De locis theologicis

IN WHICH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE FIRST CHAPTER ARE REFUTED

The first argument is extremely easy to refute, and in not just one but many ways. First, neither Moses nor Joshua, under whose governance that period fell, fell into the people’s fury and madness. Second, it is not even certain that all those who remained in the camp agreed to the crime; rather, it is most likely that some opposed it. For as soon as Moses uttered the words, “Whoever is for the Lord, join me,” all the sons of Levi gathered to him and consecrated their hands to the Lord, each against his son and his brother. From this it is understood that those who at Moses’s one call turned to him

and stood with the Lord, whom the Lord made ministers of his justice in exacting vengeance, were not partners and accomplices in the crime of the others. What is more, Aaron had not yet been initiated into the priesthood, nor had the ephod yet been placed upon him and fastened and fitted with the breastpiece, in which were doctrine and truth. It is no wonder, then, if Aaron and his sons, not yet appointed shepherds of the people or consecrated priests, erred in faith and religion. Although Aaron sinned through fear, as happened later to Peter and Marcellinus, not through unbelief. Nothing, then, is brought against us, who assert that priests and shepherds of the Church, once appointed by Christ, cannot all err in faith and religion. That is enough about the first argument. The second seems more serious; not Calvin alone but the Donatists too used it against Catholics, as Augustine reports in libr. De unit. Eccles. cap. 12. But there is no need to devise new answers now, since Augustine answered this argument admirably: “Often divine speech rebukes impious crowds in the Church as though all were like that and no good person at all remained. We are thereby warned that they are called ‘all’ within a certain number, that is, all the sons of Gehenna. They therefore act either ignorantly or deceitfully when they gather from Scripture statements that are found either about the wicked, who remain mixed with the good to the end, or about the devastation of the former people of the Jews, and wish to twist them against the Church of God, so that it may seem to have failed and perished throughout the whole world.” So far Augustine. The oracles of the prophets of this kind have, then, chiefly this sense: since the good are so few in comparison with the wicked that they seem to be none, Scripture rebukes the whole people in one general statement, although some good people are among them. Moreover, those statements were almost predictions, not rebukes: the people are described not as they then were but as they would be after the Messiah’s coming. Both senses must be confirmed with clear examples from Scripture, lest heretics claim they are ours. Ezechiel prophesied at the same time as Hieremias. Let us hear what the Lord says to him: “The house of Israel is unwilling to hear you, because they are unwilling to hear me; for the whole house of Israel is hardened in forehead and hard of heart.” Do you think that in this wholly corrupt house some part remained to which this general statement did not apply? Hear what the Lord also says: “Mark a Thau on the foreheads of the men who groan and grieve over all the abominations done in its midst.” Not everyone, then, had agreed to the people’s crime; not everyone was hardened in forehead and heart. Here is another example. “Save me, O Lord, for the holy man has failed … Each has spoken vanity to his neighbor.” One man loudly and mournfully laments the sins of the whole human race, as if he alone were left. But what does the divine answer say to him? “Because of the misery of the needy and the groaning of the poor, now I will arise.” Understanding, then, that he has many companions in his lament, he says: “You, O Lord, will preserve us and guard us from this generation forever.” Augustine says the same in libro contra Donatistas post collationem, cap. 20: “Lest they think it was only the custom of the prophets, and that this belongs not to the New Testament but to the completion of the Old, to rebuke the blameworthy as though all in that people were being rebuked and to address the praiseworthy as though all there were being praised, behold how the Apostle speaks to the Corinthians: ‘Paul … to the Church which is ¹

in Corinth, sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who call on the name of the Lord … Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. I always give thanks to my God for you, for the grace of God given to you in Christ Jesus, because in every respect you have been enriched in him, in all speech and all knowledge …’ Who, hearing this, would believe that there were any reprobates in the Church of the Corinthians, since these words sound as if this praise were directed to everyone? And yet a little later he says: ‘I appeal to you, brothers … that there be no divisions among you …’ And, rebuking them as though all were involved in this dreadful vice, he says: ‘Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul?’” So far Augustine. He could also have mentioned the words that follow in the same epistle: “As to infants in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not food, for you were not yet able; and even now you are not able, for you are still carnal. Since there is jealousy and strife among you …” Also: “You are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, so that the one who did this deed might be removed from your midst.” Also, from the epistle to the Galatians: “O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that you should not obey the truth …” Yet afterward he says: “Brothers, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual should instruct such a one in a spirit of gentleness …” Also, to the Philippians: “For all seek their own things, not the things of Jesus Christ …” I think the great theologian passed over these and many other similar matters in that discussion because they were easy; they are certainly useful for our present purpose, and he touched on almost all of them in his epistle to Vincentius. That most of these prophetic testimonies refer to the state and customs of the Jewish people after the Messiah will be clear from many examples in the next book; for now one example will suffice. Aggaeus admonished Zorobabel, Jesus the high priest, and the whole people to build the house of God in these words: “Now be strong, Zorobabel, says the Lord; and be strong, Jesus, high priest; and be strong, all you people of the land, and act, for I am with you, and my spirit will be in your midst; do not fear.” But later in the same chapter Aggaeus added: “If one polluted in soul touches any of these things, will it become unclean?” The priests answered, “It will become unclean.” And Aggaeus replied: “So is this people before me, says the Lord, and so is every work of their hands; and whatever they offer there will be unclean.” We understand this passage most fittingly as concerning the state of the people after the completion of the Old Testament. Augustine also interpreted this example as confirming the preceding points. Yet, as I said, it more suitably and fittingly refers to the condition of the people after the Messiah’s coming, and in the next book we will show that many other passages, especially in Isaias, serve this purpose. Enough, then, about the testimonies of Isaias and Hieremias. As for what is added third, that the Church can be hidden, the Donatists also once asserted it. Augustine answered them in these words: “The Church is not hidden from us, because it is not under a bushel but on a lampstand, to shine for all who are in the house. And it was said of it: ‘A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden.’ It is hidden from the Donatists.” So much Augustine. First, however, it is false that the old people at some time had no appearance of a Church. For when Elias complained that he alone was left, Scripture records seven thousand men who had not bent their knees before Baal; and it was clear and

