enberg and in the neighboring areas in the year 1523, but with no
success at all. The doctor plo ed against Luther’s life by smearing poison
on his lectern and infec ng his handles. These plots vanished into nothing,
however, because God had other plans. In 1521, when Luther was going to
the Diet of Worms, he was asked to deliver a sermon at Erfurt. In the
middle of the sermon a beam began to groan and threaten ruin because of
the great weight of the crowd. People fled as terror seized those were
standing beneath it. Luther said: “You are not doing anything. You are not
doing anything to them. I know your plots, you bi er foe. You have
stretched out your hand, but see, there is no danger here. The plo er is
doing his tricks. Now that he understands his error, he remains insane.
Thus insane in mind, he remains in error. The a ack, commenced, does not
stop the work,” as Eobanus sings. In 1541 Friedrich Myconius, the
superintendent of Gotha, was very ill and was was ng away with
consump on. Because of this he wrote to Luther: “I am sick in bed to be
sure, not fatally, but vitally.” Luther wrote back to him (as we have it in Jena
German, vol. 7, p. 393): “I pray and beseech the Lord Jesus, our life,
salva on, and health, that He not allow this evil, too, to be added to me:
that I outlast you or a few and see you break through or force your way
through our veil to a place of rest, and that you leave me to stay behind
among the devils while you go on ahead. I ask that the Lord make me sick
in your place and command me to put down this useless, undeserved, and
exhausted tent of mine.” And, at the end of the le er: “Farewell, my dear
Friedrich. May the Lord not permit me to hear of your passing while I am
alive. May He make you outlast me. This I ask. This I want. And may my will
be done. Amen. Because this will seeks the glory of the name of the Lord
and certainly not my pleasure or wealth,” etc. Because of these prayers,
Myconius recovered and lived for six more years. We could list more of the
same kind, which support the argument that Luther’s prayers were
miraculously effectual and his life miraculously unharmed.
Fox (Martyr.) recounts many miracles done in martyrs whom the Papists
were punishing. For instance, though Cranmer was burned in the fire, his
heart was found unharmed among the ashes. The body of Stephanus
Brunus could not be burned. Manginus spoke a er his tongue had been
cut out. The body of Faninus gave off the most fragrant odor from the fire.
The body of Robert Samuel shone like silver in the fire, etc. We do not use
these against the Papist arguments, however. Instead, we prove our
doctrine from Scripture.
(5) Augus ne claims (Sermon 18 de verb. Dom.): “Just as the mind is
be er than the body, so the health of the soul is be er than that of the
body. Now the mortal body does not rise again, but the soul rises again,
which was lying dead in a living body.” Also, Isidore (De summ. bon., bk. 1,
ch. 27) claims: “Now, it is be er to live an upright life in the church than to
do signs.” As a result, it is right for us to list among the spiritual miracles
that through the preaching of the heavenly doctrine cleansed of papal
stains many people have been called back from idolatrous worship to the
true worship of God, from supers ons to works divinely commanded,
from hypocrisy to true piety, and now live soberly, justly, and piously in this
world [Titus 2:12] and feel effectual consola on at the point of death.
(6) As to the claim that Luther tried in vain to free a possessed girl and
call back to life Nesenus who had drowned in the Elbe, no one will believe
the apostate Staphylus and the great liar Cochlaeus, if they know that
Luther always called people away from miracles to doctrine.
** This same lying slander about Luther’s failed a empt to raise the
drowned Nesenus and to cast out the devil from the possessed girl is
repeated by Lauren us Surius (Comment. rerum in orbe gestarum, year
1546, p. 415), Guilelmus Lindanus (Dubitant., dial. 3, ch. 1), Tilmannus
Bredenbachius (Colla on. sacrar., bk. 7, ch. 5), Staphylus (Absoluta
responsio contra Smidelinum, p. 404), and Tribonianus Cassius
(Pseudojubil. Witeb., p. 237). But we respond to them: “A hos le witness
for the other side is not believed” ([Ius canonicum,] c. per tuas, and the
gloss there on the word inimici as capitales, Extr. de simoniacis; c. accusat,
and the gloss there, causa 3, q. 5; argum. 1, licet, ff. de arbitrio, and in
auth. de tes b., § si vero dicatur, vers. si vero quis dicat). Luther says (Coll.
mensal., fol. 101, Leipzig edi on, and fol. 204, Eisleben edi on):
We should not and cannot drive out devils with certain ceremonies and words as the
prophets, Christ, and the apostles did long ago. We should pray in the name of Christ and
admonish the church gravely to pray that God, the Father of our dear Lord Jesus Christ,
would redeem the possessed person through His mercy. Now, if this happens through faith
in the promise of Christ: “Truly, truly I say unto you, whatsoever you ask the Father,” etc.,
then it is strong and powerful, so that the devil has to leave the person. I could provide you
 with some examples. We cannot drive out evil spirits in any other way, and we do not have
the power to do it. If someone had been called immediately by God and had a faith to
perform miracles, he could drive out devils who possess a human physically, as the apostles
and prophets did formerly, etc. He cannot be driven out with mere words, such as: “Go out,
you unclean spirit!” Not even the exorcists in the papacy meant it seriously. The power of
God must do it. You can bet your life that the devil will make it quite troublesome. Without
terror it will not happen. ([ch.] confess., fol. 102) **

In his Explic. epist. for the Second Sunday in Advent, he writes as

follows: “Do not place confidence in miracles that are done or that are
falsified or even that are declared true, but only in the teaching of Christ
and of the apostles.” In homily 2 for the fes val of Ascension he says: “The
apostles performed signs to confirm the Gospel. A er the Gospel was
published and spread widely throughout the world, there certainly was no
further need to do miracles.” In fact, he prayed the Lord not to show him
miracles because he was content with the Word. Histories tes fy that a
devil was indeed driven from a possessed young person, that a
handwri en guarantee was given by a devil, and that such was related to
Luther’s prayers. Fox (Martyr., p. 864) recounts at length that he did not try
to restore life to anyone. Buchholzer reports that his own father stood on
the bank close to Luther, saw those things with his own eyes and heard
with his own ears Luther weep bi erly and add these words: “If I could do
miracles, I would raise you now.”
(7) How much credence we must lend to the tale about the unbearable
stench emana ng from Luther’s corpse can be concluded easily from the
fact that, while Luther was s ll alive, they spread a story about his tragic
death. Luther strongly refuted this while he was s ll among the living (Jena
German, vol. 8, f. 206). (The same tale was also told about Beza. They had
told a story that at the point of death he had returned to the Roman
church. But while he was s ll living, Beza refuted that lie in a public
wri ng.) Even the very words of the story betray the lie, for they say that
because of the unbearable stench, Luther’s body was abandoned along the
way, though in the presence of several thousand people it was buried at
Wi enberg honorably and, in fact, as Melanchthon writes: “more
honorably than the bodies of many princes.” But we believe Bellarmine
readily, that Luther not only then but also today gives off an intolerable
stench to the papacy because, according to his prophecy, he would be
destruc on to the pope while he was s ll alive and death to the pope
when he died.
(8) According to the histories, what Bellarmine a ributes to Luther
about a vain and empty a empt to perform miracles can be said more
accurately about the men of his own Society. For instance, Father
Jus nianus pretended leprosy in order to make a miracle out of his cure; a
Jesuit from Augsburg changed himself into a ghost but was stabbed with a
dagger, etc. Baruch Molithoraeus (Nov. Jesui c., p. 38) recounts something
similar about Schererus. He says: “Father Georgius Schererus confirmed
this doctrine when at Vienna he persuaded a very wicked man to pretend
that he had died and to allow himself to be placed on a bier. When the
Jesuit tried to raise him from the dead, as arranged, they found that he had
actually died.” This is more than enough about this subject.
Section XII: On the Twelfth Mark of the
Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Prophetic
Light: Whether prophetic light is a mark of the church
§ 287. The first sec on. Is prophe c light a genuine and proper mark of
the church? We make the same pronouncement about prophecies that we
made about miracles. That is, considered alone and through themselves
they do not prove the truth of doctrine because they do not belong only to
the church and because they are not perpetual. That the gi of prophecy
does not belong only to the true church is revealed from the following
founda ons:
(1) In Deut. 13:1 the Lord gives a clear forewarning: “If a false prophet
rises up and foretells some sign or wonder and that comes to pass later,”
we must not follow him to worship strange gods or to a foreign doctrine
that calls us away.
(2) By the revela on of God Balaam foretold the future (Num. 24:16);
yet he was a false prophet and his religion was pagan.
(3) Among the people of Israel there were many false prophets who
boasted of their divine dreams and revela ons. The Lord says (Jer. 23:25):
“I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in My name,
saying: ‘I have dreamed! I have dreamed!’ ” Verse 32: “Behold, I am against
those who prophesy lying dreams, says the Lord, and who tell them and
lead My people astray by their lies and recklessness.” There is a memorable
example of this in 1 Kings 13:18, where an old prophet who dwelt in Bethel
convinced a man of God and true prophet of something false and harmful.
He said: “I also am a prophet as you are, and an angel spoke to me by the
word of the Lord, saying, ‘Bring him back with you.’ ”
(4) On the basis of a prophecy of a single person endowed with the
prophe c gi , one cannot proclaim that that en re fellowship in which he
lives is the true church. In an assembly of Belshazzar and his princes, Daniel
foretold the king’s future (Dan. 5:28); yet that assembly was not the
church. The high priest Caiaphas prophesied in the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem
(John 11:51), yet that assembly was not the true church.
 (5) It is with very great difficulty that one determines which prophecies
are from God. According to the witness of Isidore, devils are powerful
because of three kinds of cunning: “subtlety of their nature, experience
with the mes, and the revela on of higher powers.” Thus they can
foreknow and foretell some future things. Augus ne, De civ. Dei, bk. 9, ch.
22: “Devils do not consider the eternal causes of the mes—somehow the
chief causes—in the wisdom of God. Rather, because of their greater
experience with some signs that are hidden to us, they predict many more
future events than do humans, who some mes predict their arrangements
but are o en deceived.” De Trinit., bk. 4, ch. 17: “Even if the deceiving
powers of the air have said something true through their seers, which they
heard from the holy prophets or angels, they have done this so that by
truths that belong to others they might mislead people to their own
falsehoods.” Chrysostom, Opus imperf. in Ma h., homily 19: “We concede
to the devil that he some mes speaks true things to commend his lie by a
rare truth. If he never said anything true, his misleading could not be
enough to tempt anyone.” In homily 29 on 1 Corinthians he teaches: “It is
most difficult to judge a false prophet from a true one, because the
statements of the prophets o en concern the future, and before the exact
me one cannot determine whether anyone is lying, and because false
prophets prophesy true things.” Damascenus, Orth. fid., bk. 2, ch. 4:
“Demons also prophesy—some mes because they see what is coming
from afar, at other mes because they are guessing. Because of this, they
also make many false predic ons. One ought not believe them even if they
o en tell the truth.”
** Josephus (An q., bk. 15, ch. 13) men ons: “Manahem the Essene
foretold that a kingdom had been prepared for Herod while Herod was s ll
a child a ending elementary school. Herod answered him with the wisdom
of an old man, though only a child: ‘Remember that I am a private
ci zen.’ ” Isidore (Sent., bk. 1) quotes a statement of Gregory (Moral., bk. 7,
ch. 1): “Some mes the gi s of the Holy Spirit are conferred not upon the
worthy but the reprobate. For instance, prophecy was given to Saul and to
Balaam. Consequently, many will also say at the end of the world: ‘Lord,
have we not done great powers in Your name?’ and He will say to them: ‘I
do not know you, where you are from’ (Ma . 7:[22–]23; Luke 13:25).” **
 Therefore devils some mes foretell the future from the revela on of a
higher power. Thus, when God calls Cyrus and Josiah by their own names
in Scripture, the devil could have known that. Or devils predict the future
on the basis of a probable guess of the effects from the causes exis ng in
an act, as he foretold the death of Saul (1 Sam. 28:19), either because he
concluded his tragic death from his wickedness or because God revealed to
him the execu on of His judgment against Saul. Thus he once foretold to
the heathen that they would suffer the destruc on of their idols when
Christ would come. He had known this because it was revealed in
Scripture.
(6) It is neither strange nor unusual for false teachers to boast of the gi
of prophecy. Ma . 7:22: “Many will say on the Last Day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we
not prophesy in Your name?’ ” Christ will tell them: “I never knew you.”
Here it is not improbable to take the gi of prophecy to mean predic ons
of future things, though the gi of miracles may be combined with it. Lyra,
on 1 Kings 13: “Prophecy involves an act of understanding. Love that makes
a person good is an act of the will. The first can exist without the second.”
Just as the gi of prophecy can exist in the wicked, so also it can exist
among false teachers, because knowledge of the le er differs from
knowledge of the spirit. Josephus (De bello Judaico, bk. 2, ch. 7) writes
about the Essaeans: “Among them are those who even give promise of
knowing the future as they cling to the sacred books and various holy
statements of the prophets from the early days. Rarely does it happen that
their predic ons turn out empty.” We know how much the Montanists
boasted of their prophecies. As prophetesses they had two rich and
wealthy women, Prisca and Maximilla. Jerome (commentary on Titus 1)
reports: “Epimenides wrote a book about the oracles and their responses
in which many things that were going to happen were foretold. Paul read
it, and that is where this verse comes from: ‘Cretans are always liars,’ etc.”
Jerome, on Ma hew 7: “Saul, Barnabas, and Caiaphas prophesied, though
they did not know what they were saying.”
(7) Let us go on to the witness of our adversaries themselves. Thomas
([ST,] 2.2., q. 172, art. 6) proves: “Even false prophets some mes foretell
true things—some mes because of a revela on of the devil, some mes
because of divine inspira on.” He confirms this with the example of
Balaam and the Sibyls, and from Augus ne (De Genesi ad literam, bk. 12,
ch. 19). Bonaventure, Sent., 3, dist. 7, q. 6: “A man should not believe every
spirit but should test them, whether they are of God. Whoever
immediately believes in such spirits is frivolous of heart and perhaps even
proud of heart for thinking that he is fit for such visions and appari ons.
Hence such visions are to be dreaded rather than desired,” etc. Tolosanus,
De republ., bk. 3, ch. 33: “The true God has permi ed and, in fact,
commanded many true things to be foretold by the sacrificers to idols and
through their oracles. This is just as if He wished to announce through
Balaam’s donkey His approval of those to whom God had foretold that they
would not follow the false prophets, but slay them.” Ibid.: “Some mes God
has permi ed true prophets from among the heathen and those who hate
the Law of God to foreknow and foretell some true things that were going
to happen.” Ederus, Oecon. Bibl., bk. 2, on Deuteronomy 13: “If anyone
predicted a sign or portent and that which he said came to pass, you shall
not hear the words of that prophecy, and the reason is, because it is se ng
forth false teaching, and the Lord your God is tes ng you. Therefore even if
what false prophets have predicted happens, yet Scripture itself teaches us
abundantly that we should not follow them.” Pererius, commentary on
Exodus 11, disp. 11: “Some mes God allows the false prophets to foretell
some things that do occur.” Maldonatus, on Ma hew 7: “Balaam,
otherwise a false and faithless prophet, prophesied true things. From
Ma hew we draw the obvious conclusion that the false prophets
prophesied truly and by prophesying true things they strengthened not
faith in themselves but the faith of God’s people.”
That the gi of prophecy is not a perpetual possession of the church is
clear from this: in regard to the first beginnings of the church of the New
Testament, there is only a prophecy that visions and prophecies will have a
place in it at that me (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17). But nowhere is there such a
promise about the last days of the church. The Jesuit Ribera admits this in
his commentary on Joel 2. He says:
As Peter indicated, this passage of the prophecy must be understood concerning that me
alone. This is taught by Hilary (De Trinit., bk. 8), Chrysostom (on Acts, homily 4), Jerome (Ad
Hebidiam), Oecumenius (on Acts 2), and other very learned men who interpret this only
concerning that me and who do not men on any other me. But why do I men on the
holy fathers? Some Jews also refer this to the me of the Messiah. From the Acts of the
Apostles we understand that this prophecy was fulfilled a er the ascension of the Lord.
There were some, like Agabus and the daughters of Philip and some of the Corinthians, who
 were prophesying. Also there were prophets in the church of An och. John saw the
apocalypse, and both Peter and Paul also saw visions.

Claudius Espencaeus, commentary on 1 Timothy, bk. 1, digress., ch. 2: “We

now call the interpreters and explainers of Scripture ‘prophets,’ as
Ambrose teaches. However, among the very beginnings of the faith, to
commend its rudiments, there were prophets and those who prophesied,
such as Agabus and the four virgin daughters of Philip.” Experience, too,
proves the same thing, because in the Old Testament several centuries
passed during which there was no prophet (1 Maccabees 9:27), and in the
New Testament there has been no prophet, properly and specifically
speaking, since the mes of the apostles.

Bellarmine’s arguments for prophe c light

§ 288. Let us see how Bellarmine would prove that prophe c light is a
mark of the church. (I) “Just as Christ in Mark 16[:17–18] promises the
church the gi of miracles, so also in Joel 2, according to the explana on of
Peter in Acts 2[:17–18], He promises the gi of prophecy.”
Response: We have already shown earlier that that prophecy pertains to
the first beginnings of the Chris an church, in which its fulfillment was
given. Here, however, we are looking for the perpetual and inseparable
marks of the church.
(II) “The gi of prophecy is by far the greatest gi , because it is certain
that no one but God knows future con ngents. Isa. 41[:23]: ‘Tell us what is
to come herea er that we may know that you are gods.’ ”
We respond. Indeed, it belongs to God alone to look at and foretell
future con ngents which are hidden to angels and humans. Yet at the
same me, the devil foretells future effects on the basis of causes that are
established in actuality, which are unknown to us. This is something that
people consider as a predic on, properly speaking, of future things.
Furthermore, from a revela on of God devils can foreknow and foretell
properly future things. Some mes that gi is shared even with false
prophets to test people, just as we said about miracles.
(III) “In Deut. 18[:22] a rule is set down that it is a mark of false doctrine
if a prophet predicts something that does not occur.”
 We respond. From this one cannot and should not infer that he is
immediately a true prophet and that we must believe him in all things if he
prophesies something that later actually happens, for we have the contrary
in clear language in Deut. 13:1ff.
(IV) “Among the heathen and here cs there were no true prophecies
but many false ones, unless they by chance occurred as a tes mony of our
faith, as were the prophecies of the Sibyls and of Balaam. Although the
heathen had many oracles of Apollo, those nevertheless would respond
with ambigui es when Apollo actually did not know what was going to
happen; or they would foretell what the devils themselves were going to
do; or they would announce to ignorant people things that had already
begun as future; or, finally, they would predict those things that have
natural causes that are unknown to us but which they know because of
their greater subtlety. Also, every me here cs wanted to prophesy
something they have been deceived; this is clear from the false prophets of
the Old Testament (1 Kings 22) and from the Montanists, who foretold
wars and who knows what other future things, but the contrary occurred
(as it says in Eusebius, Hist., bk. 5, chs. 16 and 18).”
We respond. Bellarmine cannot deny that, on the basis of natural
causes unknown to us, devils do predict some things that we consider as
true prophecies, properly speaking, of future things; also, that false
prophets some mes prophesy true things. Consequently, prophe c light
cannot be considered a true mark of the church. Bellarmine added:
“Heathen and here cs did not have true prophecies unless by chance they
occurred as a tes mony of the true faith.” We can say the same thing
about the prophecies that Bellarmine cites to establish the truth of the
Roman church, namely, that they were done to confirm not Papist dogmas
but the Chris an faith, some of whose ar cles it s ll holds unharmed.
Therefore one must always go back to the doctrine, for either the truth of
faith and of the church must be evaluated on the basis of the truth of its
prophecy or, on the other hand, the truth of prophecy must be evaluated
on the basis of the truth of faith and of the church. We cannot say the first,
which Bellarmine himself admits when he writes clearly: “Heathen and
here cs did not have true prophecies unless by chance they occurred as a
tes mony of the true faith.” Therefore the second op on remains. We are
not greatly troubled concerning whether the prophecies of the Montanists
were true or false. It is enough for us to know that they deceived many
with their prophecies. Those people abandoned the light of the apostles’
doctrine and followed the foreign doctrines of the Montanists because
they had been deeply moved by those prophecies. The false prophets who,
in 1 Kings 22, encouraged Ahab to go up against the king of Syria in ba le
had been deceived by that lying spirit which stood before the Lord and said
(v. 22): “I will go out and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all the
prophets.” That same spirit could have revealed Ahab’s death to his
prophets, which he had learned from a divine revela on, and could have
foretold that to the king through those prophets, if he had judged that it
was to his own benefit.

