AD. TANQUEREY

A MANUAL
OF
DOGMATIC THEOLOGY
Translated by
RT. REV. MSGR. JOHN. J. BYRNES
RECTOR OF ST. THOMAS SEMINARY, BLOOMFIELD. CONN.

IV’j. Angel Abbey Library
pt, Borwacitctj Oregon 9/3/3

DESOLEE COMPANY
NEW YORK — TOURNAI — PARIS — ROME
1959

Nihil Obstat.
John J. Stack, S. T. D.

Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur.

+ Most Reverend Henry J. O’Brien, D.D., LL.D.

Archbishop of Hartford, Connecticut
February ij, 1959.

all rights reserved

Printed in Brighuit

ANGELICO DOCTORI
SCHOLARUM THEOLOGICARUM PATRONO

QUI AD ERUDITIONEM INCIPIENTIUM
THEOLOGIÆ COA1PENDIUM
SCRIBERE NON DUBITAVIT
BREVIOREM HANC SYNOPSTM

AUCTORES HUMILLIME DEDICABANT

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS USED

A. A. S. = Acta Apostolica Sedis, Acts of the Apostolic See.
A. S.
= Anathema Sit. These words indicate that the
preceding proposition is heretical, and has been
officially condemned by the Chruch.
The Code = The Code of Canon Lato,
D. A.
= Dictionnaire Apologétique, by P. D’Alès.
D. B.
= Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiridion Symbolorum.
D. T. C. = Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique (Vacant, Mangenot, Amann).
P. G.
= Patrologia Grceca, J. P. Migne.
P. L.
= Patrologia Latina, J. P. Migne.
R. P. A. — Revue pratique d’Apologétique.
R. A.
= Revue Apologétique.
Summa Theologica e The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas.
Summa Contra Gentiles ■■ Work on the Truth of the Catholic
Faith by St. Thomas Aquinas.
Major Synopsis = Synopsis Major Theologia Dogmatica, by
A. Tanquerey.

CONTENTS
FORE\
INTRO«rW

CÇ3TION TO THEOLOGY

FIRST PART
(‘GENERAL OR FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY
PREFA
Jnt

3
3
4
6

TO APOLOGETICS

Th· uctory Concepts.................
His^rtitude That Apologetics Oilers
.-pical Survey ol Apologetics

TRACT I.
'vXTURAL AND SUPERNATURAL RELIGION
CHAP?

Th< RX L KKLIGION IN general....................................... 11
Thi.^wncept of Religion
.............................................. 11
7\r ecessity of Some Religion....................................... *3
7τ", Historical-Psychological Argument ........................ 10
,‘e Metaphysical Argument
....................................... 19
chap j
ThiCR* ,L revealed religion ........................................... —
Th· r/oncept of Divine Revelation........................................... 22
Tht possibility of Divine Revelation.................................... 24
Th·. vUccessity of Divine Revelation ....................... ■ ·· 27
1; floral Obligation of Seeking and of Embracing ReveSc^ti>»n ....................................... ·· , ......................
gji-on : The Catholic Doctrine on Revelation
. · · · 33
*]
CHAP

ThcE^1 ni· THB CRITERIA OF divine revelation .. ·· 34
Mir Criteria of Divine Revelation in General ..................... 34

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

al^on; The Catholic Teaching about Miracles

"·· ····

47

X

CONTENTS

TRACT II. CHRIST, A DIVINE LEGATE
OR THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION
Introductor}· Notes concerning the Books of the Old and
of the New Testaments
............................................... 49
CHATTER I. THE DIVINE LEGATION OF CHRIST IS PROVED FROM
ITS PREPARATION
........................................................................................ 52

The Preaching of the Prophets ........................................... 53
The Prophecies Which Announce Christ’s Ambassadorship 56
CHAPTER II. THE DIVINE LEGATION OF CHRIST IS SUPPORTED
BY HIS TEACHING........................................................................................ 59

Christ Taught a Doctrine
.................................................. 59
The Excellence of Christian Doctrine.................................... 6°
A n Explanation of this Excellence .................................... 60
The Supernaturalism, of Catholic-Christian Doctrine ..
63
CHAPTER III. CHRIST’S DIVINE LEGATION IS PROVED HISTORI­
CALLY FROM HIS LIFE.............................................................................. 66