known to them that it was not faith and unity but the kingdom that was divided, and that therefore God’s temple, the high priest, and the true doctrine of the Law and religion remained in Jerusalem. Such a man was Tobias: while everyone went to the golden calves that Jeroboam had made, he went to the temple of the Lord and worshiped there the Lord God of Israel, faithfully offering tithes and observing, even as a young boy, the other things of this kind required by God’s law. Next, even if that people wavered so that it seemed almost to have fallen, and was so scattered that it nearly lost its form and appearance, it does not follow that Christ’s Church too can be obscured so completely that no appearance of it shines forth. For that old people, since it was destined to fall, often threatened ruin. And since perpetual night was going to be cast over that commonwealth, it is no wonder if it was gradually obscured and vanished. What if at some point it scarcely appeared, when so small a light and faint gleam in the night shone upon it? … Surely, “a lamp in a dark place.” But these matters will be explained more carefully in the next book. Calvin thinks we should be pressed with Hilary’s authority, which Vincent once set against Augustine. But Augustine crushed and almost wholly refuted as mere slanders all the passages Hilary had collected, roughly in these words: “The Church is sometimes obscured by the multitude of scandals, but even then it stands out in its strongest members. Sometimes it is covered and tossed by the waves of temptation; such was the time about which Hilary wrote. From this you thought to plot against so many divine testimonies … You might as well say that the Churches of Galatia did not exist at the time when the Apostle said, ‘O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you?’ For this is how you slander a learned man who was severely rebuking the fainthearted and timid. Who does not know that at that time many people of limited understanding were deceived by obscure words, thinking that the Arians believed what they themselves believed, while others yielded through fear and gave their agreement under pretense? Yet even those who were then most steadfast and able to understand the heretics’ deceptive words were few in comparison with the others. Still, some of them were exiled throughout the world for the faith, and some hid in every part of the world. Hilary, therefore, was either accusing the tares, not the wheat, of the ten provinces of Asia, or he thought the very wheat, which was endangered by some weakness, should be rebuked; the more forcefully, the more usefully. For the canonical Scriptures too have this way of rebuking: they speak as though to everyone, while the word reaches only some.” So far Augustine. Jerome says: “The whole world groaned and wondered that it had become Arian. The little boat of the apostles was in peril; the winds pressed upon it, the waves beat its sides, and no hope remained. The Lord was roused, commanded the storm, the beast died, and calm returned. I will speak more clearly: all the bishops who had been driven from their sees returned to their Churches. Then Egypt welcomed its victor, Athanasius; then the Church of Gaul embraced Hilary returning from battle; then Italy changed its mourning clothes at Eusebius’s return.” Thus Jerome, along with many other things that I pass over for the sake of brevity. But this is enough for everyone to understand that the ship of the Church was tossed about in the deep by storms of heresy, sedition, and discord, and was almost covered by the waves, yet even in so great a storm it was not sunk. Rather, it stood out in its few but strongest members; and the harder they labored at the oars, the more visible and conspicuous they became.

At this point there is no need to bring forward the faith and light of the Roman Church, which has never been hidden at all but has always been manifest to the whole world, as will be shown more carefully in libro sexto. Nor is the faith of the Church dissolved or hidden under different pontiffs. On the contrary, even at that time the Catholic Church gives clear proof of its faith. The judgments of the pastors are then endangered; without a certain head of the Church they will be weak and uncertain. We will discuss this in another book. In the sixth argument Calvin now expends much effort and many words and wears himself out in vain labor. He could have said more briefly and easily that, since the synagogue was wholly extinguished and destroyed, Christ’s Church too must be destroyed entirely. But the apostasy foretold by the Apostle cannot come while the true appearance of the Church exists. Calvin says this; he does not prove it. Therefore it is false. Indeed, after Germany had defected for the most part not only from the Roman Pontiff but also from its own Roman Emperor, perhaps that prediction of Paul was fulfilled, and therefore the most unhappy times of Antichrist are at hand. “But when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?” Jerome answers this argument by saying that “faith” here is the faith of which the Lord said, “Your faith has saved you”; and elsewhere, of the centurion, “I have not found such great faith in Israel”; and again to the apostles, “Why are you afraid, you of little faith?” And also at another place, “If you have faith like a mustard seed …” For neither the centurion nor that woman had believed in the mysteries of the Trinity; rather, simplicity of mind and a soul devoted to its God were commended. This is the faith God declared would rarely be found. It is the faith that even among those who believe well is rarely found perfect. Augustine answers in the same way: the Lord speaks of perfect faith, which is so difficult among human beings that even the admirable saints have something in which they have faltered. He adds that the Lord spoke this way because of the abundance of the wicked and the scarcity of the good, especially in that age. For he did not say, “When the Son of man comes, he will find no faith on earth,” but said as if in doubt, “Do you think he will find faith?” It was not that he, who knows all things, doubted anything; rather, by his own doubt he represented ours, since human weakness would speak this way on account of the many scandals that would arise near the end of the age. The error of those who, led by very empty arguments, think faith can remain in one person alone must be removed. Since “Church” is a collective noun, if only one person believed, the Church would not believe. Add that the Lord says through Matthew: “Behold, I am with you all days, until the consummation of the age.” He says, “with you.” And through John, when he promises the Spirit of truth to the faithful forever, he promises him to many, not just one. Add also that “the body is not one member but many,” as the Apostle teaches ad Corinthios. But the Body of Christ, which is the Church, will remain to the end, as the same Apostle shows ad Ephesios. Therefore many faithful will never be lacking in the Church. Moreover, wheat with weeds in the field and good fish with bad in the net will endure until the consummation of the age. Faith, then, will not remain in just one person. “But the sacrifice and offering will cease.” I think this prophecy of Daniel refers not to the end of the age but to the completion of the synagogue. If anyone wishes to refer it to the time of Antichrist, I would not contend much, provided he interprets it thus:

that, because of the cruelty of a most savage tyrant, priests will cease from public and solemn sacrifice. As for the objection from Apocalypsi Ioannis, since it is very obscure, it has no force against us in establishing the claim. Yet I admit that this oracle was fulfilled in Luther, who was given the key to the pit of the abyss so that, by digging up errors deeply submerged and buried, he might cover the world in such darkness that he seemed to have wrapped light itself in shadow. But the light of the Church still shines for those who have eyes to see. For the Lutherans are blind, and leaders of the blind. If, however, “all the glory of the king’s daughter is within,” and there is no outward splendor in her, how can those statements agree: “The queen stood at your right hand, clothed in a garment of gold, surrounded by variety”; and “Let your light shine before men, so that they may see your good works”; and “A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden”; and “They do not light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light”; and other similar passages that I pass over, lest I be too long? It is clear, then, that in the bride of Christ, in whom nothing is feigned, painted over, or pretended, but all is true, sincere, and solid, all outward glory too proceeds from inward virtue and splendor. We have said too much about the sixth argument. In dissolving the remaining arguments, it is useful to point out that many things which apply to a part are commonly transferred to the whole by figurative speech. We do this very often in other contexts, but especially when speaking of a city, people, kingdom, or any assembly at all, about which we make general statements that do not apply to every part of the commonwealth, but sometimes to only a few. We call a people strong and a nation warlike, not because all in that commonwealth are strong or warlike, but because men chosen from it for military service tend to be so. We speak no differently about a human commonwealth than about a human body. A man is said to act or suffer what his hand or foot acts or suffers. A person is said to be clean or unclean if his face is clean or unclean; and the same is true in other cases. Thus words that we see apply to certain parts of the Church are attributed to the Church itself. By this rule the Church is called a friend, beautiful, spotless, and holy with respect to the good; “a garden enclosed” and “a sealed fountain” with respect to the elect. Since these are the first and best part of the Christian Church—indeed, since they are the princes of the kingdom of heaven, even though they are most despised and contemptible in the earthly commonwealth—what applies to them is truly and rightly transferred to the whole Church. For, as we have already taught from Aristotle, a city is said to be or to do what its leading and noblest members are said to be or do. Nor should we neglect here, where the Lutherans attack us most forcefully, Luther’s testimony, so that they may understand this matter is so obvious and clear that even Luther himself could not deny it. When he explained in a sermon to the people how the Church is called holy, he teaches by synecdoche that Matthaeus wrote that the robbers blasphemed, whereas Lucas writes that one of them did so. Thus, he says, one and the same people is rebuked in the Prophets when many good people are among them, and praised when many wicked people are among them. “This is the most beautiful figure of charity, which makes all good things common, and likewise all bad things common, so that each may bear the burdens of the other and thus fulfill the law of Christ. In this way a city, region, or house is said to have done or suffered what some people in it did or suffered.” So far Luther. ²

Here I appeal to all the heretics, so that they themselves may judge whether they prudently oppose us by saying that the Church is a garden enclosed, a sealed fountain, a well of living water, a paradise with the fruits of trees, holy, beautiful, perfect, glorious, without spot or wrinkle, and then conclude that there is no one in it who is foreknown, weak, or wicked. But let us answer each point. In the seventh argument an encomium from Canticorum is applied to the Church, and I think we have answered it amply. Next they add that only those who were saved were in the ark, and that the ark was an image of the Church. But lest anyone fall into the error of thinking that all who enter the Church through baptism are saved, Peter carefully and wisely added: “Baptism, of a like form, now saves you too—not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the appeal of a good conscience.” Otherwise, as Jerome says against the Luciferians, just as there are all kinds of animals in the ark, so in the Church there are people of every nation and character: as there were leopards and goats, wolves and lambs there, so here the just and sinners, that is, vessels of gold and silver dwell alongside wooden and earthen ones. The ark, therefore, is chiefly a type of the Church in that no one was saved outside it, not in that all who were inside it were saved. But let us ask Jerome about the sacraments of the ark in that dialogue. We will proceed to the rest. They say that Christ is not head of any Church except the one of which he is Savior. First, this is not altogether clear. Christ is head of the angels, but it is not established that he is properly their Savior. I certainly do not think so, although some have argued to the contrary. This is not the place to discuss the matter. Further, the connection is weak: Christ is the Savior of the Church; therefore he saves everyone who is in the Church. For he is the Savior of all people, especially the faithful, yet he does not in fact save everyone. And even if Christ saves his own body, which is the Church—I mean, saves it in effect and outcome—it still does not follow that he saves everyone who is in the Church. This is so, first, because it has already been sufficiently shown and made clear that certain things are truly said of the Church which apply to it not on account of all its parts, but on account of some. Second, because words for the whole and its parts extend more broadly than words for the body and its members, as we will explain shortly. Thus it does not follow that, if the body of Christ and all its members are saved, all the parts of the Church are saved. Nor does Paul, they say, claim that Christ presents to himself a glorious Church; he asserts only that he gave himself up in order to present it glorious. Just as he died so that we might all live, though not all live, so he gives himself up for the Church to cleanse and glorify it, though not all who are in the Church are cleansed and glorified. Although he truly presents his Church to himself glorious, he does so neither in all its parts nor perhaps at this time. The next point is very easy. Although “sons of God” sometimes names people according to predestination, it is properly and more frequently applied on account of present justice, as explained in capite tertio. We see, however, that sons are sometimes disinherited, and rightly so. It does not follow, then, that because someone is a son he will receive the inheritance, unless you also establish that he has not lost the right he received. Since “son of God” does not always mean a good person but can sometimes refer to one who has squandered his father’s goods, I think we must also distinguish whether the Church consists only of the sons of God. For if you call sons those who have been born to Christ and the Church through baptism, we