Whether the prophe c light flourishes in the Roman church

§ 289. The second sec on. Does the prophe c light flourish in the
Roman church? To prove this Bellarmine brings forward:
(1) The prophets of the Old Testament. (2) Those who lived during the first five hundred
years a er the coming of Christ, such as Agabus (Acts 11), Gregory Thaumaturgus (of whom
Basil writes, De S. S., ch. 29), Antonius (concerning whom Athanasius wrote in his Vita) and
Abbot John (about whom Augus ne writes, De civ. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 26). (3) The monks who
flourished in the later centuries of the church, such as Benedict (about whom Gregory
writes, Dial., bk. 2, ch. 25), Bernard (about whom, see his Vita) and Francis (about whom
Bonaventure writes in his Vita).

We respond. (1) The prophets and apostles cannot be numbered with

the modern Roman church, because it has departed from their teaching in
many points.
(2) Gregory Thaumaturgus was born of a Greek father and became
bishop of Caesarea (according to Nicephorus, bk. 6, ch. 17). Antonius was
an Egyp an monk (Nicephorus, bk. 8, ch. 40). Abbot John also lived in
Egypt as a hermit (according to Augus ne, loc. cit.). Therefore the Greek
and Egyp an churches rather than the Roman could claim the prophecies
of those men for themselves.
(3) Even if Bernard, Benedict, Francis, and others foretold some things,
it does not immediately follow that whatever they taught was true, much
less that the Roman church in which they lived is true. The Sibyls foretold
true things among the heathen, and Daniel foretold true things at
Belshazzar’s feast.
 (4) In regard to the revela ons of Brigi a, Elizabeth, and other women,
whom the Roman church also regards highly, some of the Papists
themselves doubt them. Delrius, Disquisit. magicar., bk. 4, ch. 1, q. 3, sect.
4: “Henry of Hesse and Sybillanus, both Catholics, both religious, want the
revela ons of Brigi a and of similar people not to be considered as
undoubtedly true.” Picus Mirandolanus contends that “the revela ons of
these holy women are contradictory,” etc. No one can deny that in those
revela ons many things are said quite harshly against the pope and
prelates. Hildegard prophesied about the death of monks, saying that, as
gi s and dona ons ceased, they would rove around like famished hounds.
Brigi a foretold that the Roman church would be like someone the judge
had condemned to be flayed and have his flesh cut into pieces. Catherine
of Siena spoke about the sort of reforma on of the church and renewal of
its pastors, the recollec on of which alone caused her spirit to exult in the
Lord. Therefore if they acknowledge those revela ons to be true, they
must also admit that what is said against the pope is also true.
(5) Bellarmine was not able to supply others who were equipped with
the gi of prophecy in the last century. Otherwise he would not have
omi ed them, because in the chapter immediately preceding he had
boasted of the miracles of Xavier. Therefore let him acknowledge either
that the gi of prophecy is not a perpetual possession of the church or that
the Roman church is not the true church.

Whether the prophe c light flourishes in the Evangelical

churches
§ 290. The third sec on. Does the prophe c light flourish in the
Evangelical churches? Bellarmine reports from Cochlaeus: “In 1525 Luther
prophesied that it would happen that, if he were s ll preaching his
doctrine in two years, the pope would vanish along with cardinals, bishops,
monks, nuns, steeples, bells, etc. Also, the prophets of the Lutherans
steadfastly declared in 1533 that the day of the final judgment would occur
in that year. But there was no corresponding outcome for either
predic on.”
We respond. (1) Cochlaeus was a sworn enemy of Luther and has been
caught frequently in notorious lies. So who will have confidence in him in
this subject?
(2) The outcome has confirmed the diminu on of papal eminence and
of the an -Chris an kingdom that Luther foretold. Nowhere did he predict
the total destruc on of the papacy before the final judgment, for he was
aware of the apostle’s statement in 2 Thess. 2:8 that “the An christ will be
destroyed by the appearance of the coming of Christ.” Luther himself
repeats this in clear language in his explana on of Psalm 10 (Jena German,
vol. 2, f. 93): “Only the Last Day will destroy the papacy.”
(3) Ungersdorffius (Gratula o ad proceres Austriacos, p. 78) clearly
a ributes the contrary prophecy to Luther in regard to the corrup ons that
would follow the evangelical doctrine and even about its demise. Whom,
then, do we believe—Cochlaeus or Ungersdorffius?
(4) The actual words of the prophecy, which are in his commentary on
Gala ans 3 (Wi enberg edi on, vol. 1, f. 195), sufficiently protect Luther
from the crime of contradic on, with which Ungersdorffius a acked him.
Luther prophesies: “The evangelical doctrine is going to be corrupted
especially in the ar cle of jus fica on by sectarians and false brothers, but
it will not be destroyed before the Last Day.” The former was fulfilled at the
me of the Interim; the truth of the la er will con nue to stand so long as
the preaching of our doctrine sounds forth.
(5) Seneca says: “It is a feeble lie; if you look at it carefully, it is visible.”
We see the same thing in this lie of Cochlaeus. He is talking nonsense when
he says that Luther prophesied that within two years pope, cardinals,
bishops, and among these even steeples and bells would be destroyed.
Who would believe that Luther said anything about the steeples and bells,
which are s ll retained among us?
(6) Luther never set a date for the day of final judgment. On the
contrary, he sharply rebuked the temerity of those who dared try any such
thing. Luther himself condemned the vanity of Melchior S fel (who
prophesied that the Last Day would fall precisely around the eighth hour
on the Monday of the forty-second week in the tenth month of 1553), as is
wri en in his Colloq. mensal., ch. 43. About this, Luther writes in his
commentary on Genesis 11 (vol. 2, f. 2): “I am guessing that because of
some definite plan God wanted sixty years in Abraham’s life to fall out of
memory, so that no one would presume to foretell something definite
about the end of the world on the basis of a definite coun ng of the years
of the world. Certainly God reveals signs of the Last Day and wants them to
exist and be seen. He does not, however, want us to know that day and, in
fact, not even the year, so that the devout may exercise faith and fear of
God in the expecta on of this most gracious light.”
(7) We should instead censure the prophecies of the Papists for their
falsehood. Johannes Taisnierius Hannonius (Physign. Pauli oper.
mathema c., p. 457) prophesied from the stars in 1572 that the Lutheran
religion would be wiped out within three years. Similar predic ons have
also been made by others, and the outcome itself cer fies their falsehood.
§ 291. We, on the other hand, can truly affirm that prophecies were
made by and about Luther, and the facts have confirmed them clearly.
** Luther, Jena, vol. 7, f. 304: “I do not prophesy willingly, nor do I want
to prophesy. Whatever I foretell, especially something bad, very o en turns
out that way—in fact, more o en than I wish—so that I o en yearn deeply
with St. Micah: ‘Oh, that I were not a man with the Spirit and that I spoke
lies!’ [Mic. 2:11, Vulgate]” Tanner (Anat. Conf. August., part 1, dem. 4) says
that Luther “foretold false things and that he was therefore a false prophet
because the outcome did not correspond to the prophecies.” We respond.
Four points must be remembered about such predic ons: (1) The origin of
the predic ons. Either someone boasts of a prophe c spirit and of
revela ons, which give birth to the prophecies, or he relies on causes
demonstrated in Holy Scripture or on natural and civil causes, which are
changeable, from which he has a presen ment of future events. If the
former is true, then his boas ng makes the author a fana c. If the la er is
true, then one deceived in this way is not a false prophet. (2) The material
of the predic ons. Prophecies either concern faith and religion—and
whoever has foretold something to confirm religion and it does not follow,
he is believed to have done this by deceit, especially in these days in which
those signs have degenerated into marks of the An christ—or prophecies
are civil, natural, and similar. In this case, we must observe whether such
prophecies are opposed to divine things or not. If the former is the case,
and they do not take place, they prove that he is a false teacher, because
they are opposed to divine truth. If the la er is the case, he will not be a
false teacher because of the error of a civil or natural predic on. (3) The
manner of the predic ons. A dis nc on must be made between omens
[omina] and prophecies. On the basis of heavenly and earthly signs, future
things are o en foreknown by those who take up such things. Preachers
predict [ominantur] bad things for uncompliant listeners when special
examples of punishments occur. Yet if they do not follow, the preacher is
not a false prophet (Luke 13:3). (4) The cause of an outcome that did not
follow. What God foretells does not always happen, because the outcome
is intercepted either through repentance, if He threatens destruc on; or
wickedness, if He promises happiness; or through causes unknown to
humans; etc. See the prophecies given by Luther in Wolf, Cent. 16., p. 78,
vol. 2, p. 419. See also what Luther foretold about the Arian heresy in
Germany and the punishment of the Germans because of their contempt
for the Word and neglect of their schools (Jena German, vol. 3, f. 433; vol.
5, ff. 185, 202, 365, 433; vol. 6, f. 210; vol. 7, f. 289). In regard to the sects
that would follow him and similar people, the outcome very much cer fied
the truth. For this reason he o en said (vol. 7, f. 283) that he did not like to
prophesy because it was his experience that his prophecies were too true.
**
Luther predicted that the frenzy of his enemies would not harm him; he
predicted that while he was alive no war for the sake of religion would
begin.
** See vol. 2, pp. 119–20, 388–89; vol. 5, pp. 185, 356, 433; vol. 7, pp.
30a–b, 434; vol. 8, p. 344. **
The outcome has cer fied the truth of both predic ons. Melanchthon
(Orat. de vita et obitu Lutheri) men ons more of the same sort of material.
During the Diet of Augsburg, when the situa on seemed to be riding on a
razor’s edge, Luther, absent for a me, emerged from his li le room a er
serious prayers to God. With a loud and joyful voice he repeated again and
again: “We have overcome!” He found out at the same me the decree of
the emperor had been published that “no one should suffer any loss
because of his confession of the evangelical doctrine.”
The prophecies that Luther made can be arranged into two classes, for
some are set forth in Holy Writ and some in the history of the church. From
Holy Writ, we should place here what is said in Dan. 8:25 about the
An christ under the type of An ochus, that he “would be broken without a
hand,” that is, that he would be destroyed not with physical weapons by
the powers of this age but by the preaching of the Gospel through Luther.
In Dan. 11:44 there is the predic on: “Tidings from the east [ab oriente]
and from the north will alarm him” (the An christ). Those “ dings” mean
the sincere preaching of the Gospel and the tes mony of the truth
opposed to the errors of the An christ, according to the interpreta on of
the apostles (2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 14:6). Those dings make Christ, the
Dayspring [oriens] from on high (Luke 1:78), to shine forth (2 Pet. 1:19).
This will greatly upset the An christ. Through the same dings it will
happen that those who once were under the power of the An christ, the
king of the north, will a ack him through the preaching of the Gospel.
(Osiander, in his marginal notes.)
** Luther, Jena [German], vol. 8, p. 344: “The Papists are mad and
senseless against us. They want to fight for their teaching with long spears
and force, for with the pen and truth they cannot come up with anything
against us. I have been praying very fervently to God, and con nue to do so
every day, that He would control their decisions and let no war come into
Germany in my life me. I am certain that God hears these prayers of mine,
and I know that while I am alive there will be no war in Germany. Now
when I die, go to rest, and sleep, then you pray too!” “North” can also
mean those who first served as soldiers in the camp of the An christ,
because at the beginning of the chapter, the An christ is called “the king of
Babylon.” Thus Luther and others who have a acked the papacy were first
caught in Papist and monas c darkness. **
“Tidings from the east” can also be explained appropriately in this way:
that the beginning and an cipa on [prodromus], as it were, of that a ack
on the An christ through the preaching of the Gospel followed shortly
a er in the East. The Greek and Eastern churches, you see, never allowed
themselves to be subjected to the power of the pope. But because that
voice of the Eastern churches (“We cannot bear your arrogance; we cannot
sa sfy your greed. The devil be with you, because the Lord is with us”), as
something from far away across the seas, did not strike the ears of the
pope very hard, therefore the same voice sounded from the north. This
happened first at the me of Charlemagne when the empire was
broadened to include the Germans, and then in subsequent ages when
there were always some who gave a witness in voice or wri ng, or even in
their blood, that the Roman pope was truly the An christ. Finally, around
AD 1414, John Huss and Jerome of Prague raised their voices like trumpets
against the supers ons and tyranny of the pope. They were followed a
hundred years later by Dr. Mar n Luther, who a acked the realm of the
An christ with his wri ngs and sermons, and accomplished more with
them than all the armies of kings and emperors. (Gesner, on Daniel 12;
Wigand, on Daniel, pp. 440 and 476.)
Jer. 51:48: “The destroyers” (of Babylon) “shall come from the north,
says the Lord.” That was fulfilled when the spiritual tyranny of Babylon, as
the kingdom of the An christ is called in Revela on, was a acked from the
north through Luther. Jer. 51:27, 33: “Ararat, Minni, and Ashkenaz will
thresh Babylon.” But now, Minni and Ashkenaz were miners, as is evident
from the histories and the Hebrew language. Therefore it denotes Luther,
the son of an Eisleben miner, born in the county of Mansfeld, which is said
to have its name from “meni” or “manni.” With the hammer of the Word
he threshed the spiritual Babylon. (He himself uses this expression in Jena
German, vol. 2, f. 62. See Mathesius, Conciones de vita Luther.)
** The Ashkenaz are the Tuiscones or Germans. From this comes the
name “Ascania” or “Aschersleben.” Ararat is the mountain on which the ark
of Noah landed and the dove brought Noah the olive branch. In the mines
of Mansfeld are o en found split rocks in which are discovered fish painted
in a golden color. By them is signified that a er the spiritual flood the
Lord’s ark is going to have a place there and the doctrine of the Gospel will
be spread throughout the world from there. Menni signifies a metallic
substance, Minerertz [“mineral ore”]. Mannus was the son of Tuisco, first
king of the Germans. Therefore the Holy Spirit was not far from saying: “A
man from Mansfeld, a miner, will be raised up against Babylon.” Just as
1,517 years before the birth of Christ the children of Israel were freed from
Egyp an cap vity and the tyranny of the Pharaoh, so also precisely 1,517
years a er the birth of Christ, our fathers were freed from the spiritual
Egypt of the Roman pharaoh. **
Mal. 4:5–6: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great
and terrible day of the Lord comes. And he shall turn the hearts of the
fathers to their sons and the hearts of the sons to their fathers,” etc. This
prophecy pertains first and foremost to John the Bap st, who prepared the
way for Christ by preaching repentance at the first coming of Christ (Ma .
11:13; 17:10; Mark 9:12; Luke 1:17). Yet at the same me it can also be
applied secondarily to Luther because Christ Himself applies this prophecy
to John the Bap st in such a way that at the same me He does not deny
that another Elijah would s ll come (Mark 9:12). Also, just as the trumpet
of the preaching of the Gospel sounded before the first coming of Christ,
so also before the second coming of Christ, a er the revela on of the
An christ and that tragic condi on of the church under the kingdom of the
An christ, “the Gospel will be preached as a witness to all na ons” (Ma .
24:14), namely, before “that great and terrible day of final judgment”
comes. With extraordinary zeal Elijah fought against the prophets of Baal.
The same heroic zeal breathed in the sermons and wri ngs of Luther. Elijah
suffered persecu on at the hands of everyone. So also Luther had no place
given to him in the empire. Against him the pope was fulmina ng, the
emperor was proscribing, the cardinals were raging, princes were u ering
terrible threats, bishops were pursuing, monks were slandering, and the
whole Papist army was against him. All these he despised with his bold
spirit, and no fear could break him so that he stopped what he intended.
Elijah complained that he had been le alone and that everything had
been taken over by the worship of Baal, etc. So also Papist darkness
seemed to have taken over the whole earth. Elijah turned the hearts of the
sons to their fathers. That is, he expelled the supers ons and corrup ons
that had been recently introduced and brought back the true an quity of
doctrine. So also Luther restored the ancient purity of apostolic doctrine,
etc.
** Cyriacus Spangenberg (Concio 4. de Luther.) proves with seven
circumstances that the prophecy of Malachi must be taken to refer to
Luther: (1) from his name, (2) fatherland, (3) me, (4) miracles, (5) gi s of
the Holy Spirit, (6) his doctrine and life, (7) and his death. In all of these he
compares Luther with Elijah. **
2 Thess. 2:8: “And then the lawless one will be revealed, and the Lord
will slay him with the breath of His mouth and will destroy him with the
appearance of His coming.” “The lawless one” means the An christ, about
whom we read in Dan. 11:36 that “he will do according to his own will.”
The apostle (2 Thess. 2:3–4) calls him “the man of sin, the son of perdi on
who is an opposer [ἀντικείμενος] and exalts himself over everything that is
called ‘God’ … taking his seat in the temple of God, he displays himself as
though he were God.” Finally, however, “the Lord will slay him with the
Spirit of His mouth,” that is, through the Word, as we gather from Isa. 11:4.
This is what was fulfilled by the ministry of Luther in the previous century.
(See Dr. Hunnius, Assert. contra Pezelium., p. 256.)
Rev. 14:6–7: “Then I saw another angel flying in mid-heaven with an
eternal Gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on earth, to every na on
and tribe and tongue and people. And he said with a loud voice: ‘Fear God
and give Him honor, for the hour of His judgment has come; and worship
Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the fountains of water.” In
preceding verses, the kingdom of the An christ was described under the
appearance of a beast having two horns like a lamb and under the figure of
a pros tute si ng on a beast with ten horns. Then, an angel is introduced,
the herald of evangelical doctrine, by which Luther is understood (as
Funccius shows in his commentary on this passage). The word “angel”
denotes a teacher of the church. This meaning of the word is used very
commonly in the Book of Revela on. “Flying in mid-heaven” denotes the
swi progress of evangelical doctrine through various provinces and
kingdoms. When that angel is said to “have an eternal Gospel,” this
expresses the sum of the doctrine that Luther taught. Surely, he did not
omit the teaching of the Law but taught it seriously against the
An nomians and Epicureans. Yet at the same me he spent the greatest
part of his ministry in cleansing the doctrine of the Gospel, since it had
become covered with a horrible darkness. People were being led away
from faith in Christ to the merits of the saints, to opinions about their own
merits and sa sfac ons, to mul ple ways of salva on. But by the work of
Luther and his colleagues, the evangelical teaching was cleansed again. As
a result, s ll today they call us “Evangelical.” Furthermore, it is called an
“eternal” Gospel, that it may be set against the outcries of our adversaries
about a new doctrine. The Gospel was revealed a er the fall, immediately
a er the crea on of the world when our first parents received the promise
about the woman’s Seed. Later, it was foreshadowed in the types of
sacrifices, explained in greater detail through the prophets, spread
throughout the world through the apostles, etc. Again, the preaching of
that angel is described thus: he will proclaim to those who dwell on earth:
“Fear God and give Him honor and worship Him.” These words signify that
Luther’s ministry would cleanse and urge the doctrine of true conversion
and invoca on. In the papacy they taught that repentance consisted of
external sa sfac ons; consciences were burdened with various tradi ons
and self-chosen services; due honor was denied to Christ; dead saints were
invoked; confidence was placed in one’s own merits; and in this way
people were worshiping the works of their own hands. But Luther cleansed
all these things according to the norm of the Word, etc.
Finally, in Revela on there follows the victory song of all the faithful
ministers of the church over the ruin of the mys cal Babylon, that is, of the
tyranny of the An christ. Rev. 14:8–10: “Another angel followed, saying,
‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great, she who made all na ons drink the wine
of the wrath of her fornica on!’ And a third angel followed, saying with a
loud voice: ‘If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark
on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink the wine of God’s
wrath,’ ” etc.
** In Revela on 18, a er the striking picture of the kingdom of the
An christ under the figure of the Babylonian harlot, this is added [vv. 1–2]:
“A er this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great
authority; and the earth was made bright with his splendor, and he called
out with a mighty voice: ‘Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!’ ” The Calvinist
Thomas Brightman comments as follows on these words: “This angel was
Mar n Luther, who openly began to expose the An christ around the year
1517. He cursed this bane very sharply, and in this way, with the revela on
of the Holy Spirit, he uncovered even more of the filthiness of this Roman
beast. This Spirit gave him a turbulent preaching, filled with tumult.
Indeed, there is none who has tasted the wri ngs of that holy man on
whom Luther does not appear to be breathing heavenly severity. Thus
everywhere people grow warm, catch fire, and blaze with a fiery fervor,”
etc. **