The Person and Testimony of Christ.................................... 66
The Person of Christ.......................................................... 66
The Testimony of Christ .................................................. (>7
An Explanation of Christ’s Testimony about His Divine
Ambassadorship................................................................. 67
The Meaning of Christ’s Testimony.................................... 71
Christ’s Miracles and Prophecies........................................... 72
Christ's Miracles .................. 72
Christ's Prophecies
.......................................................... 75
Christ’s Resurrection
.......................................................... 76
CHAPTER IV. THE HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIANITY CORROBO­
RATES CHRIST’S DIVINE AMBASSADORSHIP
......................... 82

The Wonderful Propagation of Christianity
..................... 82
The Constancy of the Martyrs
........................................... 86
CHAPTER V. CHRIST’S DIVINE AMBASSADORSHIP IS MORE FIRMLY
ESTABLISHED BY DRAWING A COMPARISON BETWEEN
CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS
....................................89

Buddhism
.........................................................................89
Islamism................................................................................ 91
Conclusion of This Tract : All Should Accept the Christian
Religion
......................................................................... 93

CONTENTS

XI

TRACT III. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST
Introduction ........................................................................ 95
Prefatory Notes about Various Christian Churches .. .. 97
CHAPTER I. REASON SPEAKS IN FAVOR OF THE DIVINE INSTITU­
TION OF THE CHURCH
................................................................................... 99

The Moral Necessity of an Infallible Authority..................... 99
The Moral Necessity of a Living Magisterium....................ιοί
CHAPTER II. THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH IS
PROVED FROM HISTORY........................................................................... 104

Christ Established the Church as a Society Properly Called 104
Christ Instituted the Church as an Hierarchical Society.. 106
The Institution of the Apostles..........................................107
The Bishops Are the Apostles’Successors
................... m
The Infallibility Conferred on the College of Apostles and
of Bishops
..................................... .. .· .. · · 114
Christ Established the Church as a Monarchical Society .. 118
The Primacy of Peter......................................................x 18
The Roman Pontiffs Are Peter's Successors ................. 121
The Infallibility of Peter and of the Roman Pontiffs.. .. 128
Conclusion : The Roman Catholic Church and This Church
Alone Is the True Church of Christ.................................. 132
CHAPTER HI.
THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH IS PROVED BY EXTERNAL MARKS
................... 132

The Universal Unity and Indestructible Steadfastness
of the Catholic Church
....................................... ... 133
The Extraordinary Sanctity and the Unexhausted Fruit­
fulness of the Catholic Church...................................... 136
Conclusion of Apologetical Theology : Outside the Church
There Is No Salvation
............................................. 138

TRACT IV.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
CHAPTER I. THE INNERMOST CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH
OR THE RELATIONS BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.. I4I
CHAPTER II.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH............................ I43

The Object of the Church’s Authority or Power
.. .. 144
The Object of the Doctrinal Magisterium of the Church.. 144
The Object of the Church’s Power to Rule
....................147

CONTENTS

XII

The Exercise of Ecclesiastical Power.................................. 148
The Exercise of Pontifical Power
.................................. 149
The Exercise of Episcopal Potter
.................................. 153
Members of the Church........................................................ 157
CHAPTER HI.
STATE

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE
........................................................................................................... 162

Principles.............................................................................. 162
The Union of Church and State in Catholic Territories .. 163
Relations of the Church with a non-Catholic State.. .. 165
Manner of Acting as far as Modern Freedoms Are Concerned 165
Conclusion of Tract : The Nature and Superiority of the
Church............................................................. .. .. 168
TRACT V.
CHAPTER I.

THE SOURCES OF REX ELATION

TRADITION

.................................................................................l6<J

Existence of Divine Tradition
.......................................... 171
The Organs of Tradition....................................................... 173
The Solemn Magisterium of the Church ........................... 174
The Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church.. 176
SACRED SCRIPTURE
............................................................182
The Inspiration of Sacred Scripture
........................... 182
The Use of Scripture as a Source of Revelation
.. .. 186
Conclusion of Tract : Comparison between Scripture and
Tradition
....................

CHAPTER II.

XIII

CONTENTS

SECOND PART
SPECIAL THEOLOGY
TRACT VI.