assert that it does. But among them are some wicked and foolish sons, whom the care of their father and mother desires to bring forth again until Christ is formed in them. If, however, in keeping with the more frequent usage of Scripture, you call only the good and wise sons of God, then certainly the Church is made up not only of them but also of those who have washed away the image of their father’s goodness and wisdom. For the name “son” is sometimes extended to these too. “Is he not your father?” Yet “the generation was perverse and unfaithful sons.” Again: “I have raised and brought up sons, but they have spurned me.” Again: “…Turn back, you sons who have turned away, and I will heal your apostasies.” Again: “As a lily among thorns, so is my beloved among the daughters.” All the faithful of Christ recognize that this was said of the holy men of the Church. Why does he call them thorns, unless, as Augustine says, because of their wickedness of conduct? … And why does he call them daughters, unless because they share the sacraments? Therefore a good daughter is among wicked ones, in the same paternal house. But Christ’s sheepfold is made up only of Christ’s sheep. So what? As if the shepherd had no other animals. He has goats and kids too. The shepherd, then, has not only a sheepfold but also a goat pen and a pen for kids. The kids and lambs are distinguished in God’s knowledge and understanding but confused in human knowledge and judgment. As long as we live here, although they are different flocks, they are in one gathering, and so mingled that they cannot be separated until the one who will separate them from one another comes: “As a shepherd separates sheep from goats, he will place the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left.” But to answer this argument more precisely and distinctly, as the schools do, I think we must consider that just as the word “sheep” is used not only in that passage but almost everywhere in Sacred Scripture for the good and just, so “sheepfold” designates the Church among the good and just. The same is true, as we said above, of certain other words, such as “beloved,” “dove,” “spotless,” “garden enclosed,” “sealed fountain,” and “paradise with the fruits of trees”; these words are attributed to the Church on account of the just or even the elect. Therefore, if there are only sheep in the sheepfold, it does not follow that there are no goats in the Church, goats whom the bride was ordered to feed until the highest Shepherd separates them from the lambs. The word “sheep” sometimes even signifies the wicked in the Church, much less only the good. Hence these passages: “I have strayed like a lost sheep”; “All we like sheep have gone astray”; “They are placed like sheep in hell”; and “Your anger has been kindled against the sheep of your pasture.” In the Gospels we read of a lost sheep and of the sheep of the house of Israel who were lost. And when the Lord entrusted the sheep to Peter, if we think this word is used only for the good, we must fear that the wicked will think themselves exempt from Peter’s care. Indeed, all who have the sacrament of faith are understood to have been entrusted to Peter; what will be required of him is not only whether he fed the flock of good people, but also whether he strengthened what was weak, healed what was sick, bound up what was broken, brought back what was cast away, and sought what was lost. In this sense Christ’s sheepfold is no narrower than the Church; like the Church, it contains sick sheep as well as healthy ones. But in cap. 10 Ioannis the Lord used the word “sheep” in that other sense. Finally, what is objected in this seventh main argument is easy to refute. For if the false prophets went out from among the disciples, they were first inside, in the household; otherwise they could not have gone out. “But,” he says, “they were not of us.” This is explained in two ways. First, John means that those people were false and counterfeit disciples of Christ, who, like friends and table companions for a time, departed on the day of need. Among us

they shared the same table with us, he says, and had all the other sacraments in common, but their virtue was pretense, boasting, and show. Therefore, since they were not truly and sincerely ours, they were not of us. For if they had been like us, Christians in heart, they would certainly have remained with us. Second, perhaps he is speaking of men who claimed to be apostles when he says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us.” For some, from the very beginning of the Church’s birth, claimed the name of apostles, though they were not true apostles of Christ but false apostles. What he says, then, is this: “They went out from us,” that is, from our school and fellowship; “but they were not of us,” that is, they were not truly apostles; for if they had been, they would certainly have remained with us. For the true apostles whom Christ chose for the ministry of the Gospel did not say one thing at one time and another at another, but always said the same things; their principle of truth and life was constant and lasting. For this belonged to the authority of the Gospel: that its first ministers, to whom it was entrusted, should preserve the fragrance and flavor of Christ always and in every place. By contrast, crafty laborers, although at times they transformed themselves into apostles of Christ, were eventually exposed to all by their folly, and their end followed their works. Even if John were speaking of the predestined, as Jerome and Augustine thought, heretics would still prove nothing. For what follows from “they were not of us,” that is, “they were not among the elect,” except that they were not in the house of God, which is the Church? As though in God’s house, together with vessels chosen for honor, there were not also vessels not chosen, for dishonor! But we have said much about the seventh argument. Now let us dissolve the eighth. There is no need to answer the testimonies from Canticis after what has been said. As for the objection from the Apostle, St. Augustine interprets it in libro 2. retractation. to mean that the Apostle describes not the Church as it already exists but as it is being prepared to exist, when it will also appear glorious. And in libro De perfectione iustitiae he says: “Since the Apostle said not only that he might present the Church to himself without spot or wrinkle but added ‘glorious,’ he made it clear enough that it will be without spot or anything of that kind when it is glorious. It must not be said to be glorious now, amid so many evils, so many scandals, such a great mingling of the worst people, and so many insults from the impious. For if the Lord himself was not glorified except by the glory of the resurrection, how can his Church be called glorious before his resurrection? He therefore cleanses it by the bath of water, washing away its past sins; then, perfecting its healing, he makes it come to that glorious state, without spot or wrinkle.” So far Augustine. St. Thomas shared this view, as did Jerome and Bernard. Augustine interpreted Isaiah’s testimony in precisely this sense in libro Contra Donatist. post collat. cap. 8. Yet another, more fitting understanding of that passage is that the uncircumcised and barbarous people will not oppress the Church of God as one tramples with the foot. In cap. 9 he teaches that the periods of the Church must be distinguished, and that scriptural passages announcing in different ways both the Church’s purity and the mingling of the wicked must be reconciled according to those differences. I remember, however, that I once explained Paul’s words this way: they all refer to the present efficacy of baptism. For what he says, “that he might present it to himself without spot,” is clear and straightforward, since it is beyond dispute that baptism

removes every spot. What he adds, “without wrinkle,” certainly refers to the newness of baptism, which has taken away and consumed the old man. For our youth is renewed like the eagle’s through the bath of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out abundantly upon us. But how is the Church glorious through baptism? It is presented as a glorious bride to her bridegroom when a virgin, illustrious in birth and virtue, beautiful and clean, is presented to him in a precious robe adorned with gold and jewels. Yet neither is that queen described as glorious, who stood at the king’s right hand clothed in a golden garment and surrounded by variety; nor Esther, shining in royal dress and surrounded by her glory; nor Solomon in all his glory—yet the Church, newly initiated by baptism’s sacrament, is more glorious to Christ. For those words apply no less to the Church than to the synagogue: “I washed you with water and cleansed the blood from you, and anointed you with oil”; “I clothed you in embroidered garments, put sandals of hyacinth on you, girded you with fine linen, and clothed you in delicate fabrics”; “I adorned you with ornaments, put bracelets on your hands and a necklace around your neck”; “I put an earring above your mouth, rings in your ears, and a crown of beauty on your head”; “You were adorned with gold and silver.” It would indeed be easy to explain each of these in terms of baptism’s efficacy, but this is not the time. We are therefore not forced to refer to the future effects that baptism bestows on the Church in the present. For the Apostle gathered all these things into two: that the Church be holy and spotless. “That he might present,” he says, “to himself a glorious Church, without spot or wrinkle or anything of that kind, but that it be holy and spotless.” We believe it is so even now—not in every part, for that is not necessary, as we said before, but in many members, whose holiness and purity make the Church itself truly be called holy and spotless. There is certainly no question that the Church is holy and spotless in little children and adults newly cleansed by baptism. But, as Augustine taught, one may also rightly call spotless someone who is free of damnable crimes and does not neglect to cleanse even his venial sins by almsgiving. Scripture calls such people spotless: “I shall be spotless with him.” How? “I will keep myself from my iniquity.” Again: “Blessed are the spotless in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord”; for those who commit iniquity have not walked in his ways. Therefore, the Church is spotless in those who are cleansed of iniquity and crime, and there are many such people, even though all contract some impurity—that is, venial fault—from their frail and changeable nature. According to this interpretation, which seems to me more consistent with both Paul’s words and his meaning, it is clear that the Church exists even now: in some of its members wholly spotless, that is, without any spot at all; in others so pure that they may have some spot, though a slight one. In some she is a dove; in some she is perfect. We call those perfect, in the common phrase, who are content with mortal life and attain the best way and manner of living on earth that human beings can, though they sometimes fail in the smallest matters. Yet “everyone who sins has not known God,” and “everyone who is born of God does not commit sin.” St. Bernard, in the sermon on Septuagesima beginning “Magna mihi consolatio,” takes this passage to refer to the sons of God according to predestination, whom he interprets as not sinning, that is, not remaining in sin. St. Augustine, however, in homilia quarta on this epistle of John, in libro secundo De baptism. parvulorum, cap. 8, and in libro secundo contra Parmenianum, cap. 7, and at much greater length in libr. De perfect. iustit., explains that the sons of God do not sin by virtue of being sons of God, while those who sin do not know God in the way by which they sin. Sin