The prophecies about Luther from the histories

§ 292. We can supply far more prophecies like this from the history of
the church. In the ecclesias cal hymn of Ambrose and Augus ne “We
Praise You, O Lord” [Te Deum laudamus], etc., the numeral le ers in the
verse “To You cherubim and seraphim con nually do cry” [tIbI CherVbIn et
seraphIn InCessabILI VoCe proCLaMant] add up to 1517, the year in which
Luther began the work of reforma on.
 ** Dresserus (Millen. 6, part 2, p. 352) men ons that in the year 1266
there was a duke in a Saxon household who was called Luther. **
Wolf, Cent. 3, p. 73, from [Flacius] Illyricus: “In a prophecy included in a
song, to which the name ‘Sibyl’ was a ributed, other things are clearly
foretold as well as the exile and return of powerful people because of true
piety. There is also a predic on of the destruc on of the imagined church
and of the true succession.” (With the expression “imagined church,” the
essence and form of the Papist church is expressed very aptly, for certainly
it does have an appearance of piety, but it rejects the power and efficacy
thereof and places all things in external rites and ceremonies.) But now, it
is not evident that any princes from the me of Christ onward have been
exiled because of true piety and later returned, as happened in our century
in the case of the electors of Saxony and of Cologne, who instead of a
return to any earthly rule and the longer enjoyment thereof preferred to
migrate to the heavenly kingdom. The very devout Prince O o Henry,
Count Albert, Caspar Pflug, the Bohemian baron, and other outstanding
and illustrious men also went into exile. Abbot Joachim on Jeremiah 24: “I
do not doubt that the wrath of God will come upon the rectors and leaders
of the churches because they not only hinder service to God but even
corrupt God’s Word.”
Around the year 1152 Frederick Barbarossa constructed a temple in
Carinthia that was called das große Thums bei Igingen im Wüsterthal
[“the great collegiate cathedral by Igingen in the Wüster Valley”]. He
decorated it with various pictures and statues, among which has been
found a stone statue that had the form of a monk with a tonsure, whose
body was girt with a cord. Over the head was wri en with capital le ers
“LUTHERUS.” (Theoph. Paracelsus reports this in his descrip on of
Carinthia that was printed in Strasbourg, f. 250.)
** Richard of Armagh in Ireland, the first bishop, was highly skilled in
both law and theology. He translated the New Testament into Irish a year
or two before his death and hid it in a wall of the temple. At the end of that
transla on, he prophesied, so to speak, and wrote: “When this book is
found, the truth will be revealed to the en re world or Christ will soon
appear to the world.” That book was discovered around 1530 by an old
watchman in the repair of that temple. The book was hidden in 1358, for
Richard is said to have died in 1360. (This is reported from Balaeus by Wolf,
Memorab., vol. 1, p. 643.) **
In the year 1415, John Huss was burned at Constance contrary to the
promise given by Emperor Sigismund. Shortly before his death, Huss
(whose name in Bohemian means “goose”) said with prophe c spirit:
“Today you burn a goose. But a er a hundred years, a swan will arise from
my ashes, and you will not be able to roast it.” Luther refers himself to this
prophecy (Glossa super edict. caesar., Wi enberg edi on, vol. 6, p. 169;
Jena German, vol. 5, f. 321), wri ng as follows: “St. John Huss prophesied
about me when he wrote from prison in Bohemia that they would now
roast a goose, for Huss means ‘goose,’ but a hundred years from now they
would hear a swan singing. They will have to endure that swan. That is
where the ma er shall rest if God so wills it.” (See Rabus, De martyribus,
and Aegidius Salius, Ora o de Joh. Huss.)
** Treutler’s Carmen de Joh. Husso:
You were a goose, and the Roman crowd burned you.
Because you cried out too much against the pope, you were a goose.
The fates, however, had their revenge, for a swan was found,
Namely, he of whom the greatest voice sang:
“A fire consumed the holy body of St. Huss.
A er Huss a swan sings in the blind world.”
Fickle Constance killed steadfast Huss
Who was already burning for Christ when he went to the pyre.
Let a hundred years pass; then you will tell the case to Christ
And to me, when a swan will be the avenger of the goose. **

At the same me Jerome of Prague, a pupil of Huss, also predicted the

reforma on of Luther with these words: “A er a hundred years you will
answer to God and to me,” according to Poggius, a spectator of Jerome’s
execu on, in a Le er ad Leonem Are num. The Bohemians later took care
to stamp and impress these words on a coin with a likeness of John Huss.
** This is according to Petrus Ma haeus, historiographer of the king of
France, bk. 2. This is something we should note against Gretserus, who
wrote in his Comm. de duob. numm., p. 43:
Is it really true, as the crowd says, that Huss the goose made a prophecy about Luther the
swan? Also, is it really true, as they say, that on the day of his execu on Huss told the
orthodox: “A er a hundred years you will answer to God and to me”? I shall not inves gate
this too carefully. For I know what a proclivity there is, especially among here cs, to make
up oracular u erances and to peddle such fic on to the ignorant crowd, as if a here c were
 not a here c if some other here c foretells or foreknows something about him by impulse
of either God or the devil.

It should also be noted against Pistorius, who wrote in Le er 3 ad Pappum:

“Preachers are not ashamed to fake a prophecy in order to swell their
vanity more. For instance, it is supposed to have been heard from the
mouth of Huss when he was about to die that they were then cooking a
goose, but that a er a hundred years there would come a swan which
would sing be er and which no one would roast. Where is this? In what
author, book, folio? In what delirium, dream, or fit of madness? Give the
tes mony or admit that it is a shameful fable.” **
Jacobus Schopperus (Chorographia) reports that when Emperor
Sigismund saw the reforma on of the Council of Constance going up in
smoke, his heart was very sad. Once, when he was res ng in Pressburg
[Possenii] in Hungary, there appeared to him in a dream a man of
honorable appearance wearing the habit of a priest, who told him: “In a
me to come the errors of the pope and his priests will be revealed
through learned men who, with the aid of some princes, will reform the
church according to the Word of God.”
** Hieronymus Savonarola of Ferrara, who orally and in his wri ngs had
set himself against the pope and his doctrine, was burned in Florence, Italy,
by order of Pope Alexander VI. Sylvester of Florence and Dominicus of Pisa
also perished with him. We read that shortly before the end of his life, this
Savonarola said: “In a short me it will happen that the abominable
idolatries of the Roman pope will be punished, and a great teacher will be
raised up whom no one will be able to resist.” Luther was born in the very
year when Savonarola was burned, 1483, on November 10. **
Wolf (Lect. memorab., cent. 1, p. 3) observes that great mysteries have
been hidden in the names of Moses and of Christ. If you reduce the name
Μωυσῆς into numbers, it makes 1648. If you count backward that many
years from Christ’s death, you come to the year of the world 2348. About
that me, a priest involved with divina ons told King Amenhotep to pay
a en on to the sons of the Hebrews because one was going to be born
who would lead the Israelites out of Egypt and would humiliate the
kingdom of Egypt. (This is according to Josephus and Lyra.) So also, the
name “Christ,” reduced to numbers, gives 1,480 years. The χ is 600, ρ is
100, ι is 10, σ is 200, τ is 300, ο is 70, and ς is 200. When added, these
numbers total 1,480. Around the end of that many years a er the birth of
Christ, all the seers, mys cs, and prophets—Lubertus Hanschild, Wessel, St.
Vincent, Purveus, Barath, Capistrano, Torquatus, Savonarola, Fr. Nicolaus
the Hermit, Alb. Leicheisen, Fr. Fleck, Jacobus de Paradiso, Wessalia,
Capgrave, Herm. Rhid, Bap sta Mantuanus, Kikel, Laurent. Miniatensis, D.
Johan. Scheyring, Hilten, Horius, Bovillus, Syringius, Andreas Proles,
Mancinellus, Mellerstadius, Castrik, Salhusius, and many others—shouted
with one mouth that the Gospel had been defiled miserably, obliterated,
and almost lost from the church because of the abuses and filth of papal
tradi ons. They foretold that a reforma on of the church and religion was
imminent and that a man would be born who would purge the teaching of
the Gospel, clean it of its filthiness, and restore the light of divine truth to
the world. This all happened in the case of Mar n Luther, who was born in
1483, in the same year that Hieronymus Savonarola, the great herald of
the free mercy of God and of the righteousness of faith, was burned at
Florence. A prophecy of this Savonarola is men oned, that someone like
Cyrus would cross the Alps and lay waste to the en re church. It seems
that this should be taken to refer to the spiritual destruc on of the Papist
church through the preaching of the Gospel.
** Savonarola was a Dominican monk, a man famous for his learning
and piety. (He was called a “holy prophet” by Count Johannes Picus
Mirandulanus, who defended Savonarola against the pope in his own
book.) Savonarola was burned at Florence by Alexander VI because he had
publicly condemned several Papist errors. This Hieronymus taught that
God’s church needed reforma on and that this would follow in a short
me (according to Nauclerus; Balaeus; the Catal. test. verit.; Osiander,
cent. 16, p. 15). **
About the same me, John Hilten, a monk of Eisenach, prophesied
about Luther. We read the following about him in the Apology of the
Augsburg Confession, tle De vo s monas cis [XXVII 1–3]:
Among us in the town of Eisenach in Thuringia there was a Franciscan, John Hilten, who
thirty years ago was thrown into prison by his fellowship because he had protested against
some very notorious abuses. […] He foretold many things, some of which seem to have
happened already, while others seem s ll to impend, etc. Finally, he became sick either
because of his age or the filthiness of his prison. He sent for his guardian to tell him of his
sickness. The guardian became inflamed with pharisaic hatred and scolded John severely
because of his kind of teaching, which seemed to be harmful to the kitchen. John then made
 no men on of his illness but said with a sigh that he was bearing those injus ces pa ently
for the sake of Christ, because he had neither wri en nor taught anything that could
undermine the estate of monks but had merely protested against some known abuses. “But
another man,” he said, “will come in AD 1516. He will destroy you, and you will be unable to
resist him.” This very statement about the decline of the reign of the monks and this number
of years his friends also found later, wri en in his commentaries among the annota ons that
he had le on some passages of Daniel.

(See Conrad Porta and Mathesius, De Luthero; Dresserus, Millenarium

Sextum, p. 38; Wolf, Memor., centur. 16, p. 4; etc.)
** The abbots themselves, though unknowingly, prefigured the
reforma on of religion that Luther accomplished. At the birth of Emperor
Charles V in 1500, they brought to the bap stery as a gi the Old and New
Testaments with the inscrip on: “Search the Scriptures.” **
In 1502, when the Academy of Wi enberg was being built under the
auspices of Frederick the Wise, there was a monk in the monastery of
Steinlausick, Dr. Fleck. Because he, along with the others, was involved in
the inaugura on of the academy, he delivered a sermon in which, among
other things, he said, “From this White Mountain the whole world will
receive wisdom.” In 1517, when Fleck read Luther’s first theses on
indulgences, he leaped up and cried for joy: “He surely will do it! He whom
we have long awaited has come! He has come!” (Mathesius and Conrad
Porta, De Luthero).
A prophecy was spread about that elector, Frederick the Wise: “A ruler
will recover the tomb of the Lord and will avenge it.” In his book De abusu
et profanat. missae, Luther interprets this as follows: “With the assen ng
votes of the electors, an emperor has been elected. Under his rule, Holy
Scripture—in which, as in a tomb, the Papists had buried the slain Christ,
who is truth itself, and which the monas c orders and here cal inquisitors
of corrup on have guarded anxiously, lest it be revealed to the uneducated
people—has emerged and shone forth very brightly.” At the same me,
that is, in the year 1502, Count Franciscus Picus Mirandulanus, in a Le er
ad Maximilianum I., wrote among other things: “Come, good Emperor,
arise, in so far as you are able: show yourself a faithful minister to the
Chris an kings who have been raised up, [and] to Christ the King of all
kings, who will now free His sheep both from enemies and from the
treacherous priests.”
 Michael S felius once said that formerly, when he s ll dwelt among the
monks and sacrificers, he had very o en heard them tell that “there were
ancient prophecies that a violent reforma on of sacrificers would s ll take
place at some me.” He said that his father, Conrad S felius, around 1503
frequently used these words in his sermons: “This is going to happen
surely and in a short me.”
Dr. Johann Geiler von Kaisersberg, preacher at Strasbourg, complained
bi erly about the corrup ons of religion and even foretold the future
correc on of religion, saying, “I think that there will come some man who
has been divinely raised up to restore religion.” In fact, he earnestly desired
to see the day that would bring to pass such a correc on.
Clemen us Clemen nus Amerinus, trea se De peste, published around
1505: “Those seven great conjunc ons of the three superior planets—
which were under Cancer last year, 1504 or thereabouts—will decree a
much greater newness of ma ers before 1515; for they signify at these
mes a change of air, barrenness, poverty, wars, and a very great newness
in 1513. They will raise up a very powerful lord who will destroy the false
religion of the faithless and subject a great part of the world to his
dominion.”
Around the year 1507 Dr. Johannes Scheyringius preached: “The higher
the papacy has exalted itself, the deeper it will be cast down. Unless this
happens very soon, we shall no longer be able to preach without injuring
our conscience. And so, God will send a restorer for His church, and he will
bring His Word out into public view and pull it out of the darkness with
which it has been covered.” (Wolf, Cent. 16, p. 13.)
** According to the calcula on of Abraham Bucholzer (Index.
chronolog.) in 1517 BC the church of the Old Testament, that is, the people
of Israel, was being led through the Red Sea and out of Egyp an slavery. In
the 1517th year a er the Lord’s birth, the sorely afflicted church of the
New Testament emerged from slavery to the Roman pharaoh and from a
darkness darker than that of Egypt. **
In 1508 when Luther was burdened with his studies at Erfurt and
became seriously ill, an old sacrificer came to visit him and said: “Be
confident, bachelor, you will not die. You will turn out to be a great man
and will be able to comfort many people.” (Mathesius, Vita Lutheri.)
 In 1511 Mar n Pollichnius Mellerstadius—a philosopher, physician, and
theologian—said in regard to Luther: “This monk will upset all the doctors,
he will hold forth a new doctrine, he will reform the Roman church. You
see, he works with the prophe c and apostolic books; he relies on Christ’s
words, which no one can resist.” This statement of Mellerstadius agrees
with the judgment of Nicolaus Ulnerus, vicar of Cologne, an eighty-year-old
man, who read Luther’s wri ngs in 1520 and said: “There is an omen in
each le er of his name in this way: Lux Vera To us Ecclesiae Romanae”
[“true light of the whole Roman church”]. (Philipp Melanchthon, Conrad
Porta, and Mathesius, De vita Lutheri.)
** Dukes Frederick and John of Saxony, who were brothers, in the year when Luther in
November first published his proposi ons on indulgences, came out of the temple at
Weimar a er midnight on Christmas with the la er’s son, Duke John Frederick, along with a
large re nue. In the quiet sky above the citadel they saw a crimson cross glowing quite large
and with its figure expressed clearly. While the shocked viewers stood there for a long me,
the brothers began to speak about religion and prophesied that that sign portended coming
struggles over doctrine and perils to the Saxon household.

(Lauren us Lindemann, Orat. de Johanne duce Saxoniae. Job. Fincelius also

reports this, and from him, Wolf, Memor., vol. 2, p. 77; see this.) At the
me when Luther began the work of reforma on, this was a common
prophecy: “When Emperor Frederick comes, he will free the holy tomb of
the Lord.” But because prophecies are such that they are fulfilled more
quickly than they are understood, so also it happened in this case. For
Elector Frederick, duke of Saxony (under whom Luther began to reform the
papacy), was chosen emperor at Frankfurt by the unanimous agreement of
the electors. He actually had been emperor, if he had merely given his
assent. Because of his advanced age, however, he designated Charles V as
emperor and asked him with his own vote. But likewise, it is God’s business
how long anyone is emperor, provided he be the emperor. Therefore this
Emperor Frederick, elector of Saxony, through the preaching ministry of Dr.
Luther, then freed the tomb from its guardian monks and priests; and the
tomb is Holy Scripture (in which the truth of Christ, killed by the Papists,
long lay buried, which the mendicants and inquisitors of here cal
corrup on had guarded, lest the disciples of Christ come and take it away).
(See Luther, vol. 2, and Wolf, vol. 2, p. 114.) **
 About the same me, that is, in 1511, Johan. Syringius, doctor of
theology and canon of the high temple, o en complained: “The truth has
been corrupted wretchedly. Therefore a reformer is going to come” (Catal.
tes um verita s).
In 1512 the vicar-general and en re assembly of Augus nian brothers
concluded that Brother Luther should be promoted to professor of
theology. Staupitz, in the name of them all, reported this to Luther under a
tree in the monastery of Wi enberg. Luther, however, made the excuse
that he was of delicate health and suggested that they should look for a
man more suitable and of confirmed health. Staupitz then replied: “We can
see that our Lord God will soon have much to do both in heaven and on
earth. Consequently, He will have to have much younger and hard-working
doctors through whom to carry out His business, whether you live or die.
Therefore as God grants you in His counsel, may you then follow and carry
out whatever your convent gives you to do.” (Philipp Melanchthon and
Mathesius, De Luthero.)
In regard to the same Staupitz, Mathesius men ons that Staupitz heard
in the Roman court that the rumor once spread that “a hermit would grope
for the papal crown.” He jokingly remarked to Luther: “I had thought a
hermit was going to do it. Now I note clearly that it will be an Augus nian
monk.”
In the Porta coeli, the Augus nian monk Henningus tells the following
story about Dr. Andreas Proles, provincial of the Augus nian monks at
Leipzig (who lived around 1512 and whom Luther saw and heard while s ll
a young man at Magdeburg):
During my life me, the prior of our monastery was Dr. Andreas Proles, a learned man of
Leipzig with great spirit and good zeal for the Chris an people. I o en heard him say in the
midst of his lecturing: “My brothers, you hear the witness of Holy Scripture that we are what
we are by grace and that whatever we have we have by grace. From where, then, do such
dark and terrible supers ons come? My brothers, the Chris an world needs a great and
strong reforma on, which I see is now already imminent.” When the brothers asked him
why he did not begin the reforma on and set himself against errors, he would respond: “My
brothers, you see that I am of very old age, weak in body and powers. I know that I am not
endowed with the sort of teaching ability, diligence, and eloquence that this cause
demands. Instead, the Lord will raise up a hero, excellent in age, powers, diligence, teaching
ability, talent, and eloquence. He will begin the reforma on; he will oppose the errors. God
will give him courage to dare to speak against the great men. You will find out about his
salutary ministry through God’s benefac on.” He was also in the habit of saying in his
 lectures: “The power of the pope threatens great destruc on because it has grown too lo y
and too quickly.”

(Catal. test. verit.; Dresserus, Millenarium Sextum, p. 40; Wolf, Centur. 16,
p. 32.)
In 1521 when Luther was on his way to Worms, a man carrying a
wooden cross met him and cried out: “You have come, O desirable one!
We were wai ng for you in the darkness.”
We could cite many more such things from Nicholas of Cusa, Hildegard,
Johannes Lichtenbergius, Wessel of Groningen, Bap sta Mantuanus,
Franciscus Nicolaus the Hermit, etc.
Section XIII: On the Thirteenth Mark of the
Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The
Confession of Adversaries: Whether the
confession of adversaries is a true mark of the church
§ 293. The first sec on. Is the confession of adversaries a genuine and
proper mark of the church? We admit that the power of the truth is so
great that its adversaries themselves some mes give tes mony to it
unknowingly or unwillingly. Augus ne says: “Open truth strikes even closed
eyes.” Bellarmine refers Deut. 32:31 to this: “Our God is not as their” (the
Gen les’) “gods” (the Hebrew reads: “Their rock is not as our Rock”) “even
our enemies themselves being judges,” that is, even in the judgment and
confession of the heathen themselves.
** Nova an, De Trinit., ch. 18: “The category of proof that is taken even
from an adversary is firm, so that the truth is proved even from enemies.”
**
In addi on, we admit that the tes mony that an enemy gives to the
truth is of very great weight, because it is rightly judged to have come not
from a preconceived affec on but from the power of the truth itself.
Irenaeus, bk. 4, ch. 14: “That is a true proof and the least liable to
contradic on which is elicited from the statements of our adversaries.”
Yet at the same me, we cannot yet acknowledge the confession of
adversaries as a true and genuine mark of the church. Here are our
reasons. (1) It is not perpetual. It certainly does happen that enemies
some mes give witness to the truth. This, however, is neither universal nor
perpetual, for at mes adversaries are so stubborn and obs nate that they
are unwilling to give tes mony to a clear and obvious truth. Because of
this, however, the church and the doctrine that sounds in the church lose
nothing.
(2) It is not very well-known. How will the tes mony be sure and
infallible when it comes from a person who has not perceived the nature of
true doctrine and the church or, if he has perceived it, has been unwilling
to embrace that doctrine or to associate himself with that church?
 (3) It is not essen al. Even if the church lacks the confession of its
adversaries, it nevertheless is and remains the true church. The heathen
persecuted the church of the Israelites, yet they were far from giving it the
tes mony of truth. Nonetheless the Israelite church was the true church. In
John 5:34 Christ says: “I do not accept tes mony from man.” That is, the
tes mony of men is not absolutely and simply necessary to Me, but
nevertheless I am the true Messiah and Savior of the world, even if no
human believes this nor witnesses to it. We can say the same thing about
Christ’s church, that it does not of necessity need to have human witness
and commenda on, but that the divine witness is enough for it.
(4) It does not belong [to the church] alone. As in some ma ers here cs
praise catholics, so also in some ma ers catholics do not disapprove of
heathen and here cs. The apostle even cites some tes monies from the
poets of the heathen, but he did not approve the en re religion of the
heathen just because of that. Cyprian valued the wri ngs of Tertullian so
much that he let no day pass without reading them. He frequently told his
secretary: “Bring me the master,” meaning Tertullian. Yet as far as Tertullian
is concerned, an quity judged that he had been bewitched by here cal
ideas. Augus ne praises the rules of Tyconius in his book De doctrina
Chris ana, yet he denies that Tyconius should be considered a son of the
church. The Papist writers themselves praise some things in the heathen
and here cs, yet they do not give the praise of the true church to either
heathen or here cs. Acosta, De procuranda Indorum salute, bk. 6, ch. 14:
We certainly cannot conceal how deeply we must blush at the fact that we are surpassed by
the Indian ministers of Satan, because we are lazier in persuading them toward salutary
confessions than the heathen are toward their savage and murdering ones. Some mes they
willingly allow their priests to beat them across their shoulders with a hard stone to expiate
adultery or some other crime, or their young men to beat them with s cks for a long me.
Not rarely, if the gravity of their wickedness seems to demand something more harsh, they
accept the penalty of going off to a lo y crag des tute of every comfort and living there for
a long me like animals.

