De locis theologicis

OBJECTIONS AGAINST THIS LAST CONCLUSION

What has been said would suffice amply for explaining and confirming these conclusions, were it not that some theologians raise this objection against the last one: at the time of the Lord’s Passion all the apostles lost faith in Christ, and therefore all bishops who succeed the apostles can lose faith in Christ. For they say that the candle that alone is not extinguished in the offices of those days signifies that faith remained in the blessed Virgin alone; from her the disciples received the light they had lost. Since this argument also seemed weak to them, they confirm the same point with testimonies both of the ancient saints and of Sacred Scripture. Their first argument, then, is drawn from Matthew’s saying: “You will all suffer scandal because of me on this night; for it is written: ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered,’” that is, they will be loosened from the unity of faith. For the Glossa interlinearis explains it this way.

Second, from what is read in Luke: the words of the women announcing Christ’s resurrection seemed to the apostles like nonsense. Third, from Mark’s account that Christ reproached all the apostles for their unbelief and hardness of heart. Fourth, from Augustine on the psalm “My eyes have failed”: “All the disciples,” he says, “despaired that he was the Christ. The apostles were overcome by the thief, who believed then, while they failed.” Cardinal Turrecremata also reports that Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory, and Isidore say the same. But it is difficult to speak of their readiness to believe, as the case demands, when they claim, moved by such arguments, that absolutely all the apostles lost faith. This conflicts not only with reason but also with Sacred Scripture. For, to say nothing of Peter, whose faith we will later show did not fail, that opinion about the other apostles is not merely uncertain but not even probable. “The disciples,” it says, “went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.” It says “some,” not “all.” I see that some refer this doubt not to the apostles but to certain other disciples; yet I have always preferred Theophylact’s and Remigius’s view, who teach that it refers to the time before Christ had appeared to the disciples. This, I think, is what Mark understood when he says: “He reproached their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen him risen.” Whether this appearance that Mark describes took place on the day of the Ascension, as many think, or earlier, as some also suppose, there is no doubt that Mark here briefly recapitulates those reproaches that the other Evangelists recorded in different places: “because they had not believed those who had seen him risen.” It is clear from the other Evangelists that this unbelief and hardness of heart—that is, their not believing those who had seen Christ rise—did not apply to all the apostles. For Peter and John, on hearing the report, ran to the tomb; and, iuxta Hebraeorum evangelium, James swore, from the hour when he had drunk the Lord’s cup, that he would eat no bread until he saw Christ risen, as Jerome records in cathalogo scriptorum ecclesiasticorum. We must not therefore believe that all the apostles suffered a loss of faith, unless we believe the absurdity that they all became unbelievers. For faith once received by a Christian is taken away only by unbelief. More absurd still is to brand all the apostles with heresy. Those who do this without sound and compelling reasons wrong not only them but Christ and the Church as well. Who does not see how weak are those arguments that the authors of this opinion have added? Some we refuted earlier; the rest we will refute now in a word. For if they prove anything, they prove only that the apostles failed in the confession of faith, or even in living faith, which works through love. The Church’s custom of extinguishing all the candles except one may be referred to this. Rupert, however, lib. de divin. offic. 5 says that the candles extinguished earlier signify the prophets killed by the Jews, while the candle hidden for a short time signifies Christ. Even if the apostles had then lacked faith, this would still prove nothing against the conclusion. For, as Augustine warned, the apostles failed then, when they were not yet leaders of the Church and the saying “I have strengthened its pillars” had not yet been fulfilled. At that time there was one shepherd, Jesus Christ. But after Christ appointed Peter and the other apostles as shepherds, they always held the Catholic faith without dispute.