FAITH

FIRST SECTION :
Faith Itself
.. ............................................................. I90
Concept and Division ...................................................... 190
THE OBJECT OF FAITH..................................................... IOS
The Formal Object or the Motive of Faith........................ I93
The Formal Object Itself ............................................... I94
The Signs or Motives of Credibility ............................... I97
The Material Object of Faith .. .. ............................... 201
202
Is the Material Object of Faith...............................
Formally Revealed Truths.............................................. 202
Virtually Revealed Truths.............................................. 204
The Material Object of Divine-Catholic Faith................. 205
Private Revelations
...................................................... 207
The Nature or Force of Dogmas
................................ 208
The Increase of Dogmas
.............................................. 2TI

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

THE ACT OF FAITH

........................................................

The Causes Which Directly Produce the Act of Faith
Controversy concerning the Final Resolution of Faith
The Properties of the Act of Faith
...............................
The Certitude of Faith
..............................................
The Obscurity of Faith
..............................................

2lS
218
226
228
228
23I

THE HABIT OF FAITH
............................................. 232
The Infusion of the Habit of Faith
............................... 232
The Subject of Faith
...................................................... 234

CHAPTER III.

SECOND SECTION :
The Theology
*
or the Science of Faith.................................. 237
CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

THE SOURCES WHICH THEOLOGY EMPLOYS
THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD

. .

238

...................................... 244

XIV

CONTENTS

TRACT VII. ONE GOD
CHAPTER I.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

................................................. 249

The Demonstrability of God’s Existence ...........................250
The /Arguments by Means of Which God’s Existence
Is Proved ....................................................................... 256
The Divine Names
........................................................ 262
CHAPTER II.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD ..

. . 264

God's Nature or Essence
................................................. 264
The Divine Attributes........................................................ 266
The Attributes of God in General
.................................. 266
The Specific Attributes of God......................................... 268
The Simplicity of God
................................................. 268
The Immutability of God................................................. 271
The Eternity of God ........................................................ 272
The Immensity and Ubiquity of God .......... 273
The Infinity of God ........................................................ 275
The Unity or Unicity of God ............ 276
CHAPTER III.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

.. 278

God’s Knowledge ............................................................... 279
The Object of Divine Knowledge
.................................. 279
The Divine Ideas and the Properties of Divine Knowledge.. 282
The Species of Divine Knowledge and the Medium of Divine
Knowledge
................................................................284
The Divine Will
............................................................... 286
The Object of the Divine Will ......................................... 286
The Properties of the Divine Will
.................. 288
The Divisions of the Divine Will
.......... 294
Providence and Predestination ..........................................295
Providence .................... 295
Predestination and Reprobation
.................. 298
Catholic Doctrine concerning the Saving Will of God .. .. 299
The Theological Systems Relative to Predestination .. .. 303
The Omnipotence of God
................................................. 308
Conclusion of Tract : The Beatitude or Happiness of God.. 310
TRACT VIII. THE TRIUNE GOD
The Concept of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity

..

.. 311

CHAPTER I. THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY IS PROVED
FROM REVELATION...................................................................................... 3I4

The Trinity of Persons in the Unity of Nature...................317

CONTENTS

This Mystery Is Proved from the New Testament ..
This Mystery Is Irrefutably Proved from Tradition
The Divine Processions......................................................
The Procession of the Son through Generation.................
The Procession of the Holy Spirit
..........
Corollaries Relative to the Three Persons........................
The Divine Missions
......................................................
Missions in General ......................................................
An Invisible Mission
..............
A Visible Mission
......................................................

XV

318
323
329
330
333
338
340
340
342
343

CHAPTER II. PHILOSOPHIC-THEOLOGICAL EXPOSITION OF THE
MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY
................................................. 344

The Knowability of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity
.. 344
Analogies and Philosophical Explanations
................... 348
Logical Conclusions
........................................................ 352
Conclusion of Tract : Devotion to the Holy Trinity .. .. 356

TRACT IX. GOD THE CREATOR
THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
............................ 357
The Mosaic Cosmogony
.................................................358
Dogmatic Truths Which are Surely Contained in the First
Chapter of Genesis........................................................ 358
The Order of Creation Described by Moses
................... 364
Transformism....................................................................... 367

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

THE ANGELS

...................................................................... 371

Angels in General.............................................................
Definition of Angels ......................................................
The Existence of Angels
..............
The Natural Gifts or Properties of the Angels.................
The Grace of the Angels and Their Fall........................
The Orders of Angels......................................................
Guardian Angels .............................................................
The Existence of Guardian Angels ...............................
Their Duties towards Men
............
Our Obligations towards Them.......................................
The Bad Angels
.............................................................
Diabolical Temptation
..............................................
Diabolical Obsession and Possession................................
Magic............................................................................
Facts Which Approach Magic, Magnetism, Spiritism, and
Hypnotism

371
371
372

$
38
i

381
383
3S4
384
384
386
388

389 ........................................................