Pimenta, Epist. de India orient., p. 110: “Among those Indians there was no
the or robbery. Therefore when they go outside, they do not lock the
doors of their houses. We were certainly surprised when, as we climbed
the mountains, we came upon their wide-open villas, yet we never found
anyone in them.” Just as among the heathen they preach an outward life of
holiness, so also in the case of here cs they preach the truth with respect
to some ar cles. Maldonatus, on Ma hew 8: “We would not men on by
name the author of the Opus imperfectum, which is incorrectly a ributed
to Chrysostom, because he is of the Arian heresy, except that his authority
and learning and subtlety of interpreta on have given him authority. By
the same logic we o en cite Tertullian and others whom we know to be
here cs.”

Whether the tes mony of adversaries is given to the Roman

church
§ 294. The second sec on. Is the Roman church the true church
according to the confession of its adversaries? In the first place Bellarmine
cites the tes monies of pagans, Jews, Turks, and Arians. Yet these were
given not about the Roman church as it is today, but about the Chris an,
catholic church. In the Roman church today, very serious corrup ons of
both doctrine and behavior reign. Those corrup ons are detested even by
the pagans, Jews, and Turks, and by them they are frightened away from
the Chris an faith. When a man of great authority among the Indians was
brought to Bap sm, he asked a Chris an where the Spaniards went a er
death. The Chris an answered that the good would live in heaven, the
wicked in hell. The Indian then asked: “But where will the greatest part of
them live?” “In heaven, undoubtedly, for most are good,” replied the
Chris an. “Then I,” said the Indian, “do not want to be taken into that
heaven. I would rather live in a place as far away from that as possible, for I
know that things are going to turn out badly for them.” The selected
cardinals in the Consilum de emenda one ecclesiae, given to Paul III: “Your
holiness should believe those who know that the infidels deride the
Chris an religion especially for this reason: that the name of Christ is being
blasphemed through us—yes, through us.” The ruler of the Turks generally
calls the Roman pon ff a “king of fools” for endowing cardinals with the
bare tles of bishoprics that are located in far distant lands and are not
subject to his power. There is also a well-known wi cism of a Jew who,
when he was about to be bap zed at Rome, said that he was quite happy
to believe in the God of the Chris ans, who could endure such disgraceful
ac vi es with an even mind. These tes monies to the Roman pope and
Roman church are hardly complimentary.
 Therefore Bellarmine tries something else and appeals to the tes mony
of Luther that he writes in his book Contra Anabap stas: “We admit that
most of what is under the papacy is good and Chris an; in fact, everything
good and Chris an is under the papacy, and from it they have also come
down to us. Indeed, we also admit that in the papacy there is the true Holy
Scripture, true Bap sm, the true Sacrament of the Altar, the true Keys for
the remission of sins, the true office of preaching, the true catechism, such
as are the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the ar cles of faith.
In addi on, I say that under the papacy there is true Chris anity and, in
fact, the true kernel of Chris anity.”
We respond. It is one thing to speak about the papacy, but it is another
to speak about the church under the papacy. The An christ sits “in the
temple of God” [2 Thess. 2:4], that is, in the church. Therefore the
An christ is one thing while the church of God, toward which he exercises
his power, is something else. To the An christ and his kingdom belong the
corrup ons, supers ons, and idolatries that flourish in the papacy. To the
church of God, which lies among the papacy like grain among the straw,
belong Holy Scripture, Bap sm, and the other goods that Luther lists.
Therefore we must separate the precious from the vile, the divine from the
human, the Chris an from the an -Chris an, the catholic from the
here cal, as one can understand from what we have wri en earlier. “The
meaning of statements must be sought from the causes for speaking.” Here
Luther is speaking against the Anabap sts who were arguing that those
who had been bap zed in the Roman church had to be rebap zed. To
oppose them Luther proves that the Roman church by the grace of God s ll
holds on to true Bap sm and other good things. Papal filth and rubbish,
therefore, must be wiped off those things that are precious and divine, and
one must not reject the good, precious, and divine together with the papal
addi ons and filth.
When the Apology of the Augsburg Confession [V (III) 90] calls Bernard,
Dominic, and Francis “saints,” it does so not in the Papist sense, as if we
canonized all that they said and did. This, rather, is a case of using “saint”
in a general sense of the word. In the ar cle on jus fica on Bernard had
some light. He rebuked the merits of works; he did not acknowledge that
monarchic power which is a ributed to the Roman pon ff today; he
denied the powers of the free will in spiritual ma ers; and in many ar cles
he disagreed with Papist doctrine; and, finally, at the end of his life, he fled
for refuge in true faith to the merit of Christ alone. Because of this we can
call him a “saint” and “blessed.” Dominic and Francis were supers ous.
Thus we cannot call them saints except according to the hypothesis of the
adversaries and their common custom of speaking. Who of us would
approve of the following prodigious praises? “Francis observed the en re
Gospel to the le er. He was free of every sin to the last detail. He was
greater than John the Bap st, be er than the apostles. He came out of
Christ’s wounded side. It was said of him that he was given as a light to the
Gen les.” Also: “Kings will walk in the brightness of your rising.” We find all
of these things about St. Francis in the Liber conformitatum. Who of us
would approve of what Archbishop Antoninus wrote about Dominic? “It is
be er to go to Christ through him than through Paul.” And as he goes over
all the parts of Christ’s life and through all His miracles, he always
a ributes the first ones to Dominic.

Whether the Papists give the tes mony of truth to evangelical

doctrine
§ 295. The third sec on. Do the Papists themselves grant the tes mony
of truth to our doctrine? Here Bellarmine declares confidently that
nowhere is it found that Catholics have approved of either the doctrine or
life of our people.
We respond. (1) This proves their hatred and envy. It does not prove
that there is nothing worthy of praise in our doctrine or life.
(2) The Index expurgatorius is a witness that whatever passages make
honorable men on of our people have been deleted from Papist writers.
How, then, do they dare to demand that we produce the tes mony of our
adversaries?
(3) Even if our adversaries do not approve of our life and doctrine, it is
enough that God approves of them (John 5:44; Rom. 2:29; 2 Cor. 10:18).
(4) It is false to say that none of our adversaries approved of our
doctrine or life. ** At this me we shall omit the Calvinists. Admonit. de
libro concord. Neostadii, 1581, p. 198:
There is no argument, nor do any of the churches and wise, pious people deny, that God
equipped Luther with many excellent gi s and virtues: genius, the light of heavenly
 doctrine, erudi on, eloquence, prudence, wisdom, zeal for the glory of God, an
unconquerable greatness of heart against all assaults; and that God shaped him and raised
him up to free the church of Christ, which had been terribly oppressed in these last days by
the tyranny and darkness of the An christ, into the liberty and light of the Gospel and to
destroy a great part of the kingdom of the An christ. By his counsel, many great
ecclesias cal and poli cal issues were governed and handled happily. And undoubtedly God
granted prosperous successes and peace while Luther was alive largely because of the ardor
of Luther’s faith and prayers. Shortly a er his death that peace began to be disturbed as the
world suffered the penal es of its ingra tude. If we did not acknowledge and celebrate
these benefac ons of God, we would be ungrateful and impious. **

At the Diet of Worms in 1518, Maximilian I told Degenhart Pfeffinger,

counselor of the elector of Saxony: “Tell the elector to protect this monk
for us carefully, for shall we enjoy his work for [only] a brief me?” When
the bishop of Winchester was near death, another bishop admonished him
about obtaining jus fica on only through the blood of Christ. The former
replied: “It is dangerous to open up this crack to the people. This doctrine
can be revealed and uncovered safely only to me and to people like me
who are set in similar circumstances” (Fox, Martyr., p. 1788). In the Diet of
Augsburg our adversaries admi ed that “the Confession” which our people
offered the emperor “cannot be refuted from Holy Scripture.” When
Emperor Charles himself heard the reading of our Confession, it is wri en
that he said: “I want people to teach in this way throughout the whole
world.”
** In 1597 a Catholic pamphlet was published at Constance. It had been
printed thirty-one years before that. The Catholic Johann Hoffmeister had
wri en a censure over it in which he declared: “The Lutheran confession or
religion must not be condemned in every part. In some ways it can be
approved and accepted” (Wolf, Cent. 16, p. 980). Casparus Northausen, a
famous Papist, published at Cologne a book called De Lutheranorum cum
Papis s concordia in which he says: “The Lutherans differ from the Papists
in twenty-one ar cles, and thirteen of those are evangelical or apostolic.
With the rest, they are such that they can easily be united and made one.”
The judgment of Erasmus about Luther (in Jena La n, vol. 2, f. 331a):
“Persons through which something is done are suspect, though all the best
people who are closest to evangelical doctrine are said to be not at all
offended by Luther. Those who a ack Luther bring in those things that no
pious ears endure. The world has a thirst for evangelical truth and seems to
be carried here by a fatal desire, and for this reason it must be resisted
strongly, not to say hatefully.” **
As Duke William of Bavaria returned home from the reading of that
Confession, he went to the inn and called John Eck to account with these
words: “Up to this me I have been told far different and more terrible
things about Luther’s doctrine than I myself heard today. You indeed gave
me a great hope that that doctrine could be easily refuted.” Eck responded:
“The teaching of the Protestants can indeed be refuted from the wri ngs
of the fathers, but not from Holy Scripture.” William then said: “Then, so
far as I hear, the Lutherans have the basis and founda ons of their teaching
in the Holy Scriptures, but we Papists have them outside of the Scriptures.”
And William turned away from Eck and le . Another man of great name
and authority is then reported to have said: “Truly our teachers do an
outstanding job of defending us. They themselves confess that our religion
and those things for which we are willing to fight, as if they were our altars
and hearths, are not founded on Holy Writ.”
Bishop Christophorus Stadius (or a Stain) of Augsburg said this in his
private conversa ons: “Those things that they have said are true. They are
the pure truth. We cannot deny them.” The same man warned the Papist
princes and bishops that “in this case they should act piously and
prudently, inasmuch as the Lutherans were teaching nothing that was not
in harmony with the ar cles of faith.” It was revealed that even some of
the cardinals had declared: “The cause of the Protestants is just and their
doctrine is correct. Yet such a change of doctrine and rituals must not be
undertaken at the whim of so few, but on the advice and assistance of
many.” (See the account of that diet in [Luther’s works,] Jena German, vol.
5, and in the Ora o de vita Johannis Constan s Saxoniae electoris of
Rosinus.)
Emperor Ferdinand summoned Mathesius to Prague and said: “Go
home and teach your people according to the Augsburg Confession as you
have done so far.” And, in 1564, shortly before his death, he said: “If I must
abandon the Roman church, I will go over to the Lutherans who, I see, are
keeping God’s Word and believe correctly about the Sacraments. They do
not have doub ul opinions, as do the Anabap st and Calvinist sects.
Instead, they defend themselves with the tes monies of Scripture, which is
the only way to obtain the victory before God and men.” Dr. Joh. Naevius
heard this from the mouth of Ferdinand and noted it along with his other
pious and wise words.
Maximilian told Elector Augustus of Saxony: “I am a brother of your
faith and doctrine, but please show me the way to free myself from the
labyrinths in which I am entangled and stuck.” When Selnecker, at the
bidding of the elector, offered him his Psalterium, he heard him say very
kindly and in the presence of the vice-chancellor Zasius, among other
things: “I am advised about imita ng the examples of Constan ne,
Theodosius, and Marcian. I acknowledge their piety, but who am I? And
what and how much can I accomplish? Pray for me, a wretched man who,
by God’s grace, will live and die in your doctrine, which is comprehended in
the Augsburg Confession.”
** The knight Ulrich von Hu en: “To the cardinals, abbots, bishops,
provosts, and the en re council of priests now a acking Luther and the
cause of truth and freedom at Worms: become reasonable. I see that you
are using your power to oppress equity and to run roughshod over the
laws, etc. At mes I see you use crime and inequity to afflict, wound, and
revile Mar n Luther, a man so approved of life and behavior that not even
you, his enemies, disapprove him, a preacher of truth and most faithful
dispenser of evangelical doctrine.” Joannes Cellarius (De Luthero, Leipzig,
1520) wrote in this vein:
“I say most truly that our Mar n treats Holy Scripture with such
trustworthiness that he takes the palm far ahead of his Italian, Greek, and
Hebrew adversaries. I say even more that Mar n loves the truth of the
Gospel more than all his adversaries do. The wri ngs of his which I have
diligently perused up to this me please me so much that no pope, no
cardinal, no monk, however savage he may be, can pull me away from
them.” When Ma hew Scheiner, bishop and cardinal of Sion, first read
some of Luther’s wri ngs, he added: “O Luther, Luther! You really are
Luther and clean according to your name.” Scheiner also responded
promptly to a person who promised that he would soon bring good news
about Eck’s victory against Luther, deba ng at Leipzig: “Let Eck debate
about whatever he pleases. Luther writes nothing except the truth!” (Wolf,
vol. 2, p. 181.) In 1522 Henricus Phaenicius published a paper in which he
supplies a unique witness for Luther in the following words: “The good,
devout Chris an man, Mar n Luther, is trying with his greatest effort to
pull us out of a Babylonian cap vity. We are blind, however, and are willing
and pleased to stay in bondage. We should rather have given thanks to
God that He sent Luther to us like an Elijah in our distress. We should have
prayed without ceasing for the life of so great a man, but we are not yet
saying these things. We even want to kill him. Behold, our salva on is
knocking at our door, but we keep the door bolted.” Wenceslaus
Rosdialovin., provost at Prague, said: “The Spirit of Christ is at work in the
church through Luther.” In a le er to him it reads: “What John Huss was in
Bohemia, you are in Saxony, Mar n. Con nue in the Lord! Do not place too
much confidence in men. Fear not if they strike you with their anathema.
Do not be surprised that what happened to the apostles and to Christ
Himself also happens to you.” **
In each and every controversy we are prepared to cite witnesses of our
adversaries to confirm our posi on. Poggius, the Floren ne (Le er ad
Leonard. Are num), provides a glowing tes monial of piety, virtue, and
pa ence to John Huss and Jerome of Prague. As far as Luther is concerned,
whom the Jesuits of today bury with wagonloads of insults, Erasmus writes
(Le er ad praesulem Mogun num):
I see that no good man is offended by Luther’s wri ngs. I am not Luther’s accuser nor his
judge nor his patron. I would not dare pass judgment on the man’s spirit, for that is most
difficult, especially toward the worse side. Yet if I befriend him as a good man (which is what
his enemies also admit), if I treat him as guilty (which is what the laws allow even to sworn
judges), if I treat him as an oppressed man (which is what my humanity dictates), what
finally is the envy on the part of those who devote their minds to a pretense and pretext and
make charges against good literature, provided the cases do not interfere with me?

Frederick the Wise, elector of Saxony, summoned Erasmus to Cologne to

appear before him and asked him what he thought of Luther. Erasmus gave
this answer: “The cause of that hatred lies in this: that Luther has
commi ed two very serious sins in a acking the bellies of monks and the
crown of the pope with his disputa ons. His doctrine is true and certain;
but I wish and desire that he would moderate his style against his
adversaries.” Lauren us a Bibrach, bishop of Würzburg, having been
consulted by Frederick, wrote to him in the same vein and added praise for
Luther’s extraordinary prudence and integrity, which were renowned
throughout the empire. He added: “I have explored the judgment of many
learned men about this subject.” (These things are reported by Manlius,
Collectan.; Con nua o Crantzii; Chytraeus, Histor. orbis Arctoi; etc.)
** The Englishman Thomas Draxe (Angelica praemoni o, p. 33) calls
Luther “a man of very great rarity, divinely sent to illumine the whole
world.” Petrus Mosellanus, Epistola de colloquio Lipsiensi inter Lutherum et
Eccium 1519:
Mar n is of medium height and thin body, exhausted by his anxie es and studies equally, so
that one who looks closely can almost count all his bones. He is s ll of virile and
unweakened age. His voice is sharp and clear. His teaching and knowledge of Scripture are
so remarkable that he has almost all of it in readiness. He has learned Greek and Hebrew so
much that he can pass judgments about interpreta ons. He does not lack the ability for
speaking, for he has an immense forest of things and words at hand. Furthermore, in his life
and behavior he is civil and courteous. He behaves not as a Stoic, nor is he haughty. In fact,
he acts as a man well-disposed at all mes. In conversa ons he is jovial, pleasant, lively, and
untroubled. His happy face blooms everywhere always, regardless of the savagery his foes
threaten, so that you would quickly believe that the man was undertaking such arduous
tasks at God’s direc on. As to that which almost everyone a aches to him as a fault—that in
rebuking he is a li le more shameless and bi ng than is safe for an innovator in religious
ma ers or than is fi ng for a theologian—I do not know whether he does not have that
fault in common with all who are late in learning.