As for what heretics allege—that the pastors of the Church are human beings and therefore can deceive and be deceived—the argument is surely meager and paltry. For it is one thing to discuss the weakness of human nature, another to discuss divine grace and providence, by which human beings are kept in the truth of faith. The whole assembly of the faithful together consists of human beings; the prophets, apostles, and Evangelists were human beings too. But because they received the Spirit of truth, they could not fall into a false doctrine of faith. So all the teachers of the Church are indeed human beings, but because they are governed and guided by the divine Spirit toward true dogmas, they cannot turn aside to false ones. And how inept, frivolous, and ridiculous is this claim some interpret in this way: that we do not believe in the Church because its members are human beings, whereas “every man is a liar”! This certainly was not the reason that led the most serious men to deny that we ought to believe in the Church. There is another, older and more beautiful reason, given by the very authors of the Creed. Augustine says: “We believe Peter; we believe Paul; we do not believe in Paul or Peter. For to believe in him is to love him by believing, and to go to him by believing.” So far Augustine. Rufinus says: “It is not said ‘in the holy Church,’ but that the holy Church is to be believed—not as God, but as the Church gathered by God. By this syllable of the preposition, the Creator is distinguished from creatures.” This is what he says. These authors, then, do not allow us to believe in the Church because the Church is not the end of our faith. At this point, however, a rather difficult question arises. Since Jerome speaks of the Church in two ways—both as that which has no spot or wrinkle and is truly the body of Christ, and as that which gathers in Christ’s name without complete virtues, indeed with certain vices mixed in—how can we know which sense of the word “Church” is meant when it is called the pillar and foundation of truth? Heretics quibble that whatever is set down in Scripture concerning either the authority or the truth of the Church must be understood in the former sense, not the latter. Thus they grant the Spirit of truth to the Church of the saints, but not to a Church in which the wicked are mixed. They defend themselves not only on the ground that, with an ambiguous word, one may freely choose either meaning, but also bring forward other arguments to persuade us that in this passage, and in the question concerning the Church, the word must be used in only one way. Their first point is that Jerome thinks “Church” is used improperly in its second meaning. “For,” he says, “strong, prudent, chaste, just, and temperate are sometimes used fully for those who have perfect virtue, and sometimes improperly for those who are beginners.” If, then, the first meaning is proper and the second improper, we will certainly more fittingly use the word “Church” in the first meaning, that is, for the assembly of the just. Again, when the Apostle says, “The Church is subject to Christ,” and “Christ loved the Church,” and “Christ is the head of the Church, he himself the Savior of its body,” the word is understood to mean the assembly of the saints, as Jerome and Augustine interpreted it. Why, then, should we understand it differently when the Apostle writes that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Further, Paul honored not just any Church, but the one that is the house of God. Only the just are believed to be God’s house, as Augustine also says; therefore the Church of the saints alone is the pillar of truth. Moreover, Augustine expressly teaches that God’s house and Church, which is made up only of good and faithful people and God’s holy servants, is the Church built upon a rock, which also

received the keys and the power to bind and loose. God’s house, then, is the same as the house that is the pillar and foundation of truth. Therefore, if the pastors who claim the name of the Church are wicked, these and similar things do not apply to them. Augustine confirms this in many other passages as well. If these things are true, not only is the last conclusion now under examination overturned, but all the others are entirely overturned, along with everything we have established in this locus. Yet although heretics argue these and many other things in support of that view, we must nevertheless follow the Church and flee from everything that conflicts with its approval. First, I think we must understand that the defense and line of argument they now attempt not only overturns our arguments but also leads to a position discordant with and hostile to the Catholic faith and the nature of every commonwealth. For if Christ promised the Spirit of truth in the Gospel only to the good, the other promises too will belong to the Church made up only of the just. Hence, as must be said often, neither the authority to enact laws, nor the power of the keys, nor the remission of sins, nor the force of doctrine, nor the sacred character of the priesthood, nor any public power of the Gospel whatsoever will be found in a Church good in every respect. But since the Catholic Church, which has existed from the apostles onward, has always contained both wicked and good people, it would have had no firm faith, no certain truth, no expressed power, and no solid authority. Thus all things decreed and defined by the agreement of either the pontiffs, the councils, or even the whole Church would have no force at all. For whether you say that they are not just, or that, even if they are just, they are unknown to us, in either way and by either means you evade their dogmas, decisions, and laws. And, as we said above, Christ’s commonwealth would be constituted most foolishly and absurdly, in a way that could not be imagined worse. Therefore what I said at the beginning proves true: the Spirit of truth, the support of the Catholic faith, and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit have been promised and given to the Church founded by the apostles through their teaching and miracles, to which they wrote their letters, which Christ has always had on earth, and which Sacred Scripture fittingly and wisely describes as made up of good and bad fish, wheat and weeds, grain and chaff, wise and foolish virgins, good and wicked servants. Let heretics keep the name “Church” for themselves, obscure and odious as it is, and interpret it as that Church which no mortal has yet seen. We, however, should understand the Church according to the usage of both divine speech and our own life. We should not measure it, as the proud and arrogant do, by the grandeur of words; we should regard as the Church the one that exists, and leave aside the one found nowhere at all. For we are human beings, and so must hope for a commonwealth that exists in the ordinary life and practice of human beings, not one that is imagined. I would have all this understood as said not to mean that there is no multitude or assembly of good people on earth before God, called in Sacred Scripture the Church, the bride, and the friend of God, but so that we do not separate those people from the wicked in the house and Church of God, where there are vessels of gold and silver as well as wooden and earthen ones—not all for honor, but some for dishonor. I think these matters have already been explained carefully enough. Let us now answer the arguments we have just set out; we will answer in the next and final chapter those given at the beginning of this book. In the word,