XVI

CONTENTS
CHAPTER ΠΙ.

MAN

The Origin of Man.............................................................
The Creation of Our First Parents ...............................
The Unity of the Human Race.......................................
The Nature of Man ......................................................
The Propagation of the Human Race
........................
The Elevation of Man to the Supernatural State
Introductory Concepts about the Supernatural Order
The Existence of Grace in Adam
...............................
The Gift of Integrity in Our First Parents
.................
Man’s Fall
....................................................................
The Sin of Our First Parents .......................................
Original Sin in Adam’s Descendants
........................
Its Existence
.............................................................
Ils Effects .....................................................................
The Nature of Original Sin
.......................................
The Agreement or Consistency of the Dogma of Original
Sin with Reason

394..............................
394
394
397
399
401
403
4θ3
409
412
4ï8

418
421
421
425
43°
434....................

FOREWORD

It affords us great -pleasure to recommend the present translation
of Tanquerey’s Brevior Synopsis of Dogmatic Theology.
The
theological works of this renowned scholar are well known to (he
American clergy. His textbooks have been the instruments by
which many of the priests in the United States have acquired that
solid training in Catholic doctrine so essential to the successful
fulfillment of their priestly duties in the salvation of souls. The
works of Father Tanquerey need no apology. The priest who
has been nourished by the truths therein contained has received
" that solid doctrine which has been handed down by the fathers
and is commonly received by the Church. ” (Code of Canon Law,
can. 129). His works come well recommended for the purity
of doctrine, the clarity and precision of his explanation, and his
fidelity to the teachings of the fathers and the great doctors of the
Church.
Those who are acquainted with the calibre of Tanquerey’s Latin
manuals have long awaited a translation into the vernacular.
This work, from the talented pen of Monsignor Byrnes, will be an
invaluable aid to the priest whose busy parish schedule affords
him little time for intensive study but who, nevertheless, is keenly
aware of the necessity of continued growth in his speciality. It will
be of great assistance to the seminarian who wishes to review quickly
in the vernacular those tracts which he is preparing for exami­
nations. This conspectus of Dogmatic Theology will also have
a special appeal for the religious, both men and women, who are
searching for a deeper understanding of the divine truths which
they must frequently present in the classroom. But perhaps the
supreme value of a work such as this is that it makes available
to the educated Catholic layman a systematic and scientific expo­
sition of the fundamental truths of the Catholic faith. It will
answer the urgent need among the faithful for a deeper and fuller
grasp of the truths of divine revelation which Christ confided to
His Church.
The Catholic layman needs a more profound understanding
of religious truths than that which is culled from simple catechism
N° 642 (I) — 2

xviii

FOREWORD

instruction. In order to develop that compelling ambition for
worthy Christian living, he needs a deeper appreciation of the splen­
dors of the Christian idea of life. Sacred Theology should become
the cherished possession of every informed Catholic. For it is
a discipline which showers upon the human race advantages and
blessings far more valuable than those which spring from any
other study within the competence of man. The most eminent
among other functional sciences can assist man in procuring
an ordered and cultured life in this world. The knowledge which
they offer can serve to alleviate corporal and mental ills and can
contribute to the attainment of temporal happiness. But the Queen
of the Sciences, Sacred Theology, presents the only certain and
completely satisfactory formula for an eternal beatitude, for an
indescribable happiness far superior to any merely temporal joy.
Other sciences assist man to ward off evils. Ignorance, suffering
and injustice may be diminished and even extirpated from among
men through certain studies which are purely natural both in their
scope and in their method. Sacred Theology, however, holds
a unique position among the sciences which are within the grasp
of man in that it is capable of impeding the most disastrous mis­
fortune which can befall man, an eternity of anguish and futility.
Moreover, Sacred Theology has a definite function to perform,
an inestimable contribution to make toward our civilization.
The temporal ills to which individual men and societies are subject
can be cured only through the practice of Christian virtue and
the recognition of the rights of Almighty God. Not until man
and society realize that man is a creature of God, that every man
has a peculiar God-given dignity and destiny, that God's eternal
law must be observed in all the varied situations of life shall the
world see true peace and prosperity. The only discipline which
can offer a complete and satisfactory instruction in these eternal
verities is Sacred Theology itself. This science alone can give to the
world that divine wisdom which is so essential to the regeneration
of our social order.
Certainly al no time in the history of the world has man had
a greater need for ultimate answers, for a rule of life, for a
pattern for happy living; for no other age has been so troubled
by such widespread insecurity, by social and economic injustices,
by such instability and unhappiness in family and individual