Dr. Mellerstadius said of Luther: “As you grow up, pay careful a en on to
the monk Luther, for he has been endowed with the sort of talent that no
one else has. He certainly will turn out to be a most outstanding man.” Dr.
Johann von Staupitz is reported to have said to Luther: “Well done, my
brother Mar n! It pleases me very much that you direct all your efforts not
to favor but to the honor of God, to which no one can give too much” (Cyr.
Spangenberg). In 1518 at the Diet of Augsburg, the papal legate Thomas
Cajetan was pressing Staupitz hard to invite Luther to recant. Staupitz
responded: “This would be me and trouble spent in vain, in the case of
Luther, for he is much more learned in Holy Writ.” Staupitz also addressed
Luther at Augsburg with these words: “My dear Mar n, remember not to
treat negligently so great a ma er which you began in Christ’s name.”
Richard Wasserburg, archdeacon of Verdun: “I think that that Lutheran sect
is exceedingly useful and necessary. I entertain the hope that through it
God will reform and correct the condi on of the church and the crowds of
ecclesias cs, both primates and chief men, as well as members and lesser
people.” Also: “With many devout people I declare for certain that the
primary cause for the Lutheran sect is the terrible crimes of those who
wish to be first in the church and who allow no correc on [of themselves].
I say even more: that Lutheran sect (though I am not willing to approve of
it) has been introduced not without divine providence, namely, as u erly
necessary to correct errors and reform the church.” Dr. Paulus Ricenerus,
physician of Ferdinand, the Roman king, spoke honorably about Lutherans
and their confession and indicated that he was quite displeased with the
stubbornness of their adversaries. Wolffgangus Severus, once the tutor of
King Ferdinand: “None of the race of Titan was ever ahead of or greater
than Luther, nor do I think there will ever be.” Archduchess Margaret of
Austria, regent of the Netherlands [Belgiarum], asked the monks of
Louvain, who at the beginning of the Reforma on were complaining
bi erly about the overthrow of the Chris an commonwealth through the
wri ngs of Luther: “Who would you say Luther is?” They answered: “He is
an unlearned monk.” She remarked very wisely: “You are many learned
people. Write against one unlearned monk and undoubtedly more of the
world will believe the many learned than the one unlearned.” Erasmus of
Ro erdam wrote to Luther from Louvain, 3rd of the calends of June, 1519:
“In England you have those who agree strongly with your wri ngs, and
these are very great people. There are also some who favor you here, and
one of them is very dis nguished.” A li le later: “I have tasted your
commentaries on the Psalms and am very pleased with them. I hope they
will provide much use. At Antwerp there is a prior of this monastery, a very
Chris an man, and he is the only one who loves you. He says he was once
your pupil. He is almost the only one who preaches Christ. Almost all the
rest preach either the fables of men or their own gain.” The same Erasmus
wrote from Louvain to Godschalcus Rosemundanus, moderator of the
academy at Louvain, on 15th of the calends of November, 1520: “We are
not without great theologians who are not afraid to declare that there is
nothing in Luther which approved authori es could not defend.” And a bit
later: “There are so many thousands of rabbis, so many who seem to
themselves to be gods, yet there is no one to respond soberly and
learnedly to Luther. Perhaps in this case they are not knowledgeable, or
they are cowardly or afraid. But none of these belongs to good
theologians.” (For a tes mony about Luther by the monk Langius, see Wolf,
vol. 2, pp. 173 and 175.) The Franciscan monk Joh. Podusca, a Bohemian
(Wolf, vol. 2, p. 182) urges the ci zens to accept the Gospel. (For the
tes mony of Gas us, see Wolf, vol. 2, p. 428.) **
In 1520, Marinus Caracciolus and Hieronymus Alexander, Roman
orators, promised Erasmus the bishopric of Cologne, in the words of the
pope, if he would ready his pen against Luther in favor of papal authority.
Erasmus replied: “Luther is too great for me to write against him. Luther is
too great for me to understand him. In fact, Luther is so great that I learn
and profit more from reading one page of Luther than from reading all of
Thomas.” In a preface prefixed to vol. 3 of the La n edi on of Luther,
Philipp Melanchthon quotes the judgment of Erasmus of Ro erdam about
Luther that he said frequently: “A er the apostles, there is no more skillful
interpreter, whose wri ngs s ll exist, than Luther.”
Consonant with this praise is what the Papist writer Andreas Masius
tes fied at a banquet at Weingarten Abbey to an audience of many Papists
and Lutherans: “There is more solid theology in one page of Luther’s
wri ngs than some mes in an en re book of a father.” Bishop Roffensis
gives wonderful praise to Luther’s teaching in a le er to Erasmus, and he
says that he wished to meet with Luther if this could be arranged
conveniently in order to ask him about several things that confused him.
He also adds that Luther was miraculously skilled in Scripture, and he only
wished that Luther had kept quiet about the pope.
As about Luther, so also about the Lutherans, as they call them, the
more moderate Papists pass a more honorable judgment than do the
Jesuits. The secretary of Pope Paul IV (Ac o an restaurandum sit concilium,
published at Pfortz. in 1559) claimed: “Nothing more dangerous or
destruc ve happens than if legates of the Protestants, among the bishops
in a council, be permi ed to say whatever they want.” In f. 14 he gives the
reason: “Among them there are many who have been thoroughly taught,
who for a long me have been involved with and trained in the sources of
the Bible and in the ancient writers, who also know the Greek and Hebrew
languages.” Cassander (Consulta o) offers excellent tes mony about the
Protestants. In his book De officio pii yiri he calls them “true members of
the church.” Because of that name Bellarmine is angry at him (De laicis, bk.
3, ch. 19).
Section XIV: On the Fourteenth Mark of the
Church Assigned by Bellarmine: The
Calamitous Death of Those Who Attack the
Church: Whether the calamitous death of adversaries
is a mark of the church
§ 296. The first sec on. Bellarmine intends to prove that the calamitous
death of adversaries is a mark of the church. To do this he brings forward:
(I) The statement of Scripture, Deut. 32:43: “Praise His people, O you
na ons; for He avenges the blood of His servants and takes vengeance on
His adversaries.” From this he concludes: “Although God may punish and
whip His people, nevertheless He ul mately throws His switch into the
fire.”
(II) “The tragic deaths not only of persecutors but also of heresiarchs
and apostates, who finally perished in miserable fashion.” In the former
group he puts the examples of Pharaoh (Exodus 14); Dathan and Abiram
(Numbers 16); Jezebel (2 Kings 9); An ochus (2 Maccabees 9); Pilate (in
Eusebius, bk. 2, Hist. 7); the Jews (in Josephus, De bell. Jud.); Herod the
Ashkelonite (in Josephus, An q., bk. 17, ch. 9); Herod the Tetrarch (ibid., bk.
18, ch. 14); the daughter of Herod, called Herodias (in Nicephorus, bk. 1,
ch. 20); Herod Agrippa (Acts 12); Nero, Domi an, Diocle an, Galerius,
Maximian, and Maximinus (in Eusebius, Chron., and in Histor. eccles., bk. 8,
and bk. 9, last chapter). In the la er group he puts the examples of Simon
Magus (in Hegesippus, De excidio Hieros., bk. 3, ch. 2), Manichaeus (more
correctly Manes) (in Epiphanius, Haeres. 109), Montanus (in Eusebius,
Hist., bk. 5, ch. 16), the Dona sts (in Optatus, Contra Parmen., bk. 2), Arius
(in Athanasius, Contra Arian., orat. 1), Julian the Apostate (in Nazianzen,
Orat. in Athan.), Valens the Arian (in Rufinus, Hist., bk. 11, ch. 13),
Nestorius (in Evagrius, Hist., bk. 1, ch. 7), Huneric, Arian king of the Vandals
(in Victor, De persec. Vand., bk. 3), Anastasius the Eutychian (in Cedrenus,
Zonaras, and Paulus Diaconus, in his Vita).
We respond. (1) A calamitous end of life is evaluated either on the basis
of its external appearance or on the basis of the life that preceded it. If
calamity is evaluated not only from the external appearance but also from
the prior wickedness of life, we admit that by the just judgment of God
both persecutors and heresiarchs very frequently perish horribly, and that
God also quite o en shows His judgments against them in this life. If, on
the other hand, the calamity of their death is evaluated on the basis of the
mere external appearance, no one can deny that by the judgment of the
world even the most holy martyrs of God received a wretched death.
Consequently, from the quality of one’s death one cannot conclude
anything absolute and simply certain about its calamitous character. One
must, instead, consider the doctrine that he who seems to have perished
wretchedly professed earlier and the life that he led earlier. So, then, our
mark returns: that one must make pronouncements about the church on
the basis of its doctrine.
(2) We admit that the death of some who disturbed the church either
with persecu ons or with heresy were tragic and grievous, but this cannot
be affirmed about all of them, for it is wri en that some persecutors and
some heresiarchs died peacefully. At mes God begins to exercise His
judgments even in this life, but just as the greatest rewards are postponed
to the next life, so also are the greatest punishments.
(3) The examples of those whom Bellarmine men ons are clearly
outside of this ques on, for they did not a ack the pope nor the Roman
church, but Christ and His church. Therefore by the just judgment of God
they perished wretchedly. He should have provided examples that showed
that a ackers of the pope’s church, according as it is such, perished
wretchedly. Surely Bellarmine could have provided examples of Roman
emperors who were excommunicated by Roman popes, became involved
in various wars, and were a acked by their own sons and subjects at the
ins ga on and encouragement of the whore of Babylon. He could have
cited examples of martyrs who, with tongue or pen, a acked the most
notorious abuses of the Roman church and were immediately placed on
the pyre or were killed by some other sort of punishment. But these
examples would not have been very honorable for the Roman see.
(4) There are mes when the death of those who live in the bosom and
fellowship of the visible church is tragic and grievous because of the
previous wickedness of their life. From this we cannot conclude that the
church to which they were joined with regard to external associa on is not
the true church. Therefore this is not a proper, perpetual, and inseparable
mark.

Whether the adversaries of the Roman church have perished

calamitously
§ 297. The second sec on. Was the death of those who a acked the
Roman church calamitous? To prove this, Bellarmine brings forth these
examples: Luther, who, as Cochlaeus writes, was carried off by sudden
death a er he, being happy and hearty, had eaten a heavy meal in the
evening and had provoked all his companions to laughter with his jokes.
Zwingli, who was butchered in a war against Catholics. Oecolampadius,
whom his wife found dead in bed, though he had gone to bed in the
evening in good health. Carlstadt, who was killed by a devil. Calvin, eaten
up by worms and dead because of invoking devils with blasphemy. (These
are all from Cochlaeus and Bolsecus.) The French Jesuit Petrus Besseus
(Concept. theol., sabath. post cineres, p. 102) magnifies the lie. He says:
“Luther, quite drunk and stuffed with food, went off to bed without any
sign of piety and spent the night in hell.”
We respond. (1) We do not care very much how Oecolampadius,
Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Calvin ended their lives. Regarding the death of
Oecolampadius, Wolfgang Capito and Simon Grynaeus (Vita Oecolamp.)
and Danaeus (Praefat. super comment. Oecolamp. in Ezechielem) tell a far
different story. Nicolaus Gallasius and Theodore Beza do the same about
the death of Calvin. We leave it undecided. This is not the only lie of
Bolsecus, about whom some say that “he confessed with tears that he had
burdened Calvin with revilings far beyond what Calvin deserved.”
(2) In regard to Luther’s death we have the account of Justus Jonas,
Michael Caelius, and Johannes Aurifaber, who bear witness before God and
in the sight of Christ that they relate their account of the death with holy
faith and conscience. Sleidanus (Comment., bk. 16, p. 488) recounts a
summary of all these in these words:
In 1546 Luther set out for the counts of Mansfeld because they had summoned him to se le
a dispute. Before he reached Eisleben, he became quite ill because it was at the end of
January. On February 17 he began to be very ill, being quite heavy of chest. With him were
his three sons, Johannes, Mar n, and Paul, and some other friends, including Justus Jonas,
minister of the church at Halle. Although he was quite weak, he ate lunch and supper with
 the rest. During supper he spoke about various ma ers. Among other things he kept asking
this: “Will we recognize each other in eternal life?” When they wanted to learn this from
him, he said: “What happened to Adam? He had never seen Eve, but when God made her,
he was drowsy and fell into a very deep sleep. When he awoke and saw her, he did not ask
who she was or where she came from, but said that she was flesh of his flesh and bone of
his bones. But how did he know that? He declared this, being filled with the Holy Spirit and
endowed with the true knowledge of God. In the same manner, we, too, will be renewed
through Christ in the other life, and then we will know our parents, wives, children, and
whatever it is much more perfectly than Adam knew Eve.” When he le the table to pray, as
was his custom, the pain of his chest began to increase. Then, at the advice of some, he
drank a unicorn’s horn of wine and slept peacefully for an hour or two on a small cot in the
stove room. When he awoke, he went into the bedroom and again se led himself to rest.
He greeted his friends, who were there, and told them: “Pray God to preserve for us the
teaching of the Gospel, for the pope and his council are planning harsh things.” A er he said
this, he became quiet and slept for a while, but a er midnight the pressing pain of his illness
aroused him. He complained about the ghtness of his chest and, perceiving that the end of
his life was now imminent, he implored God with exactly these words: “Heavenly Father, the
God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God of all consola on, I give You thanks that You
have revealed Your Son, Jesus Christ, to me. I have believed in Him, I have confessed Him, I
have loved Him, I have praised Him, whom the pope and the remaining crowd of the wicked
persecute and insult. I ask You, my Lord Jesus Christ, receive my poor soul. Heavenly Father,
though I am being plucked out of this life, though I will now have to put aside this body, yet I
know for certain that I will remain with You forever and that no one can pluck me out of
Your hands.” Not much a er that prayer, when he had commended his spirit into God’s
hands once and again, he slowly departed from life as if going to sleep, with no pain of body
that anyone could no ce. That fatal year of Luther was his sixty-third, a year that generally is
quite dangerous.

(3) In order that Bellarmine may not be able to call into doubt the
trustworthiness of Sleidanus and Melanchthon, we bring forth Jacobus
Augustus Thuanus (Hist., bk. 2, p. 30), a Papist historian, who describes the
death of Luther in the same way. He says:
At that me Mar n Luther, the ins gator of the roused crowds against papal authority, was
sixty-three. He died on the 12th of the calends of March in his fatherland, in Eisleben, a
town under the rule of Mansfeld. He had been summoned there from Wi enberg, where he
was teaching, by the counts of Mansfeld. He was chosen to be an arbiter to se le a dispute
that had developed among them about boundaries and inheritance. A er supper the
evening immediately preceding his death, he was asked whether we would recognize each
other in the next life. He said we would, and he confirmed that with the Scriptures. Just as
many eagerly embraced him when he was alive, so also not even death could pull them
away from their love for him. The people of Mansfeld argued that the body ought to be
buried within their borders, where he had had his beginning. The authority of John
Frederick prevailed, however. He arranged for the body to be returned to Wi enberg and to
be commi ed to the ground there with honor, etc.
Surius (Comment. rerum in orbe gestar., p. 474, edi on of 1566) recites
that last prayer of Luther. All of this should deservedly stuff that lie, which
has been shamelessly vomited forth, back into the throat of Cochlaeus.

On the calamitous death of persecutors of the Gospel

§ 298. The third sec on. If it were our inten on to men on the tragic
ends and sudden deaths of Roman popes, we could find the beginning
more quickly than the end. Because Anastasius II communicated with
Pho nus without the advice of his bishops and clergy and wanted to recall
Acacius secretly, he was struck down at God’s judgment by throwing up his
intes nes (Fasc. temp., aetat. 6, for the year 5673). Sozimus I was caught
up by sudden death and perished on the twen eth day of his episcopate.
Nicholas III died suddenly. Paul II died at midnight with no one present,
though the same day he had enjoyed being in the consistory and had eaten
two melons the day before his death. John X was suffocated in prison by a
pillow put into his mouth. A er Sylvester II had sacrificed in the basilica of
the Holy Cross of Rome at Jerusalem, the devil killed him in accord with
their agreement. Alexander VI died of poison that he had prepared for
others. John XIII, a very wicked man, was caught in adultery, was stabbed,
and died. Pope Adrian had announced the excommunica on of Henry II,
though he himself had been cursed by God. When he wished to drink
water from a spring, a mosquito flew into his mouth and got caught in his
throat. That led to his wretched suffoca on. Boniface VII was tormented by
the consciousness of his crimes and perished from sudden death. (These
things are reported by Pla na, Balaeus, Nauclerus, Sigebertus, etc.)
Consequently, Johannes Sarisberiensis (Policrat., bk. 6, ch. 24) writes: “I
think that the popes live so briefly and die so suddenly so that they do not
corrupt the en re church.”
We could list many more examples of divine retribu on and terrible
vengeance inflicted against persecutors of the Evangelical churches and
against apostates, if we preferred to pass judgments about religion on the
basis of the tragic examples of the dead rather than on the basis of the
holy oracles of the living God. In 1522 Emser, whom they call “Goat,” had
forced Alexius Crosner, who was preaching the pure doctrine of the Gospel
publicly and faithfully at Dresden, to leave the city by order of Duke
George. On the very day that Emser had with harsh curses driven Crosner
into exile with his family, the Goat died suddenly with pi able and tragic
gestures (Selnecker, Orat. de init. et progr. Augustan. confess., p. 29).
** Ponchet, archbishop of Tours, was the first to suggest to the king of
France the establishment of inquisitors to burn the devout. He was
immediately burned by so high a fever that the ends of his limbs ro ed
away. The fever could not be eased even a er his limbs were cut off one by
one. The fever had finally burned up the burner (Wolf, Cent. 16., year 1513,
p. 72). **
In 1524, the chancellor of Trier was killed by a sudden stroke at
Nuremberg. Two days before his death he had boasted at a banquet that
before the Feast of St. Mar n he would wipe out the Gospel with his
sword. (Luther relates this, Epistol., vol. 2, Le er ad Haussmannum, p.
184).
In 1527 Dr. Craus of Halle fell into despair because he had denied the
doctrine of the Gospel. Before his terrible death he spoke these words: “I
have denied Christ, and now He stands before the Father and accuses me.”
Caught by the deceits of the devil, he held that thought so firmly that he
did not even allow it to be taken away from him with any exhorta on or
comfort, any divine promise. In this way, he lost hope and killed himself
miserably (Luther, commentary on Gala ans 3, Jena La n, vol. 4, p. 63).
In the same year Thomas Blauer (also known as de Balvere), chief
counselor of the king of the Scots, ins gated the beginning of a
persecu on against the Evangelical doctors. When he realized that the
hour of his death was now near, he cried out constantly that he was
damned and destroyed. When the monks helped him to bed and tried to
comfort him, he said: “Away with your stupidi es! I could never be
convinced to believe that God or Satan, heaven or hell exist. I held both
your doctrine and that of the Evangelicals to be of like value. In my advising
I looked out only for money. It was for the sake of that that I pleaded the
case of the bishops and encouraged the king to throw out your adversaries.
Therefore nothing will help me—not your Masses, not your vigils.
I am damned, and Satan now holds me bound to carry me off into the
pit of hell.” He died wretchedly in this despair. (This is reported by
Alexander Alesius Scotus; Andreas Hondorffius, Specul. historial.; Wolf,
Memorab., cent. 16, p. 293, etc.)
 In 1530 at the Diet of Augsburg six counts and barons gave their right
hands mutually and pledged that they would use all their powers and
resources to kill “Lutherans,” as they called them. Of those six, Count Felix
of Werdenberg had stated that if war were waged against the Protestants,
he would serve against them without pay at his own expense. He had
invited to dinner the abbot of the aforemen oned Weingarten Abbey (ad
Vineam or hortum vinarium) and had repeated his earlier threats. A er
dinner, when the abbot had gone off to the guest room, he himself went to
bed. On the morning of the next day he was found dead in his bed and was
handed over for burial shortly therea er. When another of his
confederates had heard this, he, too, became very sick and died. (This is
reported by Georg Spala n, Histor. Augustae ges s anno 1530, which is
found in [Luther’s works,] Jena German, vol. 5, p. 37; and by Johannes
Rosinus, Vita Johannis electoris Saxonici, le er R, 3, year 1541.)
In 1541 Hoffmann, a very fierce supporter of the Papist religion, was
going to a mee ng at Regensburg to resist the Evangelicals. Not far from
Ulm he died with terrible roars. This is reported by Henr. Pantaleon (Res in
ecclesia gestae, bk. 8). There he also adds that, when a certain Dominican
monk fiercely a acked the evangelical doctrine, he was struck by lightning
during his sermon and died immediately. When another man of great
name heard the churchly hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God” [Eine feste
Burg ist unser Go , etc.], he said: “I will help bombard that fortress, or I
will not live.” Three days later he died without confession and without
invoking God.
** Ambrosius Moibanus (De mandato Chris , published in 1536) reports
that a certain prelate had opposed the Gospel all his life purely out of
stubbornness and had denied that the Gospel was true because it
performed no miracles. He caught a disease, and, as he was suffering
almost to the point of death, he said:
O God Almighty, forgive me for having despised Your Gospel so stubbornly, which is being
preached today, and for having declared boldly that it has no power to do miracles. Oh, how
very true it now is in my agony, and at other mes in my life I have found that God has
always openly resisted me and other prelates like me who tried the same thing. God
hindered our mouths in such a way that we were not able even to open them against the
preachers of Your Gospel. By Your preaching they have completely overthrown our every
Mass and purgatory, something I could never have accomplished with all the other Papists. I
 ask for pardon, therefore, and implore the mercy of God that He would not count my
unbelief against me.

Not much later that prelate fell asleep (Wolf, Memorab., vol. 2, p. 417). **
In 1543 when Eck, Luther’s fiercest adversary, was dying, he spoke
about nothing but money (according to the Chronicon Carionis). Petrus
Lembergius (Epistola de doctrina et morte Eccii, published in the same
year) explains the whole ma er more fully. He says:
You know what rumor has been spread about Eck’s death, not by those who were not
acquainted with him and hated his teaching but by those who were present every day by
reason of their office when he was in bed. At first, because the man had a strong and robust
body, he despised his illness. Even a er his friends had warned him, he was unwilling to
avoid situa ons that would support the disease. When the signs of a nature stricken by (and
as it were, believing in) the disease appeared, and though he did not lack people who were
encouraging him to confess and partake of the Eucharist, he s ll did not yield to their advice
un l he became totally bedridden and people saw clearly that his mind had become
affected. Then, a very illiterate monk but, as his terrible speech showed, quite good at
cursing, performed the sacred rites at the bed of the reclining Eck and indicated that,
according to custom, he was going to commune him. Eck no ced this. (I am telling you now
what I heard and know.) When he was ordered to prepare himself to receive, he said many
deranged things about some four thousand gold coins; that if he had them, everything
would turn out well, and he would be triumphant in his cause. Not much later he received
the Eucharist, and shortly therea er followed what generally follows the kind of life he led.
A er all, you know to what diseases those are suscep ble who indulge in too much wine
and lust. Finally, though those who were near him did not no ce it, he vomited up his soul,
red with blood.