does not proceed from faith and knowledge but from ignorance. By contrast, faith and charity, by which we are sons of God, do not act wrongly but reject every sin. St. Thomas follows this opinion with his school, 2. 2. quaest. 24. art. 11 ad 1. Other African bishops followed it with Augustine, as is clear from epistola quinque episcoporum ad Innocentium. Just as Paul could say, “If I do what I do not wish, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me,” so a just person who sometimes fails slightly in something that conflicts with the law of nature can truly say the same: “It is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” Since some passages of this epistle and very distinguished men agree with this interpretation, I would not dare reject it. But to say honestly what I think, I prefer Jerome’s view: he does not think John is speaking about sin in general, but only about mortal sin. This is readily seen in almost the whole context of the epistle. The Apostle’s purpose there is to show that light has no communion with darkness, Christ with Belial, and that justice and iniquity, crimes and charity, Christ and Antichrist cannot be mingled, any more than night and day. For there were certain heretics, many of whom are now Lutherans, who thought it enough if they had faith once they had received baptism, even without works. John began to drive out this error immediately, in the first chapter, with these words: “God is light, and there is no darkness in him. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in darkness, we lie.” Again, in capite secundo: “By this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. Whoever says, ‘I know him,’ and does not keep his commandments is a liar.” Again, in the same chapter: “Whoever says that he remains in him ought to walk just as he walked … Whoever says that he is in the light and hates his brother is in darkness.” Again: “… if anyone loves the world, the charity of the Father is not in him …” Again, in capite tertio: “Everyone who commits sin commits iniquity”—that is, lest anyone think he will speak of every sin, even a slight one, for iniquity is a grave sin. Then he adds: “Everyone who remains in him does not sin, and everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.” For there is a kind of knowledge and science of God that is familiar and proper to those who have the spirit of understanding, knowledge, and counsel; all the wicked lack this spirit. Thus they neither see nor know God, although they boast that they have visions and revelations from God. Again: “Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices justice is just, as he is just. Whoever commits sin”—that is, mortal sin—“is of the devil … Everyone who is born of God does not commit sin,” namely, as long as he is a son of God, because his seed, that is, charity, remains in him. And just as a good tree, unless it is corrupted, cannot bear bad fruit, so a son of God cannot commit a crime or wicked deed unless he ceases to be a son of God. “By this the sons of God and the sons of the devil are manifest. Whoever is just is a son of God; whoever is not just and does not love his brother is a son of the devil.” Again, at the end of the epistle: “Everyone who is born of God does not sin.” That is, he does not violate charity but keeps the commandments, because God’s begetting preserves him and the evil one does not touch him. That is, as long as he preserves that seed, God’s begetting preserves him and the evil one does not touch him. But if he willingly casts away the seed from which he was born, then, having become a son of the devil, the evil one will not only touch him but use him as his own. Augustine too embraces Jerome’s meaning in homilia quinta on this epistle.

Would that the Apostle’s teaching were not necessary for people of our age! But we see many who neglect care for their brothers and charity, abandon other precepts of the Gospel and nature, and spend day and night in little prayers and meditations—I will not call them contemplations—while lying that they know and love God. “By this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.” For one who does not love does not know God. “This is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments.” Indeed, whoever reads both the second and especially the third epistle of the same Apostle will understand more clearly that his whole discourse refutes those who falsely claimed to be good, just, friends and sons of God without charity toward their neighbor. More gravely, they feigned with greater artifice that they were devoted to knowledge and contemplation of God. But enough has been said about this argument, perhaps more than the purpose of this work required. Therefore, to avoid saying too much about the testimony from the epistle ad Hebraeos, we will say nothing. Yet there is no need to say anything, since our work and effort are hardly needed to dissolve arguments of this kind. It is also easy to answer the first objection in the ninth argument. For it has already been shown that, for the Church to be holy, it is not necessary that all those called its parts be holy. We do not, as Jerome did, use “Church” in two ways, for both the Church that is wholly holy and entirely the body of Christ, and the Church that has wicked people mixed with the saints. Rather, we teach that the Christian people are truly called holy, even though not everyone counted among this people is holy. We have decided to disregard those most elegant quibbles by which this claim was attacked. They are mere sophistical nonsense, more worthless, as they say, than Sicilian trinkets. Besides, perhaps we believe the Church is holy because the people have been dedicated, consecrated, and sanctified to God through baptism; Scripture commonly calls such people saints. What is added immediately, however, must be examined carefully. It is one thing to be a part of the Church, another to be a member of the Church. The word “part” extends more broadly; the word “member” is narrower. “Part” refers to a whole, “member” to the body of a living thing. Thus a part may be found without life, as in stone, wood, and other such things. But a member cannot truly or properly be understood without life. Therefore, the wicked are parts of the Church but are not members of the Church or of Christ. They are members of the devil. Yet they are considered to be in the Church and are counted and enrolled as citizens of this commonwealth, citizens who are nevertheless wicked and criminal. How good and wicked people form the same people, while there is still no fellowship between light and darkness or agreement between Christ and Belial, St. Augustine explains admirably in contra Donat. post. collat. cap. 6. From this one point, the other confirmations of this argument are overturned to the last detail, as they say. Whether one says “body,” “bread,” “grain,” “wheat,” or any similar term, these names properly apply in themselves to the good, but through the good they also apply to the people whose chief parts are the good. It is clearer than needs judging that all Augustine’s words convey this sense. For he denies that the wicked are in the body of Christ, and that condemned members can have Christ. He denies that they are counted among the members of the dove. He denies that they belong to the Church that has no spot or wrinkle. He denies that they belong to the structure of God’s house or even dwell in it, where only those of one mind dwell. For, as has often been said, all these things are attributed in themselves only to the good, and through them they are attributed to the Church. In the same way, on account of a distinguished and preeminent part, certain things are said of the whole