FOREWORD

XIX

life. Sacred Theology is the one agent that can remedy these evils'
It is the one science which has the ultimate and irrefutable answer
to the complex problem of human living. The man who takes
up this study, who has a sincere desire to know and to practice
those divinely revealed teachings as they are proposed for our
belief in the magisterium of the Catholic Church, the man who
works to explain that doctrine in unequivocal and lucid terms is
preparing himself for a glorious apostolate on behalf of human
welfare.
Monsignor Byrnes has performed a service of major importance
in making Tanquerey’s Brevior Synopsis of Dogmatic Theology
available in English. The lasting contribution that this translation
will make towards extending the knowledge of the Church’s teaching,
towards intensifying and enriching the Christian spirit will amply
justify the labors which have gone into its production.
+ HENRY J. O’BRIEN

Archbishop of Hartford

INTRODUCTION
TO THEOLOGY 1

1 Theology (6εύ;, λόγο;, discourse about God) is a super­
natural science which, with the help of reason and of revelation
(formal object) treats of God and of creatures in as much
as they are traced back to Him (the primary and the secondary
materia^ objects). Thus theology is distinguished from
theodicy and from faith.
2 Divisions
Λ By reason of method, theology can be :
a. positive, which explains and proves each dogma from
the sources of revelation, Scripture and Tradition. It is
called, on that account, biblical or historical;
b. scholastic, which examines scientifically and philoso­
phically the dogmas of faith by defining more clearly their
meaning, by showing conclusions, by making evident the links
which exist among revealed truths, by reconciling these
truths with reason, and by combining them into one collection
of doctrine;
c. mixed, which harmoniously joins the positive method
and the scholastic method. St. Pius X recommended this
method and throughout this work we shall follow it.
1 In the Synopsis Major the reader will find a fuller explanation of doctrine
and an enumeration of the various authors who should be consulted. In this
Brevior Synopsis we shall point out one or more books on each question.
Synopsis Major, n. x-13.

2

INTRODUCTION TO THEOLOGY

3 B By reason of the object, there have been various divisions.
Today, however, theology is commonly divided into dogmatic
and moral :
a.Dogmatic theology is concerned with the truths which
theoretically must be believed; it is called the rule of what
must be believed.

b. Moral theology treats especially of those things which
must be done or of practices (morals); therefore, it is called
the rule of what must be done.
Dogmatic theology is then subdivided :

1. into fundamental or general, which explains the foun­
dations of all theology, namely, the fact of revelation and
the divinity of the Church.
Religion, the Religion of Christ, the Church of Christ, the
Constitution of the Catholic Church, the Sources of Revelation.
2. into special theology, which scientifically explains the
individual doctrines.
General
Theology

Special
Theology

Religion
The Religion of Christ
The Church of Christ
The Constitution of the Church
The Sources of Revelation
Faith
The One God
The Triune God
God the Creator and the Upholder
The Incarnate Word
God the Sanctifier i thr0USh 8race
God the banctmer | through the sacraments
God the Remunerator

FIRST PART

GENERAL OR FUNDAMENTAL
THEOLOGY
Because Apologetics occupies the first and the foremost
place in this section, we shall introduce the subject at some
length.

I. PREFACE TO APOLOGETICS
4 Meaning of the Word. Apologetics (the Greek απολογητική,
a defense, or a pointing out) is the science of the motives
of credibility and of credentity of the entire divine revelation
which was preached by Christ and which has been set forth
through the Catholic Church ». Apologetics differs from apo­
logies, which are defenses of dogmas taken one by one.