“they say, we may take whichever one of many meanings we please.” “Not at all,” I say. First, we must consider what comes before and after; then we must consider the nature of the things, what is consistent with them, what conflicts with them, and many other matters, which we will examine more carefully and precisely in libro tertiodecimo. But if, when Christ promises his Church gifts necessary to keep the faithful in their duty and in the truth, we refer them only to hidden and unseen members, those gifts would plainly be empty and ill-suited to the common good. Indeed, as shown above, they would be very harmful and destructive, since they would provide every most depraved citizen with perpetual grounds for discord and with everlasting impunity and license in every sort of wickedness. Now, if guided and governed by reason we judge unjust to a good and wise ruler someone who interprets his privileges so that they seem granted not only in vain but for destruction, how much more unjust, perverse, and malicious an interpreter of Christ would be someone who takes the graces and favors Christ promised to his commonwealth in a sense that not only displays vanity but brings ruin? That passage of Paul and the others like it, then, must be understood of the Church that embraces both good and wicked people. But such an assembly and congregation is called “Church” improperly. This I deny. For the case is not the same as that of “strong,” “prudent,” “just,” and “temperate.” I agree with Jerome that words for such virtues are transferred to beginners and the imperfect only improperly. For the true definition of virtue expresses not dispositions that are just beginning and, so to speak, unformed, but habits that are wholly complete and perfect, as Aristotle, St. Thomas, and the other true philosophers taught. But the word “Church” signifies nothing of the kind that these people imagine, so that we should exclude wicked people from the assembly that properly claims the name Church. Therefore there is no impropriety or misuse if even an assembly that has the wicked mingled with the good in one baptism, one faith, and one religion is called the Church. We can also answer differently: Jerome speaks of the Church of Christ almost in the same way that we use “people of God,” “house of God,” and “servants of Christ.” Somehow it happens that adding the genitive case leads us to understand these words chiefly of good people. Thus if they refer to the Church corrupted by vice, there may perhaps be some impropriety that can be grasped by the mind more than expressed in words. For the “people of God” in Sacred Scripture very often means the people specially consecrated to God, among whom the faith and worship of God flourish, though some sinners are present among them. Enough, then, concerning Jerome’s testimonies. We will answer the next argument in the following chapter, where we will explain in what sense the Apostle named the Church ad Ephesios 5. There is no need to prove that God’s house is also that great house in which are vessels of gold and silver, and of wood and clay. Yet, although this is clear, we reserve it for the time when we refute the arguments of the first chapter. Finally, what is objected from Augustine’s words must be read and heard with care, as ecclesiastical writers before us have warned. For those words can suggest two meanings. One is that only the just are understood to be ministers of Christ and the Church, alone to remit sins, and alone to possess ecclesiastical authority and power. It is clear that this sense conflicts not only with reason but also with the faith of the Church and Sacred Scripture. But it is not for this place or purpose to discuss the matter. The other, then, ¹

Augustine’s meaning is undoubtedly that only the just are said to have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing, the Spirit of truth, and the remaining spiritual graces, because all these gifts were promised and bestowed not for the sake of the wicked but for the good of the Church. For when a head of household grants things to stewards and administrators to distribute for the benefit of the household, these are understood to be granted not to the stewards but to the household itself. Likewise, what a people gives to bishops and clerics to be spent for the needs of the poor is said to have been given not to the bishops and clerics but to the poor. So too, if rulers grant something to an unknown person at the request and on account of the merits of their friend, that person can rightly and truly say that the gift was given not to an unknown person but to a friend. The statements brought from Augustine against the authority of Peter and his successors must be explained according to precisely this rule. The keys were received not by Peter alone but by the unity of the Church. Likewise, Peter received the power of binding and loosing with all the others, as representing the very unity of the Church. Again, the keys of the Church were given when they were given to Peter, and when Christ says to Peter, “Feed my sheep,” he speaks to all. In my view, all this means nothing other than that Peter and the other ministers of the Church received the keys and the other public offices of the Gospel not for themselves or on account of their own merits, but for the Church and on its account. I know, however, that others interpret the first statements differently. Some refer them to the exercise of power, which the wicked are said not to possess because they cannot exercise it lawfully. Others refer them entirely to grace—not sacramental grace, which is also commonly given through wicked ministers, but the grace that answers a minister’s prayers, as Augustine seems to indicate in de consc. Dist. 4, “Quomodo.” Others, finally, think Augustine is speaking of public plunderers, usurers, adulterers, and sacrilegious men, from whom it was once not permitted to receive the sacraments, as if they had been cut off from the Church. For that reason, ministers of this kind did not bestow the grace of the sacraments. But, as we have often said, this is not the time or place to debate the matter. The madness of the Waldensians was long ago exploded, and we need not labor over that issue now. Enough, then, on these matters. Let us refute as briefly as we can the arguments raised at the beginning against the authority of the Church.