that do not apply equally to every part. Augustine perhaps followed Jerome’s division, dividing the Church in two: the Church that is good in every respect and is the body of Christ, and the Church made up of good and wicked people. How can they object Augustine to us, when in libr. retract. 2 cap. 18, in Psalm. 24 act. 25, in libr. contr. Petil. 3 cap. 12, in De unitate ecclesiae cap. 13, and in contra Donat. post collat. a. 4 through cap. 11, he holds our view most clearly and consistently? There is no doubt that Cyprian and Jerome agreed with us: Cyprian in epistola ad Maximum, Jerome in comment. epist. ad Galat. and in dialogo adversum Luciferianos. So much for the ninth argument. I think the points made in the seventh argument adequately answer the tenth as well. For the eleventh argument, take this answer: it is not contrary to the usage of Sacred Scripture if we call the same people happy and blessed on account of the just, and miserable and wretched on account of the wicked. Moses calls Israel at one time an elect people, a blessed people, a holy nation, and a people especially belonging to God; at another, a stiff-necked people, foolish and senseless. Isaias sometimes calls it the people of Gomorrah, sometimes the people of God. Indeed, if Scripture’s usage is as we showed with many examples in refuting the second argument—rebuking the people as if all were wicked, and consoling them as if all were good—it also follows that the same people is called wicked in rebuke and blame, and holy in consolation and praise. Nor did Augustine hesitate to interpret the Church as black in the wicked and beautiful in the good, in 3. lib. de doctrin. christ. cap. 32. Origenes called the Church a den of robbers because some sell doves in it, trat. in Matth. 15. But if this defense were not enough, we have another: in such matters the good has a certain greater force than the evil. The few good people count more toward making the people good than the many wicked toward making it be called wicked. Moreover, we call the Church holy because it is specially consecrated to God; for this reason, even if many wicked people are in it, it neither ought nor can be called the synagogue of Satan. Hence, in concilio Constantiensi the shameless slander of the man who called the Roman Church the synagogue of Satan was condemned. Enough, then, about the eleventh argument. The twelfth is weak and frivolous, although Calvin does not hesitate to rejoice in what he ought to have blushed over. At times he reasons acutely and more often elegantly, but sometimes so ineptly, tastelessly, and coldly that you can hardly believe he had any reason or even common sense at all, much less learning or acuity. Such is the power of heretical error and blind obstinacy: it can strip away all learning, extinguish the light of understanding, and blunt the entire edge of the intellect. But to the point. It is true that the Greeks are schismatics, and therefore the Church is not among them. For we believe in one Catholic Church. Therefore anyone who separates himself from its unity is not in the one Catholic Church and so is not in the Church at all. The Greeks are not only schismatics but heretics too, for this reason especially among others: they deny that Christ established one shepherd for the whole Church in blessed Peter. But this is out of place here; it will be discussed elsewhere at the proper time. If there are some

who so defect from Christ, the true head of the Church, as to reject faith in him, I admit that they—and all the more so—lose the privilege of the Church’s name. When the Supreme Pontiff dies, however, the one Church undoubtedly remains, and the Spirit of truth remains in it; but without Christ’s vicar and the one shepherd of the Catholic Church, it is left maimed and diminished. Therefore, although truth is then in the Church too, if controversies of faith and religion arise, the Church’s judgments without a head on earth will not be so certain. This is not the place to pursue the matter. The Apostle, however, when he deliberately wished to define the Church’s unity in that passage, completely forgot the thing on which we say the Church’s unity depends. I cannot marvel enough at the futility of these people, who, having failed to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace and having separated themselves from the body of the Church, bring against us the passage of Paul that is most adverse to them. For if Christ has one body and not two, how can we admit two Churches? And if there is one faith, how can someone who differs in faith and religion be in one Church? Does the one who despises Christ’s vicar acknowledge one Son? Certainly, whoever invents the worship of God by his own judgment neither worships one Spirit nor acknowledges one Father and therefore is not in one Church, which cannot worship or have the one God without right and Catholic faith. But let us briefly refute these points, which come to mind though they lie outside the case and beyond our purpose. Let us pursue the rest. They say that there are some good men among the Greeks. Certainly, if there are any, they are only those who agree with the Catholic faith, are free of schism, and hold one head for one body and one shepherd for one sheepfold—not only in heaven but also on earth. For this seemed right to Christ, our head and shepherd: to leave one in the Church in his place, and as soon as a faithful person rejects him, he abandons the unity of the body and the sheepfold. So in Israel under Hieroboam there were some devout men, but only those who, when the kingdom was divided, contemplated no division of faith, religion, or priesthood. But this is for another time. Now I think it should be pointed out that in that passage the Apostle describes the perfect unity and communion of the Church, such as is found among good and holy men. For we must remember that “body” properly names the Church of the just. A body is first defined by one spirit, which not only gives it life like a soul but, like a spirit, directs, moves, and urges each of its members toward its own end. Second, one body also requires one hope of calling, where “hope” is used for the thing and glory hoped for, as in the passage, “Hope that is seen is not hope.” Like other commonwealths, this commonwealth therefore has one end to which all its citizens are called and destined, toward which all the members of this body are directed. Third, one commonwealth requires one Lord, one king, and one head; for if it had two heads, it would be monstrous. It also requires one faith. For unless the citizens of this commonwealth are faithful, they will not form the people of God. The people of God are understood to be dedicated to divine worship and religion. Unless there is one common faith shared by all, there will not even be one religion, and so there will not be one Church of God. What is more, if we believe different things, we cannot have one and the same goal and end, since faith is like the eye of this body. Therefore one faith is necessary. Finally, in addition to these things, one baptism is necessary, in which is contained the communion of the other sacraments. For the Christian people consist not only in the inward communion of faith and the bond of charity, but also in the outward profession of faith and the fellowship of the sacraments. Hence, unless they share the same baptism and the same sacraments