5 Scope or Extent of the subject. Apologetics leads to the
credibility and the credentity of the Christian religion. Thus
it is, so to speak, the vestibule or entrance to faith. Credi­
bility 3 is the capacity of any truth to be believed in as much
as it is proved by most certain signs (cf. note 52), which are
called the motives of credibility, that this truth has been
revealed by God. The judgment of credcniity declares that
this truth must be believed with a divine faith now that
its credibility has been established.
1 De Poulpiqvet, L’objd intégral de l’Apologétique.
Le Bachelet, a. Apologétique, Apologia, in D. T. C. Synopsis Major,
n. 14-25.
* Gardeil, La Crédibilité et ΓApologétique, a. Crédibilité in D. T. C.

4

FIRST PART

Faith, however, is a supernatural virtue “ by which we
believe, with the grace of God assisting and animating, that
those things revealed by Him are true, not because of the
intrinsic truth which has been perceived by the natural
light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself
revealing W ho can neither be deceived not deceive1 ”.
Apologetics, of itself, is not sufficient for producing faith,
for faith is primarily a gift of God and presupposes good will.
Therefore, that one may be led to faith, the motives of credi­
bility must be offered to him. At the same time he must
be moved so that he will pray humbly to God and make
a most sincere effort to perceive the force of the arguments
which show that the doctrine of Christ can be accepted and
must be accepted as revealed by God.
6

Nature and Division. Apologetics makes use of reason,
for it would be a vicious circle to verify faith by faith and
to establish revelation by revelation itself. However, Apolo­
getics uses reason under the direction of faith : otherwise,
how will reason prove that Catholic truths must be believed
with divine faith if reason ignores the nature, the acts, the
object of this faith?
This Christian-Catholic demonstration is concerned with :
1. Religion, both natural and revealed;
2. Christ, the Divine Ambassador or the Religion of Christ:
herein we prove that Christ was truly sent by God;
3. the Church of Christ : in this division it will be evident
that the Catholic Church has been instituted by Christ.
II.

THE CERTITUDE THAT APOLOGETICS OFFERS’

7 The Meaning of Certitude. In general certitude is a firm
adherence of the mind to something which can de known,
without fear of erring and without danger of falsity. Real
* Vatican Council, session 3, chap. 3, D. B., 1789.
* .Ι/α/or Synopsis, n. 26-35.

GENERAL OR FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

5

certitude implies two elements : an exclusion of doubt which
admits no degree of doubt; and an adherence of the mind
which is firm to a greater or less degree.

Kinds of certitude. We distinguish a threefold certitude :
metaphysical certitude, which is founded in metaphysical
necessity or in the very essence of things ;
physical certitude, which is based on the physical necessity
of the laws of nature ;
moral certitude, properly called, which is founded on the
invariable manner in which men are accustomed to act.
8 The objective certitude in Apologetics. It is certain Catholic
doctrine that the arguments of Apologetics ought to produce
not merely probability but true certitude. This fact is distinctly
deduced from the condemnation of the opposite opinion
by Innocent XI, Pius IX, and St. Pius X. And truly the
assent of faith should be the firmest kind of assent. Further­
more, the will cannot command such an assent unless this
assent really is in agreement with the fact of divine revelation.
9 The subjective assent to the truths of Apologetics. This
assent is elicited from the intellect as it perceives these truths
both directly and indirectly. At some time, however, the
influx of the will is required for offering this assent. For
this influx of the will is obviously necessary in the matter
of those truths which include practical conclusions about
our moral life and which are proved by historical facts known
from the testimony of man. But the truths of Apologetics
are of this nature. Therefore, the certitude that is consistent
with Apologetics is not mathematical : certain theologians,
however, call it moral certitude because it is a firm adherence
of the mind to truths that influence moral life. This adherence
is given under the influence of moral dispositions and with
the union of the will.
The will concurs in the assent to these truths of A pologetics :
a. by making ready for this assent beforehand with moral
dispositions, the principal of which arc :

6

FIRST PART

1. a sound mind, neither debilitated by scepticism nor
deformed by prejudices;
2. mortification of the passions, especially of pleasure
and of pride;
3. sincere love for truth ;

b. by allowing oneself to be led into this assent through
applying the intellect to the study of truth ;
c. by strengthening this assent through the practice of
religion.
III. HISTORICAL SURVEY OF APOLOGETICS
*

Apologetes have made use of various arguments according
to the various attacks of adversaries and according to the
different types of minds of those whose conversion they
have sought.