These things about Eck’s death were announced at Ingolstadt and later
were wri en down by many great men because the Diet was then in
session at Nuremberg. Luther also recalls this death of Eck (commentary on
Hosea 2, Jena La n, vol. 4, p. 607) and adds: “These terrible misfortunes
do not delight the devout, for they would prefer that all men would apply
their efforts to explain and spread the doctrine of the Gospel rather than
that they gain eternal torments for themselves while they blaspheme the
Gospel. However, as long as they place no restraints on their blasphemies,
there is a need for such examples, that God may bear witness that He is
judge and that He may restrain the a empts of the wicked so that others
may be corrected and no longer oppose the Gospel.”
In the same year, 1543, Albert Pighius died, not the most insignificant
defender of the papacy. They write that he was crushed in the tumult of a
great crowd of people along with the money that the pope and cardinals
had given him for striving to defend the papal cause.
Johannes Minerius died terribly in 1545. He had been the great prefect
of the court and senate of Aix-en-Provence in France and a very savage
persecutor of the Waldensians (as is evident from Sleidanus, Comment.,
bk. 16, p. 463; and Osiander, Hist. eccles., cent. 16, bk. 2, ch. 54). In regard
to this Minerius, Pantaleon (Historia rerum in ecclesia gestarum) writes:
“He perished miserably because of the internal flames in his internal
organs. Not only could his physicians not cure him, they could not even
look at him. He breathed out his soul while pouring out terrible
blasphemies against Christ.”
Guarlacus was a professor at Louvain and a very fierce defender of the
papal throne. In the midst of the terrible blasphemies that he was belching
out in his illness, with a lamentable voice he cried out with Cain that his
sins were too great to be forgiven, and thus he died despairing (as one can
see from a le er of Claudius Senerclaus to Bucer).
About Munerius, mayor of Paris, the author of the books De rebus in
Gallia ob religionem ges s (under Henry II, p. 9) reports that he “was the
first to become acquainted with the causes of the Evangelicals and
perpetrated many cruel acts against them.” He had been condemned for
fraud in the case of Countess Senigana and had publicly paid a great fine in
various places in accord with a decree of the senate. He was finally brought
down into disgrace and was relegated to the pillories, as they say, in a
spectacle that was pleasing to all. While he was being held in prison, he
would say: “I know that the bad punishments I am undergoing are the
reward for my bad treatment of the Lutherans. A er this I shall a empt
nothing against them.” Also, one of his counselors, whose job it was to
become acquainted with and pass judgment on the cases of the faithful,
died suddenly shortly therea er.
In 1546 Alphonsus Diazius, a Spaniard, through a servant savagely and
cra ily slew his own brother, Johannes, because of his profession of
evangelical doctrine (as is reported in Sleidanus, Comm., bk. 17, p. 491).
Although he was not punished as he deserved for that fratricide, it
happened by divine judgment that he died at the Council of Trent in
despera on, clinging to the neck of his mule.
 On April 27, 1547, the canons of Meissen were rejoicing greatly in the
cathedral temple because of the defeat and capture of Elector John
Frederick of Saxony and were singing the hymn Te Deum laudamus [“We
Praise You, O God”] because of this. God then arranged an example against
the spitefulness of those wicked and perverse men and declared with an
obvious sign that the rejoicing of corrupt men was an abomina on to Him.
That temple was immediately struck by lightning and caught fire. From
above, the en re building was reduced to ashes. The bells and musical
instruments melted and were destroyed. The fire raged from four in the
a ernoon un l six the next morning. (Thomas S barus, Histor. narrat. de
vita Johann. Frider.; Rosinus, Vita Johann. Frider., le er Ee, 3; Dr. Polandus,
superintendent of Meissen, preface to Conc. de music. instrument.)
Here we should men on what Rosinus tells about the people of Hoxar.
There is a town in Saxony named Hoxar, in which there were many ci zens
who were devoted to the Augsburg Confession and which had a minister of
the church who taught the Gospel purely. When those people heard about
the outcome of the war and about the cap vity of their elector, they were
sorely grieved and bemoaned the tragic misfortune with misery. But a
consul of this city, Bartolomaeus Masco, who s ll was lingering on the side
of the Papists, mocked them and kept repea ng the words: “Well, where is
your Gospel now? Where are your Sacraments now? Is it not obvious from
this victory of the emperor what and where the true church and religion
are?” A er this reviling he went to his home. He prepared a splendid
banquet and invited several others who were addicted to the Papist
corrup ons to spend a happy day with him and rejoice over the outcome
of the war and the calamity of the devout. That joy, however, did not last
long. A er the banquet was finished and his guests had departed, he
himself went off to bed. Then he experienced painful stomach cramps that
hurt him so much that around midnight, when his servants and family
members saw his pains con nually increase and his illness worsen, they
sent to summon the pastor of that city, even though he was hated by the
consul because he publicly set before the people the pure teaching of the
Gospel. Before the minister of the church arrived, however, the consul
suddenly died.
In the Smalcaldic War, Bishop John VI of Constance, a nobleman of Weza
(or Vesalia), a sworn enemy of the Gospel, had advanced the prepara ons
of the enemy quite a bit, and because of this he was expec ng a cardinal’s
hat. In 1548 at the Diet of Augsburg he was summoned out of this life by
sudden death to the fearful judgment of God. That occurred at night. A few
hours earlier at dinner he had threatened terrible things for the city of
Constance and Lutherans living in his diocese and had said: “I will chas se
them, or the hand of the Lord shall touch me.” But that hand did touch him
so that he was found dead in his bed on the following day by his
chamberlains, who admi ed that they had heard some terrible things that
night. (This is reported by Casp. Bruschius, Annales episcoporum
Constan ensium; Sleidanus, Comment., bk. 21, p. 641; and, from them,
Wolf, Cent. 16, p. 574.)
In the same year, 1548, the terrible death of Franciscus Spira took place,
which Sleidanus describes in these words (p. 649):
In the area of Padua under the rule of Venice there is a town called Citadella, where there
was a ci zen, a well-trained lawyer and advocate, Franciscus Spira. With incredible ardor he
began to embrace the pure doctrine. Day by day he advanced more and more. He would
explain what he believed about each doctrine not only at home among his friends but even
everywhere among all people. This ma er could not remain a secret for long, and it finally
was reported to the papal legate who was at Venice at that me, Archbishop Johannes Casa
of Benevento. When Spira discovered this, he readily understood his peril. He gave much
thought to the en re situa on for a long me and finally decided to meet with that legate,
having been summoned. So he went to Venice and explained his “mistake,” as he thought of
it or called it because of his fear. He confessed, asked for pardon, and promised to be
obedient in the future. Although the legate was happy over the voluntary confession, yet,
for the sake of an example, he commanded him to return home and publicly revoke his
previous statements. He accepted that condi on. Although he was already beginning to feel
sorry about what he had done, he obeyed the urging of his friends, who said that his en re
hope lay in this, and not only his hope but also that of his wife, children, and all his property.
Not much later, however, he became sick in both mind and body and began to despair of the
mercy of God. Therefore, on the advice of his friends, he was taken from Citadella to Padua
to have the work of the physicians and the consola on of learned men there. As soon as the
physicians Johann. Paulus Crassus, Bellacata, and Frisimelega saw him, they judged that his
ailment had sprung from excessively vigorous thinking and that there was no be er remedy
than consola ons of the mind. Therefore learned men came to him repeatedly and were
eager to heal his mind with the tes monies of Holy Scripture that lay God’s great mercy
open to us. But he kept saying that he did not deny those things but that they did not apply
to him; that, because he had denied under oath a known truth, because of his fear of
danger, he was des ned to eternal torments; that he was already feeling and seeing them in
his mind; and that he could not love God but hated Him terribly. He persisted in this belief.
Soon he no longer wanted to take food. When it was forced on him, he would immediately
spit it up. Therefore, because all that advice was being wasted and was in vain and the
weakness of his body and torments of his mind increased more and more each day, he was
brought home, and there the poor wretch finished his life in that condi on and despera on.
Flacius remembered this memorable example and showed its use in the
preface to his book De sec s, dissensionibus et contradict. Pon f., to the
senate of Venice (p. 43). He says:
At this me of visita on and of the elucida on of His religion, God sent not only to all other
na ons some of His teachers and admonishers, but also to your illustrious realms He sent,
among others, two well-known legates and preachers of His Word and will: Franciscus Spira
and the reverend brother Baldus Lupe nus, a ci zen, kinsman, and my instructor of the
truth. The former of these was a famous man and a renowned advocate. He far excelled
other excellent men in abili es, eloquence, and learning. He acknowledged the truth of pure
religion and confessed it. He condemned the errors of the An christ and taught many about
the truth. Finally, the papal legate, with threats of violence, drove him to the point of
condemning and denying, against his conscience, that he knew the Gospel of Christ. But God
struck him, like another Judas and betrayer of His Son, with a sense of His wrath, hurled him
into hell itself, and, by the present torture of devils and hellish and horrible torture, [made]
him a conspicuous example, while s ll living, both to persecutors and to despisers of His
truth—an example that should by all means be feared, crying out and shou ng endlessly
that he was being tortured in the illustrious and very crowded place of the public academy
of Padua, that because he had known the truth of the living God but had abjured and
damned it, he was damned forever, etc. This is indeed a very memorable miracle of God and
could not be a ributed to any human deceit or physical cause. Many very learned men of all
professions and na ons o en went to see him personally and spoke with him, and they bear
witness. This account has been spread and become well-known from the published wri ngs
of many men, printed in almost all the be er known languages.

In 1552 there occurred the tragic demise of Crescen us, papal legate at
the Council of Trent. Sleidanus describes it in these words (Comment., bk.
23, p. 751):
Crescen us was in trouble, weakened by illness. He was terrified by a nocturnal appari on,
as they say, and he began to get sick and at the same me to despair of his life, however
much both his friends and physicians were comfor ng him, etc. What the condi on was that
occasioned this ailment I had planned to pass over in silence because there was a suspicion
that this was an inven on to make him unpopular. However, because his friends and
associates, who at mes comforted him as he lay there, report this, I thought I should add it.
On March 25 he had been very busy wri ng le ers to the pope, and he con nued his work
straight into the night. Then he stood up to refresh himself and, lo and behold, he saw a
black dog of unusual size, with flaming eyes and ears hanging almost to the ground, enter
and come straight toward him, and then melt away under the table. He was shocked and
astounded. When he had finally pulled himself together, he called in a servant who was in
the front room and ordered him to bring a light and look for that dog. When it appeared
nowhere, not even in the next room, he began to have heavy thoughts about it and fell ill.
As he lay ill, he is said to have cried out suddenly to his servants to call off the dog that was
climbing onto his bed.
 When a monk of Münster was a acking the doctrine of the Gospel from
the pulpit, he was suddenly killed by a bolt of lightning (as Pantaleon has
noted).
Henry Smith, who abjured the profession of the Gospel at Louvain in
Brabant, returned home and hanged himself with a Lamb of God a ached
to his neck (Fox, Martyr., p. 2105).
In 1556 Jacobus Latomus, an inquisitor of here cal corrup on and
savage persecutor of Christ’s faithful, fell into terrible despair. Against his
conscience and because of his ambi on he had savagely a acked the truth
of the Gospel. He was stricken suddenly in his healthy and sound body with
such fear and terrors that he summoned the most learned friends he knew
and in his extreme despair went on to confess his wickedness. He said:
Mine is a serious sin. Although I am a prudent and knowledgeable man, I have devoted my
efforts to persecu ng God’s Word and to oppressing other people. Therefore I have sinned
against the Holy Spirit. I can entertain no hope for any forgiveness of my sin either in this life
or in eternity. I am the eternal slave of the devil in both body and soul, and have now even
been incorporated into his kingdom. In fact, no more will you look upon Latomus as a man,
but as the devil himself. If your eyes were opened, you would see that my hands and feet
are horribly deformed with hideous claws.

The learned men who were there were terrified beyond measure by those
words of his. Among those men was a doctor of theology, his very close
friend, who began to console him and to say, “No sin is too grave to be
forgiven through the mercy of God.” Latomus answered them in this way:
“The many statements you have taken from Holy Writ are not unknown to
me. They are very outstanding and are filled with comfort. But I lack faith
and confidence in God. And lest you doubt that what I have said about my
damna on is true, you will see that I am already bedridden and that I shall
die. Let me be an example for you. That is why I bade you to be summoned
that, having been warned through me, you might come to your senses and
end your persecu on of the faithful.” A er he had said this and more, he
died with terrible cries. There appeared then such a deformity of his face
and en re body that it became a source of terror for all. ** (This is
reported by Selnecker, Orat. de ini is et progressu August. confess., p. 29;
** Jobus Fincelius, De miraculis sui temporis; and, from him, Wolf, Memor.,
cent. 16, p. 667.)
 On March 31, 1558, divine retribu on revealed itself against the bishop
of Ljubljana, a very fierce persecutor of the Evangelicals. At Donauwörth he
fell down a few steps while going out of the temple and broke his neck by
this fall.
On the very same day of the same year, 1558, Queen Mary of England
and Cardinal Reginaldus Polus, the papal legate, both fierce persecutors of
evangelical doctrine, died of the same illness—quartan fever (according to
Vergerius, Contra Osium, dial. 1, f. 165).
In 1560 Oliverius, the chancellor of France, died in wretched despair. He
was grieving especially over the burning of Annaberg, and, amid his other
despairing words, he u ered these: “O cardinal of Lorraine, you are the
reason why all of us are damned forever!” (This is reported by Heinricus
Petri and Beuterus.)
Joachim von Neuhausen was chancellor of Bohemia and a very fierce
enemy of the churches that had separated themselves from the Roman
pon ff and were professing the purer doctrine. In 1565, while he was
crossing the bridge over the Danube at Vienna, a span of the bridge broke,
and along with his carriage and horses he fell into the Danube and
drowned. (This is reported by Chytraeus, Chron.)
** Valen nus Pacaeus was a licen ate of theology and preacher of the
Gospel at Leipzig. Falling away from the pure Evangelical religion, he went
to Swabia and at Dillingen joined the Papists, blaspheming the doctrine of
the Gospel and ridiculing it strongly. One day he walked out to Lauingen
and was returning home to Dillingen. Along the way he met someone who
hurled a hun ng spear through the mouth of Valen nus, who was facing
him, and killed him. In this way, that apostate suffered a wretched death in
the year 1558. (Wigand, De apostas.; Empsychovius, Refut. causar. Braunii,
p. 443. Osiander cites it in Cent. 16, a er p. 1313.) **
Andreas Hondorffius (Specul. historial.) gives us the following account:
At Bernburg several years ago there was a man who was a student of good
literature. Because of the promo on of an abbot, he received a canonry in
the cathedral church of Magdeburg. This promised him a leisurely and
tranquil life because of the annual revenues, and he rejoiced at this sign of
the Babylonian whore. Suddenly he was drawn into extreme distress. For
once, when he had gone out on horseback from Magdeburg, he was
maddened by the delusions of a devilish appari on, and he believed that
Satan would soon possess him body and soul. That would have happened
had he not consoled himself with comfort that he took from the statement
of Christ the Savior: “For God so loved the world” [John 3:16], etc. Using
that statement like a sacred shield, he drove Satan away at that me, but
Satan le behind a terrible stench like that of scorched clothes. He
returned home sad and disturbed of mind. When he sat at table, he kept a
brother close to his side, but that appari on was observed by his mind and
finally reduced him to such distress that he tes fied with tearful groans: “I
belong to Satan in both body and soul.” In this despair he straightway
hurled himself into a nearby well, but by divine grace he took hold of a
bucket floa ng in the water and supported himself, and from there he was
pulled out uninjured. From that me the ministers of the churches of that
place who had been entrusted with the care of souls were very busy
consoling this troubled man who was oppressed with serious trials. For it
happened again and again that, while listening to a sermon, such terrors
would suddenly overwhelm him that, like a madman, he would rush into
the sacristy, summon one of the preachers, and humbly ask him to upli
him with comfort taken from God’s Word. At such a great event, that
canonry ceased. Since he had been preserved by the wondrous providence
of God in his tempta ons, he now preferred to be a common ci zen,
provided that he had an unharmed conscience, rather than to be a
magnificent and wealthy canon, defiled with a shameful stain of
conscience.
** In the case of Charles V, Henry II, and Francis II, kings of France and
persecutors of evangelical doctrine, there are these wri en verses:
Charles, great terror of kings, assaulter of Christ with his decei ul counsels, became a
maddened, senseless object of ridicule even to children, and fell suddenly and completely.
And you, O Henry, while you employ your evil counselors, you thirst for the blood of the
devout. Senseless, you were destroyed in unexpected assassina on and moistened the
ground with your blood. Finally, that unhappy boy Francis followed in the footsteps of his
father, Henry, and, while with deaf ear he neglected Christ’s call, he fell because of a ro ng
ear. The decei ul, the foolish, and the deaf command you kings to understand these
spectacles or die.

This poem could have been connected at greater length to Charles IX,
Henry III, and Henry IV, whose lamentable deaths are known to all. **
Especially memorable is what is told about the death of Henry II by
Bucholzer, Chytraeus, Nigrinus, and other historians. He was raging with
extremely cruel punishment against those who had sent him a report
about papal errors. In fact, he had even threatened that he would build a
mound of great height and girth out of the ashes of Lutherans, to which
scarcely anything in France is similar. In 1559 in Paris, when the marriage of
the king of Spain was being celebrated, Henry brandished his lance and
invited Lord Montgomery to a joust in equestrian games. Although he was
unwilling, Henry forced him. Montgomery dashed toward the king
elegantly and broke his lance on the iron breastplate of the king. The
helmet of the king, however, was not completely closed and allowed some
ny fragments of Montgomery’s lance to enter. These penetrated the
king’s brain through his skull above the eye. He died from that wound on
July 10 between midnight and the first hour of the day. At that very hour
on June 10 the senators of Paris had commanded Montgomery to capture
and detain those who had been accused of Lutheranism. With his own
hand, Henry at the tournament had put into Montgomery’s hand the spear
with which the king was killed.
Hasenmullerus (Historia Jesuitarum, ch. 11, pp. 425ff.) cites many
examples of apostates who suffered wretched deaths.
** The same Hasenmullerus (Hist. Jesuit., p. 427), reports that he heard
from the Jesuit Turrianus:
A constant companion of Igna us Loyola at the altar of the Mass was a devil. He o en was
so disturbed by this that he poured off the cold sweat of death in great abundance. A er he
died with trembling, his dead body was seen to have a very black face. In 1554 the Jesuits
wanted to transfer the body to the temple that Alessandro Farnese had built, but they did
not find the bones of the corpse, so they imagined that they had perhaps been transferred
by angels. They themselves should have seen what sort of angels those were. I shall say
nothing about what blessed deaths those children of Esau were given. A neighboring house
scarcely knows how they die or where they are buried, for they do not allow novices or
strangers to go to their sick, for perhaps they would see and hear strange things. **

Rabus, the degenerate son of a fine parent, a disgraceful apostate, went

out to the military encampment at Cologne drunk with wine. There,
soldiers killed him, and he died without the Sacrament.
Caspar Franck was about to die at Ingolstadt. He refused to let anyone
in to see him, saying: “I have done and wri en many things against my
conscience. Go away from me, all of you, for I am now in the court of
judgment. Soon I shall either be condemned, which I fear, or be saved, for
which I know no reason for persuasion in my heart.” And thus he died
alone, wretchedly.
** Stephanus Agricola, an apostate, once was pastor of the district of
Helbra in the county of Mansfeld, but he fell away from the Evangelical
religion. First he came to agreement over religion with Sidonius Michael,
bishop of Merseburg. Later he clearly went to Dillingen, as though
preparing to march to the Papists. From there he advanced to Rome, all
the way to the very throne of the An christ. There he received absolu on
by publicly denying the evangelical truth that he had been confessing
earlier. Later, in the hope of obtaining Papist digni es and revenues, as he
sailed (in the Adria c Sea about to return to Germany) he was so terribly
tortured by the consciousness of his crime of apostasy that he wanted to
end the torments of his heart and threw himself headlong into the sea.
(Wigand, De apostas.; Empsychovius, Contra Braunium decan. Colon., p.
444.) **
In 1583 at Landsberg, a brother of the Jesuits named Johannes had
abandoned the known truth of the Gospel and had entered the Jesuit
order. He had made a wretched trade of death for life, for he was willing to
accept no consola on. Hasenmullerus writes that he had seen and heard
this. He says:
The Jesuits kept bringing him Agnus [Dei] disks, rosaries, grains, images, wooden crosses,
blessed signs, the consecrated host, etc. They promised prayers, Masses, and suffrages. They
urged him to have confidence in the merits of his brothers and of the saints, but they
poured out their empty words in vain. He would say in return: “Away with all these, for I am
now damned because I believed them.” I would say to him: “Believe in Jesus Christ,” and the
wretch would answer: “I did believe in Him, but I have denied Him shamefully. Jesus has
become my condemner. I cannot a ain salva on.” He told Petrus, a Spaniard: “Please, either
kill me or give me a dagger that I may stab myself, for I am burning all over with the flames
of hell.” When the Jesuits heard this, they put the sign of the cross before his eyes and
brought the blessed herbs close to his body, but he said: “Take these away! With them you
are adding oil to fire. I see nothing except devils awai ng my soul with open claws. I have
already been given over to them, for I have denied God and His words.” In this way, the
miserable fellow perished in his despair. At night a grave was made ready for him. The next
morning the sacristan wanted to pour holy water into the hole before the body was buried
in it, but a black dog leaped out of the hole. When he saw this, the sacristan brother fled in
terror and told the others that he had seen a devil, etc.