and are externally joined as members, they cannot come together into one Body of Christ, which is the Church. The Apostle mentioned baptism alone, partly because among all the sacraments it is especially one, and partly because this sacrament is the distinctive seal of the Christian people, by which we are not merely marked but also consecrated. Circumcision served this purpose for the Synagogue. In the words Paul adds, “one God, one Father …,” he seems to me to be guarding against our thinking that there is tyranny and domination in the one Lord of this commonwealth. Having said “one Lord,” he softens and moderates the lordship with gentler words. “Let one Lord,” he says, “not frighten you; for the one Lord is one God and also one Father.” By “God,” understand the goodness, gentleness, and providence of the divine power. “Blessed is the people whose Lord is its God.” Yet much more blessed is the one whose Lord is its Father; for the Father signifies a singular love and exceptional care, so that you understand not so much a kingdom as one family of a father and his children. But somehow, while my discourse lingered and clung to Paul’s words, it wandered farther from the purpose, and I almost forgot my task. I was saying that the Apostle defines the perfect unity of the Church’s body through all its causes. But the Church’s unity extends more broadly and is found also among those who do not preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, who are not joined to one another by love, and who do not connect themselves to their head by clinging to one another. Indeed, certain parts of this whole are present without faith, as are hidden heretics for as long as they have not been excluded from the Church. For them it is enough to have one baptism and the same fellowship and communion of the sacraments for them to be said to be in that Church. Theologians of the highest authority affirm that it is not only uncertain but not even probable that the Supreme Pontiff, bishops, and other ministers of the Church are deprived of power and jurisdiction through hidden and inward heresy. Nor can one even imagine that the rulers, magistrates, and administrators of a commonwealth are not parts of that commonwealth. From this it is clear that unity is not equal in all the parts of the Church but in some is very imperfect. If this is not understood, it can be grasped from a natural body. In such a body the spirit and soul exist in a way that gives some parts the power of sensation, others the power of growth, and still others, it seems, no animal or vital faculty at all, as if those parts had neither soul nor spirit within them. We also see that when a member lacking sensation and life withers in the body, because it remains connected with all the other parts, it participates in a certain outward motion from the spirit, though the spirit communicates nothing inward or vital to it. The Spirit of Christ holds and maintains precisely this way in the body of the Church. He animates some parts and makes them so alive that they seem to lack none of the vital motions; he so flows into others that he does not give them life, to be sure, but imparts a certain inward breath, as it were, of life; to others he grants his outward power and capacity, so that although they are wholly dead and dry members, because they have not been cut off from the body, they are moved by the Spirit along with the body. This wondrous continuity and arrangement of affected parts, although limited and modest, has such force in the Church that, because of the place they hold in the body, some parts are called heads of the ecclesiastical body. “Woe to you,” he says, “who are wealthy in Sion … the leaders, the heads of the peoples.”

That is, members are sometimes transferred metaphorically not on account of the life they claim by their own nature, but on account of the position they have acquired in the body. Thus the one who holds the first place in the Church’s governance is called the head of the Church, even though he is not properly and truly a member of the Church’s body. But we seem to have said enough here about the matters concerning the Church’s unity. Let us now speak of the Church’s universality, which is the question in the thirteenth argument. Καθόλον in Greek, if you render word for word, means “according to the whole,” for olon means “whole.” Hence, as Augustine says, it received the name “Catholic” because it has spread throughout the whole world, in accordance with the prophecies. Since all nations are also understood to be in the whole world, the Church is therefore called Catholic, that is, universal, because it extends widely and far among every people, nation, sex, and condition. The notable oracle about both these things is: “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the ends of the earth as your possession.” By this distinction it is set apart not only from the Synagogue but also from the conventicles and gatherings of heretics. Some also say that the Church is called Catholic on account of the common faith and universal doctrine. The Church’s faith and doctrine are common and universal in many ways: first, with respect to people, according to the saying, “Preach the Gospel to every creature”; then with respect to place, as it is written, “They preached everywhere,” and “their sound has gone out into all the earth”; and also with respect to time, since the apostles did not say one thing at one time and another later, but always said the same thing. “God is faithful,” he says, “for our word to you was not ‘yes’ and ‘no,’ but in it was ‘yes.’” Again: “The wicked have told me fables, but not like your law; all your commandments are truth.” And later: “Forever, O Lord, your word remains; your truth is from generation to generation.” Therefore what is certainly and constantly believed and taught by everyone in every place and at every time is truly called a Catholic dogma. And a Church that has dogmas and a discipline of this kind is truly a Catholic Church. For the assemblies of heretics have private, foreign, inconsistent, and secret doctrines. Vincent of Lérins rightly and wisely says in De prophan. nova.: “In the Catholic Church itself, to which not one nation or one corner but a multitude of peoples is converted, let us hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. For this is truly and properly Catholic, as the force and reason of the name itself declares, since it truly and universally embraces all these things. Since this is so, he is a true and genuine Catholic who decides that he alone ought to hold and believe whatever he has learned the Catholic Church has held universally from ancient times. Whatever one person introduces later, as new and unheard-of, apart from everyone or against everyone, he should understand as pertaining not to religion but rather to temptation.” So far Lérins. I know that other reasons are usually given for why the Church is Catholic, but these seemed to me the strongest for defending this name. Once these points are established, that argument is easily dissolved. First, the Church has not been so contracted and narrowed that it is no longer spread throughout the world. Indeed, in our own time a new world has appeared, very large and extensive, to which the sound of Christ’s disciples has gone out, lest anyone say that the Spaniards, Gauls, Italians, Germans, and the other nations where the name of Christ lives or has not been entirely erased occupy only a small part of the world. Second, it is enough for the Church to have spread throughout the whole world once for it still truly to be called Catholic. It is the same Church and holds the same faith that the Apostles made known throughout the whole earth. Indeed, the universality of the present faith must be referred to the universality