A

The Apologetic Method of the Fathers

10 Among the Fathers we must mention :
In the second century, St. Justin, Minucius Felix, TertuIlian.
The sophistries of the pagans they rejected and the truth of the
Christian religion they proved from its antiquity, its excellence
and superiority, from the prophecies that were fulfilled in Christ,
and from the miracles that were performed by Christ.
Tn the third century at the school in Alexandria, Clement,
who regarded philosophy as a directive to Christ, and Origen,
who contended against Celsus.
In the fourth century. Lactantius and St. Augustine who
searched out the ways of Divine Providence in his work, De
Civitate Dei.
B

The Apologetic Method of the Scholastics

Tn opposition to Averroes St. Thomas explained philosophical
and theological truths clearly and proved them completely.
In his Summa Theologica he demonstrated with distinction the
harmony between dogmas and reason.
Major Synopsis, n. 36-90.

GENERAL OR FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

7

C From the time of the Reformation to the igth Century
Bossuet, in his work Discours sur VHistoire universelle, showed
the intervention of God in the origin, the progress, the spread,
and the continuance of Christianity. Hutt, in Demonstratione
Evangelica proved clearly and expressly the divinity of the Chris­
tian religion from prophecies.
Pascal, in a work which he
did not finish, Les Pensées, showed that religion alone could
bring forward an explanation of the nobility and, at the same
time, of the wretchedness of human nature. Pascal did not
omit the external arguments of divine revelation, namely pro­
phecies and miracles. However, he inclined overmuch to pessi­
mism and fideism.
D Method Used in the 19th Century

Châteaubriand represented, in the manner of the poet, the
divinity of the Christian religion in Le Génie du Christianisme ;
Félicite de Lamennais attacked indiiïerentism in Essai sur l’indif­
férence but, in so doing, he inclined somewhat to suppressing
the power of human reason;
Frayssinous in Conférences and August Nicolas in Etudes
philosophiques sur le Christianisme demonstrated the truth of
the Christian religion by internal and external criteria; Balmès
in Le Protestantisme comparé au Catholicisme dans ses rapports
avec la civilisation européenne proved that Catholicism, under
social consideration, is much superior to Protestantism.
Lacordaire carefully considered and eloquently explained
the doctrinal authority and the power of the Church; he then
progressed to the Founder of the Church, Christ, and proved
His Divinity from His own testimony. Finally, in his very
clear explanation of the other dogmas, he demonstrated how
harmoniously they agree with reason. Lacordaire's method
was the social or psychological method. In his work. Histoire
de la Civilisation au V' siecle, Ozanam revealed the wonderful
effects of the Christian religion in the intellectual and moral
order.
Brugère adapted the traditional method to our times.
Bougaud proved the necessity of religion by a method which
he called intrinsic or intimate.
Cardinal Deschamps rested his thesis on a twofold argument :
internal, namely the necessity we feel for some authority in which
we can trust completely in religious matters; and external,
that is, the existence of the Catholic Church which lays claim to
an infallible authority as her own

il

8

FIRST PART

Xwiwb showed that the Christian religion is entirely consistent
with natural religion and that conscience testifies to the truth
of natural religion. Also, he gave historical arguments which,
when taken separately, have only probable value. He did not
deny that the credibility of revelation rested on solid arguments,
but his explanation of this fact inclined towards an elucidation
of the way by h.ich he arrived at faith.
E Particular Methods used by Apologetical
Writers of the 20th Century