In the same work Hasenmullerus recounts these and more of the same
kind. Fox men ons very many more such examples in his Martyr.
 Now let Bellarmine go and argue that one should pass judgment on the
truth of the church on the basis of calamitous demise.
Section XV: On the Fifteenth Mark of the
Church Assigned by Bellarmine: Temporal
Felicity: Whether temporal felicity is a mark of the
church
§ 299. The first sec on. Is temporal felicity a genuine and proper mark
of the church? We say that it is not. (I) Scripture tes fies with obvious
statements, and the histories prove with many examples, that the true
church in this life has more o en been subject to the cross. Hear the
complaint of the church of Israel (Ps. 129:1–2): “Many a me they have
afflicted me from my youth, may Israel now say: Many a me they have
afflicted me from my youth, yet they have not prevailed against me.” Think
about the exiles of the patriarchs, the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt, the
wandering in the wilderness for forty years, the abduc on into Babylonian
cap vity, etc.
** When Abraham began to teach the true knowledge of God in the
land of Canaan and to plant churches, a famine also began there (Gen.
12:10). When Elijah preached, there came a shortage of food, but the
prophet was not to blame. Rather, the wicked king and his cohort of Baal
worshipers were to blame (1 Kings 17–19). Around AD 300, Arnobius with
his eight books restrained the heathen lie that generally a ributes the evils
of the mes to [Chris an] doctrine. Paul Orosius, a presbyter of Spain and
contemporary of Augus ne and Jerome, also did the same with his seven
books. The Sodomites lived in a very fer le and beau ful place. Five
oriental chie ains were not the people of God just because they obtained
the victory in Genesis 14. When the Babylonians overcame the children of
Israel and led them off into cap vity, the Moabites and Edomites said:
“Behold, the house of Judah is like all other na ons” (Ezek. 25:8). That is:
“God does not care for the people of Judah more than other na ons. If
they were the people of God, they would gain a victory over their enemies
and would not be defeated in war.” What the Moabites and Edomites, or
children of Esau, judged is the same as Bellarmine judges. **
In regard to the New Testament church, Christ foretells (John 16:20):
“Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will
rejoice. You will be sorrowful.” Verse 33: “In the world you will have
tribula on.” Acts 14:22: “Through many tribula ons we must enter the
kingdom of God.” 2 Tim. 3:12: “All who desire to live a godly life in Jesus
Christ will be persecuted.” Rev. 12:13: “And the great dragon, when he had
been thrown down to the earth, persecuted the woman” (who is a type of
the church). Verse 15: “And the serpent poured water like a river out of his
mouth a er the woman to sweep her away with the flood.” (Here the
floods of persecu ons are denoted, to which the church quite o en has
been subjected.)
(II) On the other hand, Scripture with its statements, and the histories
with their examples, prove that the church of the evildoers, and even the
enemies of the true church, have rejoiced in temporal felicity. Job 21:7–9:
“Why do the wicked live, reach old age, strengthened in riches? Their seed
remains before them.… Their houses are safe from fear, and the rod of God
is not upon them.” Verse 13: “They spend their days in wealth,” etc. Ps.
73:5: “They are not in trouble as other men are; they are not stricken like
other men.” Verse 12: “Behold, these are the wicked; happy in the world,
they increase in riches.” Jer. 12:1–2: “Righteous are You, O Lord; if I
complain to You, yet I would speak judgments to You. Why does the way of
the wicked prosper? It is well with all who transgress and act wickedly. You
planted them, and they took root; they grow and bring forth fruit.” Hab.
1:3 u ers a similar complaint.
How o en the Philis nes, Ammonites, Midianites, Assyrians, etc.,
defeated the Israelites! What serious persecu ons the Roman emperor
s rred up against the Chris ans during the first three centuries a er
Christ’s birth! How o en the Goths, Vandals, and Huns harassed the
Roman Empire a er it had become Chris an! What is the Turk doing today,
that enemy of the name “Chris an”? Is he not drunk with the victories he
has won over the Chris an people?
In Dan. 11:36 there is this prophecy about the An christ: “He will be
exalted and magnified above every god, and shall be made straight.”
Therefore the felicity of temporal success rather befits the an -Chris an
church. Far be it from us, then, to pass judgment about the truth of religion
and of the church on the basis of temporal felicity: riches, victories,
external splendor, etc. Instead, let the declara on of the wise king remain
firm and fixed, that on the basis of external success, one cannot draw any
firm conclusion about God’s favor or hatred. Eccl. 9:1: “A man does not
know whether he is worthy of love or hatred.” Hugh of St. Victor comments
as follows on this passage: “In the church a man does not know whether it
is love or hatred, because temporal benefits happen indifferently to good
and evil people. This indifference darkens human minds about the
providence of God.”
(III) Let us look at Christ, the Head of the church, to see what fortune He
enjoyed in the world. His en re life in this world was nothing but the
constant darts of calami es. “He had no place to lay His head” (Ma . 8:20).
He suffered many serious things and entered into His glory (Luke 24:26).
Because the church is the mys cal Body of Christ, therefore it must be
“conformed” to its Head through tribula ons and persecu ons (Rom.
8:29), for “the disciple is not above his teacher, nor the servant above his
master” (Ma . 10:24; Luke 6:40; John 13:16; 15:20; etc.). Therefore if we
must pass judgment about the church on the basis of temporal felicity or
lack thereof, we would have to say that external infelicity rather than
felicity clings to the true church in this world.
(IV) However, neither felicity nor infelicity belongs perpetually and only
to the church. In Scripture the church is compared to a boat (Ma . 8:23;
Luke 8:22). As a boat is some mes carried peacefully on the sea with a
favorable breeze, so also the church some mes enjoys a prosperous course
of affairs and success. But as easily happens, the winds rise and waves
grow, and the boat is endangered. So also persecu ons and adversi es can
easily arise against the church.
(V) The church of Israel used to support its idolatry with the same
argument drawn from temporal felicity. Jer. 44:15–18:
All the Jews who dwelt in the land of Egypt answered Jeremiah: “As for the word that you
have spoken to us in the name of the Lord, we will not listen to you. But we will do every
word that has come from our mouth, burn incense to the queen of heaven, and pour out
liba ons to her, as we and our fathers did in the ci es of Judah and in the streets of
Jerusalem; for then we were filled with bread and prospered and saw no evil. But, since we
le off sacrificing to the queen of heaven and pouring out liba ons to her, we have lacked
everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.”

The heathen who fought against the Chris ans defended their idolatry with
exactly the same kind of weaponry. Symmachus (Le er 30, in Ambrose)
argues: “We must remain in the ancient religion of the Romans because
their republic was very large and flourished greatly as long as they
worshiped Jupiter and Apollo.” Augus ne, De civit. Dei, bk. 1, ch. 30:
“Pagans, afflicted with adverse condi ons, complained about Chris ans
and referred the collapse of the Roman republic to our religion because
they were forbidden to sacrifice to their gods.” He men ons (De civit. Dei,
bk. 2, ch. 3) that this was once a common proverb among the heathen:
“The rain has ceased because of the name ‘Chris an.’ ” Ludovicus Vives
comments on these words as follows:
This means that wicked people used to throw around that statement, judging that any bad
thing that happened had to be a ributed to the Chris ans. Tertullian: “They excuse that
defense of their hatred, and their vanity, thinking that Chris ans cause every public disaster
and every trouble to the people. If the Tiber rises to the walls, if the Nile does not flood the
grain fields, if the sky stands s ll, if the earth quakes, if there is famine, if there is a plague,
they immediately shout: ‘Chris an to the lion!’ ” Cyprian, Contra Demetr.: “But when you
say that many people are complaining that wars are star ng more o en, that plague and
famine rage, that long calms stop the rain—then it is a ributed to us, and no one may be
silent any longer.”

Thus far Vives. The same Augus ne (De civit. Dei, bk. 5, ch. 22) men ons
some long wars of the old Romans and then adds: “I men on all this
because many people are ignorant of past events, and some also conceal
their knowledge. If in Chris an mes they see a war drawn out a bit longer,
they immediately make a fierce a ack on our religion, shou ng that if it
were not for our religion and if the gods were worshiped with the ancient
rites, then this war would be quickly finished by means of the Roman
courage that quickly ended such wars with the help of Mars and Bellona.”
The Turk uses the same argument in the Koran and says: “The sword has
been given to me by God against the Chris ans.” Therefore the argument
that Bellarmine uses is completely heathen, Turkish, and Epicurean. In fact,
the devil tried to en ce Christ into idolatry with the splendor of the
kingdoms of this world (Ma . 4:8; Luke 4:[5–]6).
(VI) The fathers deny that an argument can be drawn from temporal
felicity to the truth of the church. Jus n (QQ. et resp. ad orthod., q. 126, p.
368) asks:
How are the Greek and pagan religions not proved to be holier than the Chris an religion?
As long as the Greek religion held out in the city, every prosperity and abundance of
possessions flourished there and in the area round about, and this despite the fact that they
were hard-pressed by frequent wars. Because the profession of Chris anity grew among
them, they lost their homes and ci zens and the rest of the fullness of their possessions.
 They retain barely even the remnants of the buildings that the Greeks once constructed and
that now show where their ci es used to be.

He answers in this way:

From the plenteousness and abundant yield of crops and houses, as well as from the
emp ness of ci es and fields, it is not permissible to make a conjecture about the holiness
of those who are dis nguished from others, while the Lord God gives and removes things of
this sort from the use of mortals. Instead, the holiness of those who are more excellent than
others is judged on the basis of the good works that they do by the resolu on of their mind.
Indeed, when humans were being offered to devils as sacrifices in sacred rituals and when
the honor that befits God was being shown to inanimate objects, the Greeks acquired more
property. Now, as the Chris ans grew stronger, such wicked rites of the Greeks or pagans
were prohibited. Therefore one must discern the holiness of Chris ans from such things as
from certain marks, but not from the abundance of crops and buildings, not from ci es and
fields.

Augus ne, Le er 120 ad Honorat.: “With His most generous providence,

almighty God has granted earthly felicity even to the wicked so that the
good do not seek it as something great.” De civ. Dei, bk. 1, ch. 8: “It has
pleased divine providence to prepare good things for the righteous in the
future, and the unrighteous will not enjoy these things; and evil things for
the wicked that will not torment the good. God wanted temporal good and
bad things to be common to both so that we might not hunger too greedily
for the good things which we see the wicked also have, nor disgracefully
avoid the evil things with which good people, too, are frequently afflicted.”
** Augus ne again, De agone Christ., ch. 12, p. 320: “The catholic
church has spread far and wide throughout the en re world. It blunts the
assaults of its foes and becomes stronger and stronger not by resis ng but
by enduring.” **
De civ. Dei, bk. 2, ch. 23: “We should not consider earthly felicity of
great value because it is o en conceded even to the evil. On the other
hand, we should not consider it as an evil because we see many devout
and good people who worship the one God flourish in it.” De civit. Dei, bk.
18, toward the end of ch. 54: “Both ci es” (earthly and heavenly) “equally
enjoy temporal good things, or they are equally afflicted with bad things,
with a different faith, a different hope, and a different love un l they are
separated by the final judgment and each takes possession of his own end,
to which there is no end.” In his book De u lit. cred. (ch. 1) he thinks that
that person is a here c “who follows false opinions for the sake of some
temporal advantage and especially for the sake of his own glory and
preeminence.” Arnobius, Adv. gent., bk. 2, p. 120: “Nothing has been
promised us for this life, nor has any aid been pledged nor help decreed for
those who have been established in a sack of flesh. In fact, we have been
taught to consider and evaluate every threat of fortune, whatever it is, of
li le value.”
On the other hand, they describe the condi on of the true church as
having been subjected to various persecu ons and trials. Tertullian
compares it to “a forest fit for cu ng that will turn out to be taller a er it
has been cut.” Pruden us expresses it in this way: “O Roman consul, you
work in vain to destroy us, for just as a tree that has been cut down sprouts
again, and just as many sprouts come from a single root, so a hundred of
us will rise up from one funeral.” Tertullian says the same thing: “As o en
as you cut us down, we become more. Blood is the seed of Chris ans.” A
li le before that he writes: “The more careful is your cruelty, the more it is
an en cement to [our] sect.” Jerome (Advers. error. Joh. Hierosolym. ad
Theophil., vol. 3, f. 85): “From the beginning, the church of Christ has
always been founded on the shedding of its blood and on suffering rather
than the hurling of insults. It has grown by persecu ons and is crowned
with martyrdoms.” Chrysostom (on 1 Corinthians, homily 25) says that the
cross and persecu ons are “the marks of the Gospel.” Chrysostom again
(on the statement in Genesis 3: “I will put enmity, etc.” vol. 1, col. 553)
writes: “The church has conquered in its confessors; it has become
triumphant in its martyrs.” Vigilius, Advers. Eutych., bk. 1, at the beginning:
“The for tude of the church is experiencing nothing new, nothing unusual,
when it is o en disturbed by such storms of ques ons from all the
here cs. It triumphs out of contrari es and becomes unshakable from its
adversi es.”
(VII) Let us go on to the confession of our adversaries themselves. [Ius
canonicum,] 23, q. 3, c. si ecclesia, from Augus ne: “If it is the true church,
it is the one that suffers persecu ons, not the one that causes them. Ask
the apostle what church Sarah signified when the handmaid was causing
persecu on.” The Englishmen of Rheims, in their Annotat. on Ma hew 5:
“God causes His sun to rise on the just and on the unjust. From this we
easily see that the prosperous success of men or na ons is not a sign or
witness of a truer or purer religion.” Claudius Espencaeus (on 2 Timothy, p.
103) writes: “The cross is a mark of the church,” and (on p. 100), “Christ
foretold hardships; false christs foretold prosperity.” Ribera commentary on
Hebrews 11: “We must believe that God is the repayer of all the faithful in
a be er way than how He repays them in this life, because the saints o en
depart from this life without any repayment, such as Abel, who was killed
by his brother.” Acosta, De temp. noviss., bk. 1, ch. 14: “Although no age
has not seen wars since man began to be, yet a er the mes of Christ they
have infested the world very much, so that Augus ne was compelled to
respond to the slanders of those who were a ribu ng those calami es to
the Chris an law, and indeed those confusions of kingdoms followed the
madness of heresies, because nothing was happening that had not been
foretold.” Nicolai Crassus, An paraenesis ad Baronium, published at Padua
in 1606:
We know that King Josiah was very dear to God; yet he perished wretchedly in that most
calamitous ba le, which he entered at an inopportune me with King Neco of Egypt, who
was not bringing up his troops against him but against the Assyrians [2 Chronicles 35]. From
our mes, too, King Louis, whose outstanding piety was praised by the voices of all people,
twice met with adverse fortune against the Saracens in his concern for spreading the
Chris an religion. In the first ba le he was routed, put to flight, and captured. In the second
ba le, he lost a great part of his army and his own life because of the strength of the plague.

And later: “Frequently, for those whom God holds as His most acceptable
people and whom He embraces with a special kind of benevolence, things
turn out not at all according to their desires. In fact, everything seems
adverse and harmful. Thus it is by no means evident on the basis of those
things that generally happen to people in this life, whatever they may be,
whether the ac ons people take up are just or unfair,” etc.
In fact, Bellarmine should listen to himself, for he writes (De eccles., bk.
4, ch. 6, § jam vero): “As the waters of the flood li ed up Noah’s ark, so
also persecu ons not only do not destroy the church but even illumine it.”
(Yet if persecu ons illumine the church, how can temporal felicity be a
mark of the church? Cf. the same Bellarmine, De eccles., bk. 4, ch. 2, §
quarta nota.) Bellarmine con nues: “So Jus n (in Trypho) says that
persecu on is to the church what pruning is to vines, for as a vine is incited
to a rich harvest by pruning, so also the church grows by persecu ons.
Also, Tertullian (Apologet., last chapter) elegantly calls the blood of martyrs
the seed of Chris ans,” etc. Yet if the church grows because of
persecu ons, then persecu ons rather than temporal felicity must befit
the church.

Bellarmine’s arguments for temporal felicity

§ 300. Let us see how Bellarmine here tries to prove that temporal
felicity divinely granted to those who defended the church is a mark of the
church. He says: “Catholic princes have never clung to God genuinely
without triumphing easily over their enemies.” To prove this thesis he cites
“the victories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, David,
Hezekiah, Josiah, and the Maccabees in the Old Testament; and the
prosperity and victories of Constan ne, the elder Theodosius, Honorius,
the younger Theodosius, the elder Jus nian, Heraclius, Godfrey of Bouillon,
etc., from the ecclesias cal history of the New Testament.” Then he adds:
“Things became worse and worse for the Eastern emperors ever since the
me when they separated themselves from the Roman church because of
the disagreement over images, un l they finally lost their empire
completely. But in the West, the emperors always flourished, more or less,
to the extent that they were more or less devoted to the Roman church.”
We respond. (1) None of our people denies that God very o en has
granted outstanding victories and great prosperity to pious, catholic kings.
But from this one cannot infer that temporal felicity is a genuine and
proper mark of the church, because those victories and prosperi es do not
belong perpetually to either the catholic church or to catholic kings.
(2) Bellarmine does indeed cite several examples of devout kings who
took glorious triumphs over their foes. But from that one cannot infer the
general conclusion that all pious, catholic kings have always triumphed,
and much less can one infer from this that those who do not win are not
catholic kings.
(3) Those very examples that Bellarmine cites show this. Jacob, the
grandson of Abraham, was harassed by countless enemies, and yet his
family was the true church of God. At the me of Moses the church of the
Israelites had been pressed into servitude to Egypt. A er the exodus, it
wandered for forty years in the wilderness. In Josh. 7:3 the inhabitants of
the city of Ai came out as winners in a ba le against the Israelites, not
because their religion was be er but because the Israelites had not lived as
the true religion prescribed. At the me of the judges “the Philis nes
fought against Israel and Israel was cut down and there was a very great
slaughter, for 30,000 foot soldiers of Israel fell, and the ark of God was
captured” (1 Sam. 4:10[–11]). Although a li le earlier, before the ark of
God was taken away, the Israelites had lost four thousand in a fight against
the Philis nes (v. 2), yet the Assyrians and Babylonians prevailed in the
ba le against the Israelites. Josiah was a most pious king, but he was killed
at Megiddo while figh ng against Pharaoh Neco (2 Kings 23). At the me of
the Maccabees the Israelites some mes lost ba les (1 Maccabees 9:2). In
regard to Alexander the Great, Jus n and others report that he had victory
with him as his companion wherever he went. The pope set up a specious,
empty display with a holy war or an expedi on to recover Jerusalem, and
he promised indulgences of many years to those who would go to that war.
But with what fortune did they fight it? All the strength of the Chris an
army was sapped and broken there. In the very temple at Jerusalem there
was such human bloodshed that horses were standing to their knees in
human blood. Near Ashkalon a hundred thousand were slain in a single
ba le, etc. Finally, in 1187 the Saracens took Pales ne away from the
Eastern emperors in the eighty-eighth year since the rule of Jerusalem
came under Chris an power. From that me how many victories the Turks
have won over the Chris ans!
(4) It some mes happens that two kings in the catholic church fight.
Does the one who is beaten lose the catholic faith as a result?
(5) The decrease of the Eastern empire was something the Roman
pon ff accepted and had to endure. A er all, it was the result of his
deceits that the split between Eastern and Western empires occurred.
Moreover, as a result of this it happened that the Greeks were deserted by
the Western emperors, became unequal to their foes in the power of their
forces, and were ul mately overcome by the Turks.
(6) How did the Western empire turn out—the one that the Roman
pope established and that was transferred from Leo III to Charlemagne
(according to Bellarmine, De transl. imp.)? Today, scarcely the shadow of its
great name survives, for Bozius writes (De ruinis gent. adv. impios poli c.,
bk. 7, ch. 3): “The power of the emperor has become so weak and the
power of all the Germans is so impaired that they seem to be led to
despair.” Bellarmine himself (De Rom. pont., bk. 2, ch. 2, § praedicit) says:
“We see that the Roman Empire now has been almost destroyed.”
(7) That the La n emperors always flourished more or less as they were
more or less devoted to the Roman church does not agree with historical
truth. Henry IV was hated very much by the Roman pope, yet he won many
victories. The pope anathema zed him and made another emperor, King
Rudolph of the Swabians. To him the pope sent the imperial crown with
the following inscrip on: “The Rock gave the crown to Peter, and Peter
gives it to Rudolph.” But Rudolph was not successful in any ba le, and
Henry eventually defeated him in their war. Later, the pope made a second
emperor, but a woman killed him. A er the second died, the pope created
a third, but the emperor caught him in a mill [in molendina] and killed him.
Finally, the pope himself was removed from his throne and was thrown
into prison.