that existed earlier in the Church and, finally, to that universality which the apostles brought forth throughout the whole world, as was shown in libro secundo. It follows that even if the Christian faith were reduced to the narrow bounds of a single province, it would still be Catholic, and the province that held that faith would also be a Catholic Church. For individual Churches included under the universal Church are also called Catholic because they have the faith that the universal Church holds and has always held. These and the remaining points are clear, so they must be considered briefly. In the fourteenth argument, then, it is objected that it is useless to expect the judgment of all the faithful. I will answer this argument as briefly as possible. As said elsewhere, there are two kinds of things believed by the Church. One kind concerns everyone equally, such as that God became man and that our soul is immortal. In this kind it is not very difficult to learn the faith and judgment of everyone. I do not mean that each person should be asked separately, which would be very troublesome and exceedingly ridiculous; rather, each person’s faith in such matters at once makes itself known and, with only moderate diligence, can be learned and understood by us, especially if the matter becomes contentious and the people grow heated in their usual way. The other kind consists of matters whose knowledge concerns not the unlearned and inexperienced in the Church but the elders and wise. For example, that the Epistle ad Hebraeos is canonical, and many other similar matters. If you ask the common people’s opinion in this kind, it would be like asking a blind person about colors. Therefore, cautiously and wisely, when matters of this kind perhaps come up in popular discussion, those who are somewhat more modest among the common people make no affirmative or confident pronouncement at all, but profess that in these matters they believe and think what the Church believes and thinks. By this name they certainly mean the wise and elders of the Church. Further, whether the question concerns this kind or the other, the people neither ought nor can pronounce judgment as if from a tribunal. For, as we take for certain and established here, the power to bind, loose, and judge does not belong to each of the faithful but to the rulers and pastors of the Church. We will discuss this elsewhere. Now we say that in a general controversy the common judgment of the faithful provides a certain argument, although there is no need to examine the opinion of everyone individually. But in faith concerning matters proper to teachers and the wise, only their judgment must be expected; the common people’s judgment need not even be expected. For the former make the Catholic dogma certain; the latter make nothing certain. Yet in decrees and laws concerning either kind, neither the people nor all the wise have a place, but only those who are pastors of the Church, as we will explain in the following books. Let the arguments by which the truth and authority of the pastors were attacked be deferred to the next book, where we will refute these and many others of the same kind far more appropriately. Finally, Calvin proposes two marks by which to recognize the Church: the order in the word and sacraments entrusted by Christ, to which every assembly claiming the name Church must be held up as if against a Lydian stone. This would be sound, were it not that he himself wants to hold that Lydian stone in his hand and denies it to everyone else. We assert that the Lutherans retain neither the sincere doctrine of the Gospel nor the lawful administration of the sacraments. They, in turn, lay both charges against us. Who will be the judge? They deny that the Church exists among us; they claim its existence among themselves, as we say;

But they lie. Who, then, are those for whom this Lydian stone is certain, sound, and genuine for discerning the true Church? Arius, Nestorius, Macarius, Donatus, Pelagius, and all the other heretics, even when waging war on the Church, will put forward the same two marks of the Church with precisely the same arrogance. Therefore, in every controversy of faith with heretics, the Church’s identity will be at risk. For they will immediately object either that we are in error about the faith or that we do not administer Christ’s sacraments as Christ instituted and prescribed them. Believe me, the Church is more evident than that, so that whenever questions are raised, not only its authority but its very existence and name are called into doubt. But in this passage Calvin was so foolish that his very foolishness is all there is to laugh at. He now says that the Church exists among us, and now denies it. Now he says the Church has never died out; now, on the contrary, he asserts that the pure preaching of the word vanished some centuries ago. At one moment he affirms that the name Church was not abolished under the Roman Pontiff, whom he calls Antichrist, but that Churches remain even under his tyranny; then he asserts that all present assemblies of Catholics are polluted by idolatry and impious doctrine, and therefore lack the power of the keys. If this is so, who are the Churches of Christ? If they are Churches of Christ, they will be members of the Catholic Church. But if they are members of the true and Catholic Church, they cannot approve the crime of idolatry or teach errors contrary to the Gospel. Likewise, although it would seem foolish even to me to demand this of him, I would make him answer whether he thinks that there are some good men among the Catholics. If none, because, as he says, all are idolaters to a man and no one can be devout while living in impiety, then before Luther no good man at all existed among the Catholics, since all were guilty of the same crime and lived in the same error. Therefore, the Catholic Church of Christ did not exist anywhere in the world before Luther. And where are those promises about Christ’s eternal kingdom, which he could not evade by any interpretation because they are open, clear, and plain? But if some of us are truly devout, then the Church among us is not impious but devout. Since the Lutherans have separated themselves from it out of a contentious spirit, it is most certain that they have defected from the true Church of Christ. What? Is it ambiguous whether Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Chrysostom, and the other excellent and outstanding men whom we Catholics both venerate and acknowledge were true members of Christ’s Church? They all stand with us, and all oppose the Lutherans. This is very easy to show. But why should I be so foolish as to try to persuade anyone that, like heretics, the Lutherans wage war against Christ’s Church? As if it were difficult, by clear and necessary reasons, to demonstrate that they are in neither the Apostolic, Catholic, holy, nor one Church. Nothing would be easier, clearer, or more straightforward, if this were the place or time. The very arguments Augustine used with the Donatists to bring their minds back to the true understanding of the one, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church are arguments with which we can defeat the Lutherans without difficulty or effort. And if the facts themselves, which are nevertheless in our hands, abandoned us in this conflict, the very names “Catholic” and “Lutheran” most openly and plainly demonstrate that we have the true and genuine mark and character of the Church, while they do not, even though they feign, pretend, and conceal the name of the Church. Jerome says: “If anywhere you hear those who

are called Christians named after anyone else, such as Marcionites, Valentinians, Pelagians … know that it is not the Church of Christ but the synagogue of Antichrist.” Augustine and Epiphanius taught that heretics are to be distinguished from Catholics by this same mark. Since the Lutherans have taken their name from Luther, it is clear and plain that they have departed from the common faith and Catholic Church into a private and peculiar heresy. But on earth we have no teacher of the faith; Christ alone, who is in heaven, is our teacher, and from him we have inherited the name “Christians.” Therefore we are in the Church of Christ. I have said these things as briefly as they could be said. Now I will proceed in order to the remaining loci I have undertaken and return to my assigned task.

ON THE AUTHORITY OF COUNCILS