On the felicity of the Roman church

§ 301. The second sec on. Have the defenders of the Roman church
always enjoyed a prosperous success of affairs? Here Bellarmine writes: “In
Germany, Switzerland, France, and Belgium, Catholics won many victories
over here cs. By a divine miracle Charles V won a victory over the
Lutherans in 1547.” Stanislaus Hosius (in his wri ng Contra Vergerium)
speaks rhetorically: “A few years ago Emperor Charles V had very few
troops. He lacked garrisons for almost his en re empire. The Protestants,
on the other hand, had gathered against the emperor an army equipped
with a number of highly skilled soldiers and all the materials necessary for
war. Then God sat before His tribunal and made the pronouncement, as if
rendering a verdict, that Emperor Charles V would be the champion of His
doctrine, and He granted him a bloodless victory.”
We respond. (1) Why did he wish to pass by England? In 1588 the
Roman pope Sixtus V struck Queen Elizabeth of England with the
thunderbolt of his anathema, divested her of her royal tle and all
authority, released all her subjects from their oath and obedience, and
turned over the kingdom of England to a Spaniard. Over an almost three-
year period he equipped a very powerful fleet in various places. It
consisted of 150 large warships, 20,000 select veteran soldiers, 10,000
sailors, 2,650 cannons, gunpowder, cannonballs, food. It was completely
equipped with the rest of the necessi es for a six-month campaign. The
ships had altars at which Masses were celebrated. Also present was a large
con ngent of monks who were to convert the English to the Papist faith.
On the largest ship there was a painted statue of the Virgin Mary with
these words added: “Avenge the cause of your Son.” Hieronymus Vida sang
a victory song before the victory, crying out: “You who wanted to despise
Roman laws must learn to bend your necks beneath a Spanish yoke.” But
what happened? When the fleet had set out to sea and was hardly out of
sight of Spain, adverse winds drove it back. When the king realized that the
fleet had not yet suffered serious damage, he again ordered it to sea and
added another fleet from Belgium. But before these fleets joined, Francis
Drake, an English knight, began to come up from the rear of the Spanish
fleet and to a ack it with his smaller and thus more maneuverable ships,
since the large Spanish ships were ill-suited to swi movement. Drake filled
eight very old ships with pitch, sulfur, and other similar things, set them on
fire and entrusted them to the strong wind that was blowing from the rear
of the Spanish fleet. By the constant harassing a acks and the collisions it
was weakened, defeated in naval combat, and routed. The great Spanish
army was routed and put to flight; many ba leships were captured,
sca ered, or sunk. Most of the military leaders were taken prisoner, and
huge spoils were brought back into the power of the queen.
(2) Why does he ignore the wars of the popes waged against Roman
emperors and other rulers, o en unsuccessfully? The secretary of Paul IV,
Act. 2. an decreta concil. Trident. armis imperanda, p. 72: “Eugenius IV
intended to a ack the Bohemians as schisma cs and declared a crusade. It
turned out unfortunate and unsuccessful, for in that war almost all who
were signed with the cross perished, and the schisma cs emerged as
victors.”
(3) In the French and Swiss ba les, victory was fickle. In Scotland the
Protestants o en were superior. As far as the subjec on of Belgium is
concerned, the Spaniard has nothing about which to brag.
** The Jesuit Conzen, De pace German., bk. 1, ch. 24, p. 340, year 1557:
“When King Francis of France was defeated at Saint-Quen n, the Calvinists
became arrogant and puffed up because of the unfavorable ba le of the
king and were considering an aggressive ac on.” **
 (4) The Smalcaldic War had a more peaceful outcome than the pope
had hoped, so that Mendoza complained before the imperial legate that
“that which is in Isaiah [5:2] has happened in the case of the pope: ‘When I
looked for it to bear grapes, it bore wild grapes.’ ” Heinrich Merckel of
Magdeburg (Secret. in rela one de obsidione urbis, le er F, ii) reports that
he heard from the mouth of Lazarus Schwend of Vienna, Austria, that
shortly a er that war at Innsbruck Charles V had said that he had received
no favor among the Catholics and especially the pope because he had not
ordered the beheading of the elector whom he had captured and the
destruc on and razing of all the fortresses of Germany. Sleidanus
(Comment., bk. 19, p. 557) men ons that on April 22, when the Elector
John Frederick had been captured, and for a few days a erward, the sun
appeared very sad, dark, pale, and as if surrounded by fog. As a result,
many who were far away from Saxony and who were unaware of what was
happening believed that some great thing was being portended. This was
observed not only in Germany but also throughout France and even in
England; many thousands of people can tes fy that it was so. Merckel, in
the aforemen oned Rela o, le er D, ii: “That devout prince was carried off
from his people under a troubled heaven and was returned to his people
under a serene and bright heaven.” We reported earlier what happened to
the canons at Meissen who were singing jubilant psalms over the capture
of the elector [§ 298]. What sort of fortune Charles V experienced a er
that war is obvious from what Thomas S barus (Hist. relat. de vita Joh.
Frid.) and Heinrich Merckel (Relat. de obsid. Magdeb.) report: “He very
frequently grieved and felt sorry that he had allowed himself to be s rred
up and enraged against the most praiseworthy elector. A er Charles had
resigned from his imperial office and had entrusted the administra on of it
to his brother, King Ferdinand, he spent the rest of his life in his palace next
to a monastery.” They report that he spent all the rest of his years there,
twenty or more. He kept busy making maps and a aching them to the
walls of the walkway around the monastery. He would o en order himself
to be carried on that walkway of the monastery, and there he would sit
before his painted maps, remembering what had happened in campaigns,
sieges, ba le lines, and elsewhere; whom he had as his generals, captains,
and masters of the cavalry; what fortune he had enjoyed, what successes
and failures. When he would come to the map on which were depicted the
Smalcaldic War and the cap vity of the elector of Saxony, he would groan,
sigh, and say, “If I had le this situa on as it had been, I would have
remained as I was.” It would be easy to admonish Bellarmine concerning
what sort of outcome finally followed the Smalcaldic War, but this is well-
known from the histories.

Whether the Evangelical churches lack all felicity

§ 302. The third sec on. Is temporal felicity joined to the Evangelical
church? Just as the devil in his tempta ons of Christ saved to the last the
showing of the kingdoms of this world and the promise of all power in
order to overcome Christ if the other tempta ons did not work, so also the
temporal felicity that Bellarmine brings forth in the last place is the first
and foremost cause in many hearts which drives them to fall away from the
Evangelical church and go over to the papacy. For the external splendor
and promise of offices, honors, wealth, etc., a ract the eyes of many, so
that they prefer enjoying fat prebends to being hungry with Christ. Surely
the Papists have nothing greater in their mouths than to reproach the
ministers of our churches with poverty, contempt, and the hatred of the
world. But we have followed the example of Moses and consider “the
reproach of Christ greater wealth than all the treasures of Egypt” (Heb.
11:26).
Yet up to now the confessors of the Gospel have not been deprived of
all temporal felicity. Besides the fact that by His immense kindness God has
heaped upon us many other bodily benefits, how greatly, I ask, must we
consider the fact that He has granted us peace and tranquility against so
many plo ngs of the foes of our beloved fatherland, Germany, up to now,
while neighboring areas and realms burn with almost constant warfare?
We pray with all our heart that He would preserve this to us, as He has in
the past, so that, protected peacefully in this way under the wings of our
magistrate, “we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and
honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2), to the glory of the divine name and to the eternal
salva on of our souls.
Chapter XII: On the Final Cause of the
Church
§ 303. Now that we have discussed the efficient, material, and formal
causes of the church at great length, it remains for us to deal very briefly
with the final cause of the church. Of His immense goodness God has
gathered a church to Himself from lost mankind to this end: that He might
have a special people to recognize, worship, and glorify Him rightly in this
life and in eternal life. Isa. 61:3: “They shall be called trees of
righteousness, the plan ng of the Lord, that He may be glorified.” Eph.
1:11–12: “We have been called by lot” (ἐκληρώθημεν, “called into the lot
or into the inheritance of the Lord,” that is, into the church) “that we may
be for the praise of His glory.” 1 Pet. 2:9: “You are a chosen race, a royal
priesthood, a holy na on, a people for possession, that you may declare
the wonderful works of Him who has called you out of darkness into His
marvelous light.”
Therefore the purpose or end of the call to the church, and thus the
purpose of the preserva on and propaga on of the church in this world, is
twofold. The subordinate purpose is the conversion of humans from
darkness to light, their transfer from the state of wrath to the state of
grace, and the gran ng of an inheritance of eternal life. The principal
purpose is the glorifica on of God. Surely, that God might show the
incomprehensible riches of His grace, He did not want humankind to
remain bound by the chains of eternal destruc on with which the first
humans willingly entangled themselves and their descendants. Therefore
He sent His Son, the Redeemer, to the world and offers His benefits to
humans through the preaching of the Gospel, through which He calls them
into the kingdom of grace and the fellowship of the church. If any yield to
this holy call by the power of the Holy Spirit, He transfers them into the
kingdom of grace, that in it they may rightly know Him, serve Him in
holiness and righteousness, and show Him due obedience. A er this life, if
they persevere in true faith and worship, He transfers them into the
kingdom of glory, that in it they may be joined with the assembly of angels
and sing eternal praises to Him.
Chapter XIII: On the Use of This
Commonplace
§ 304. In this commonplace it was our intent to speak about the
authority of the church (which is the primary adjunct) first absolutely, and
then compara vely with respect to the Holy Scriptures: namely, whether
the authority of the church or of Scripture is greater. But because those
ques ons cannot be explained in a few words, and because this trea se
has already become very long, we shall put the explana on of these
ques ons in another place [On Holy Scripture (1625 Exegesis,
Commonplace I), §§ 33–51].
As the conclusion we shall add some points about the use of this ar cle.
The use seems to consist especially in the following points: (1) That, as we
discern the true church from the synagogue of Satan, we may aspire to the
fellowship of the true church and consider nothing more desirable than to
become ci zens and servants of God in this holy city and house of God.
However, the door to the palace of the church triumphant does not open
except through the front hall or ves bule of the church militant. Nor does
anyone have God in heaven as his Father if he does not have the church on
earth as his mother.
(2) That we may give due thanks to God that “He has called us with a
holy calling” (2 Tim. 1:9) and made us ci zens of His church, so that this
praise might belong to us too: “You have come to Mount Zion and to the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the mul tude of
many thousands of angels, and to the church of the firstborn who are
enrolled in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just
men made perfect” (Heb. 12:22–23).
(3) That, having been listed among the ci zens of the church, we may
live a holy life worthy of our calling, so that we do not become cut off from
this mys cal Body of Christ like ro ng and dead limbs.
(4) That we may faithfully nourish concord in the church, which is “the
house of God” (1 Tim. 3:15) and not upset it with unnecessary disputes. 1
Cor. 1:10: “I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that you all say the same thing and that there not be schisms among you.”
 (5) That we may reverently submit ourselves to the pious and honorable
regula ons that are proposed in the church and s r up no scandal with the
un mely use of Chris an liberty, etc.
(6) That, having embraced with firm faith the promises of the
preserva on of the church, we may ask to be preserved in her fellowship
un l the end of our life, that we may share in the lot of the saints in light
(Col. 1:12).

The definition of the church

§ 305. From what we have said earlier, the following defini on of the
church can be established: The church is an assembly of humans called and
gathered from the world to the kingdom of God through the preaching of
the Word and the administra on of the Sacraments; in this assembly are
the elect according to the foreknowledge of the Father, that is, those who
truly and steadfastly believe in Christ; with them are mixed the nonsaints
who nevertheless profess the same doctrine.
Now, may God the Father, who has redeemed us through the Son and
called us into the fellowship of the church through the Holy Spirit, preserve
us in this kingdom of grace un l the end of our life and finally transfer us to
the kingdom of heavenly glory. Amen.

Glossary
a posteriori. From the la er. From the effects of something. A proof is
called a posteriori when a cause is proved by effects. This is an induc ve
proof.
a priori. From the former. From the cause of something. A proof is called a
priori when effects are proved by the cause. This is a deduc ve proof.
absolute. Not having any rela on to anything else, rela onless,
independent, or uncondi onal.
actuality, primary (actus primus). This term can be taken in two ways.
Some mes it means “poten ality,” which is contrasted with “actuality.”
For example, “The boy is a grammarian in primary actuality,” because as
 me passes he can become a grammarian, though he is not actually one
now. But some mes it means an inherent quality or habitus that one
possesses but that does not exert itself. “Primary actuality” in this sense
is contrasted with “secondary actuality” or “opera on.” For example,
“Priscian, even in his sleep, is a grammarian in primary actuality, though
he is not exer ng this gramma cal knowledge in secondary actuality.” In
both cases, primary actuality refers to a power or poten al that is not
currently actualized.
actuality, secondary (actus secundus). The actual opera on of a thing. For
example, “Priscian, when exercising his gramma cal knowledge, is a
grammarian in secondary actuality.”
adequate cause. The total cause of something, which perfectly cons tutes
the essence of an effect (Micraelius s.v. “Causa”). An effect proceeds
from the whole adequate cause and from it alone (Scherzer,
“Defini ones,” s.v. “Causa”). See inadequate cause.
adjunct. Something added to something else or connected with it. An
essen al feature.
cause, first and second. A kind of an efficient cause. The first cause is God,
on whom everything depends and who Himself depends on nothing. A
second cause is anything that borrows its power to work from the first
cause; thus all created causes are second causes. See Micraelius, cols.
248–49; Scherzer, “Defini ones Philosophicae,” p. 31; Signoriellus, p. 61.
cause, natural and moral. A kind of an efficient cause. A natural cause
brings about an ac on by its own power. Its opposite is a moral cause,
which brings about an effect by means of admonishing, asking,
commanding, or persuading another free cause to act. For example, if
Peter throws a ball, he is the natural cause of the throwing. But if Paul
persuades Peter to throw the ball, Paul is the moral cause of the
throwing. See Micraelius, col. 250; Scherzer, “Defini ones
Philosophicae,” p. 34; Signoriellus, p. 62.
efficient cause. That through which something is accomplished or made,
and on which the result depends.
humor. Bodily fluid. A technical term from early physiology. “A humor is
either: Principal, such as the four well-known humors: blood, pituitary
or phlegm, cholera or yellow bile, black bile or melancholy. Or less
principal and excremental, which is the fluid: From secondary diges on,
which, when excreted, is called ‘urine.’ Or from ter ary diges on: tears,
saliva, milk, semen, spi le, mucus, sweat. And some of these are useful
while others are not useful” (Micraelius, s.v. “Humor”).
hyperdulia. “High venera on.” According to Roman Catholic theology, it is
the highest kind of reverence that can be given to creatures; it is
accorded, for example, to St. Mary.
impossible. “Something impossible is either simply and absolutely
impossible because of a conflict of the terms, such as ‘God is able to
die’; or it is impossible compara vely or in a certain respect and
hypothe cally, such as is the impossibility of the law, by which
something by law cannot take place. The former is impossible
nega vely; the la er, posi vely” (Micraelius, s.v. “Impossibile”).
impulsive cause. That which impels or moves a principal cause to act. This
impulsion comes either from inside or outside of the principal cause.
inadequate cause. A par al cause of something, which concurs with
something else in producing an effect, such as two horses pulling a cart
(Micraelius, s.v. “Causa”). An effect proceeds from an inadequate cause,
but either not from that cause alone or not from that whole cause
(Scherzer, “Defini ones,” s.v. “Causa”). See adequate cause.
latria. Worship which is due to God alone.
one in number. The same thing, not just in species or genus, though place,
form, and size may differ. For example, old Plato and young Plato are
one in number; but Peter and Paul are one in species, not in number.
praescrip on. The allega on of long and immemorial me for the purpose
of demonstra ng the possession of something. Con nua on of
possession through a period of me defined by law is a way to a ain
possession of something (Micraelius, s.v. “Praescrip o”).
principle (principium). A source or origin from which something proceeds
or emanates. Gerhard explains that divine revela on, which today exists
only as Holy Scripture, is the only principle of knowing in theology, while
God Himself is the only principle of being: On the Nature of Theology
(1625 Exegesis, Preface), § 19. See also Micraelius, col. 1128; Scherzer,
“Defini ones Philosophicae,” p. 162; Signoriellus, p. 269.
probable. “Something true with likely reasons, though something false
could possibly be among them. For Aristotle, something is called
‘probable’ if it is approved either by all or by most or by the wise. Hence
logicians dis nguish between an argument [ra o] or syllogism that is
necessary or conclusive [apodic cum], which cannot be denied; and
between a probable syllogism, which they call topical and dialec cal;
and, finally, between a sophis c or false one” (Micraelius, s.v.
“Probabile”).
proper. Always befi ng or belonging to something and befi ng or
belonging to it alone.
proximate cause. The nearest and immediate cause of something, also
called “first cause,” because it moves the effect primarily and coheres
with it most closely (Micraelius, s.v. “Causa”). A proximate cause a ains
an effect through itself and immediately. For example, fire is the
proximate cause of heat (Scherzer, “Defini ones,” s.v. “Causa”). See
remote cause.
remote cause. The mediate cause of something. It concurs with other
intervening things for producing the effect (Micraelius, s.v. “Causa”). A
remote cause concurs in producing an effect but only by means of
another cause. For example, an animal is the remote cause of breathing,
but the lung is the proximate cause (Scherzer, “Defini ones,” s.v.
“Causa”). See proximate cause.
scien fic. Known of itself from its true, primary, and immediate principles
or causes. “Science” and “scien fic knowledge” here are not to be
confused with the modern “scien fic method,” nor to be restricted to
the natural sciences. (See Scherzer, “Dis nc ones,” s.v. “Scien a.”)
sense, composite. The meaning of a concept when considered together
with other facts or concepts. See sense, divided.
sense, divided. The meaning of a concept in itself, apart from its rela on to
other facts or concepts. For example, in the proposi on “It is possible
for one si ng to run,” if running is taken in the composite sense with
si ng, the proposi on is false because one cannot sit and run at the
same me. But if running is divided, or taken in the divided sense, from
si ng, the proposi on is true because he who is now si ng can run
later. See sense, composite.
subaltern. “In things that can be predicated, ‘subaltern’ is used either for a
genus or a species. When it is something with respect to what is inferior,
it is a genus; with respect to what is superior, a species” (Micraelius, s.v.
“Subalternum”). In logic, subaltern proposi ons are related as universal
to specific; they are neither contradictory nor contrary. For example, the
following proposi ons are subalterns: “All boys in St. Louis own a ball”
(universal affirma on) and “Some boys in St. Louis own a ball” (specific
affirma on). Gerhard uses this term to show that all of the invisible
church is contained within the visible church, but not all of the visible
church is within the invisible (25.70).
subordinates. Noncontradictory things or proposi ons of which one is
contained under the other. For example, Gerhard says that the Holy
Spirit and the water of Bap sm are related to each other as
subordinates in the giving of salva on, not as opposites. The water of
Bap sm is a means by which the Holy Spirit gives salva on, and thus the
one does not rule out the other in the giving of salva on (23.104). See
also 25.70; 30.101.

For Further Study

Altenstaig, Joannes, and Joannes Tytz. Lexicon Theologicum. Cologne:
Petrus Henningius, 1619. Reprint, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1974.
Deferrari, Roy J. A Lexicon of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Catholic University of
America Press, 1948–49.
Eisler, Rudolf. Wörterbuch der Philosophischen Begriffe: Historisch-
quellenmässig bearbeitet. Berlin: Ernst Siegfried Mi ler & Sohn, 1904.
Gilson, E enne. Index scolas co-cartesien. New York: Burt Franklin, 1913.
Gracia, Jorge J. E., and Douglas Davis. The Metaphysics of Good and Evil
According to Suárez: Metaphysical Disputa ons X and XI and Selected
Passages from Disputa on XXIII and Other Works. Munich: Philosophia,
1989.
Kappes, Ma hias. Aristoteles-Lexikon: Erklärung der philosophischen
termini technici des Aristoteles in alphabe scher Reihenfolge.
Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 1894.
Meisner, Balthasar. Philosophia sobria, Hoc est: Pia considera o
quaes onum philosophicarum, in controversiis theologicis, quas
Calviniani moverunt Orthodoxis, subinde occurren um. Wi enberg:
Johannes Richter, 1614.
Mellinius, Josephus Zama. Lexicon Quo Veterum Theologorum Locu ones
Explicantur Theologiae Tironibus Accomodatum. Coloniae: J. M. Heberle
(H. Lempertz), 1855.
Micraelius, Johann. Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis
usitatorum: Ordine alphabe co sic digestorum, ut inde facile liceat
cognosse, praeser m si tam La nus, quam Graecus index praemissus
non negligatur. Edi o Secunda ab ipso Authore correcta & aucta, cum
novis novorum terminorum & vocabulorum indicibus. [Electronic
edi on]. Ste ni: Mamphrasius, 1661. PURL:
h p://diglib.hab.de/drucke/201-29-quod/start.htm
Muller, Richard A. A Dic onary of La n and Greek Theological Terms:
Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholas c Theology. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1985.
Scherzer, Johann Adam. Vade mecum sive Manuale philosophicum. Leipzig:
Chris an Kirchner, 1675. Reprint, Stu gart-Bad Cannsta : Frommann-
Holzboog, 1996.
Schütz, Ludwig. Thomas-Lexikon: Sammlung, Übersetzung und Erklärung
der in sämtlichen Werken des h. Thomas von Aquin vorkommenden
Kunstausdrücke und wissenscha liche Aussprüche. 2nd rev. ed. New
York: Frederick Ungar, 1957.
Signoriello, Nun o. Lexicon peripate cum philosophico-theologicum, in quo
scholas corum dis nc ones et effata praecipua explicantur. Edi o
novissima. Naples: Apud officinam Bibliothecae Catholicae Scriptorum,
1893.