12

i. Some have followed the traditional method; for example
there is de Broglie, who, while using the internal and external
criteria, added the argument of transcendance. From this it is
apparent that Christianity, when compared with the other
religions, surpasses all of them so much in excellence of doctrine,
in the sanctity of its Founder, in the reality and number of mira­
cles, that we must acknowledge its divinity
2. Others have proposed new methods which they consider
more effectual.
a. OHc-Laprune showed that Christianity is necessary for the
right disposition of our intellectual and moral life; also,
he reminded us that certitude in the matter of religion is not
attained without genuine sincerity and good will.
b. Fonssegrive taught that a full and perfect life cannot
be maintained without the Christian religion, for it alone can
fulfill the many desires of our nature. He stated, further, that
this religion exhibits signs of divinity which are most certain
and reliable, namely miracles.
c. Brunelicre thought that faith is reasonable because man
fully aware of his inability to discover a rule of morals, perceives
the obligation of believing as the condition on which he regulates
his life rightly and promotes the social order. In this system
human reason is reduced in its capability more than is right,
for the human reason can supply certain motives of credibility,
according to the affirmation of the Vatican Council.

13

3. Finally, still others defended the method of immanence :
thus, for instance, were M. Blondel, Laberthonnière, Mano, Tyrrell,
and many others who supported this method in one way or
another.
Blondel reasons in this manner : Religion cannot be imposed
upon man from without; however, the supernatural, although

GENERAL OR FUNDAMENTAL THEOLOGY

9

not due to human nature, must be shown to be requited from
within us for the perfect fulfilling of our faculties in such a way
that we are bound to embrace it. The conduct of man cannot
reach its perfection without the cooperation and help of an
Infinite Being, such as the Christian religion possesses; for within
us are the most profound aspirations to do some great good which
exceeds our powers. It is necessary, therefore, that in accom­
plishing this good we be helped by some Infinite Being. But since
we cannot reach this Being through our own powers, we need His
cooperation. Therefore, we need some revelation through which
He manifests Himself to us. Once we have posited these asser­
tions, the fact of revelation has been demonstrated historically.

It must lie noted that this method should not be employed
unless it is amended according to the mind of St. Pius X :
a. of itself this method without the historical arguments
is not sufficient for proving the fact of Revelation;
b. it shows no absolute necessity but only a moral necessity
of some revelation ;
c. it docs not prove that the supernatural, properly called,
is really required by human nature ’ (confer note 50).
If these excesses are avoided, the method of immanence can
prepare the way for the historical proof and can contribute new
force to it. It is not, however, suited to all minds; for many
have not experienced these noble aspirations which Blondel
writes about at great length in his work.

1 In the Encyclical Letter Pascendi those Catholics are censured “ who as
much as they reject the doctrine of immanence as a doctrine, nevertheless,
use it in place of an apology; and they do this so incautiously and unres­
ervedly that seemingly they admit not only the capacity or the fitness in
human nature for the supernatural order —· and indeed Catholic Apologists
have always demonstrated this by employing suitable arguments · but they
admit a genuine need in the true sense of the word ”. A fortiori those are
condemned who can be called integralists; they want it accepted as proved
that there lives hidden in the man who does not yet believe the very germ
or embryo which was in the consciousness of Christ and which was transmitted
by Him to men
(D. B., 2103).

TRACT I

NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL

RELIGION

14 Scope of this tract. Today everyone admits that among
the various races and nations there exist certain diverse
facts which are of a religious nature. Many explanations
have been given for this situation. The purpose of this
tract is to prove scientifically the truth of the Catholic teaching
concerning religion and divine revelation; both of these are
necessary for attaining our final end.
The importance of this question is obvious, for it involves
our final destiny and the correct regulating of our entire life.
All of this is, of course, very important to us.

Division.
In the first Chapter we shall discuss religion in general,
its notion and its necessity ; in the second Chapter, the concept
of revealed religion, its possibility and its necessity; in the
third Chapter, the criteria for searching out divine revelation
and for accepting it.

CHAPTER I

RELIGION IN GENERAL

I.
15 I.

THE CONCEPT OF RELIGION
*

Meaning of the word.

A According to man}· the word religion is derived etymo­
logically from relegere, to gather together; others state that
it comes from re-eligerc, to choose again; more probably
it has its origin in the word religare, to bind fast.
B Really, however, religion includes the whole order
or arrangement under which an intelligent creature is morally
subject to God. Herein we view it either objectively or
subjectively.
a. Objectively considered, religion is a collection of truths
and of services by means of which our entire life is directed
toward God. Thus it includes three essentials :

1. for the intellect, a doctrine or dogmas about God, about
man, and about a way to God.

2. for the will, a rule of precepts.
3. a worship through which man willingly professes in his
actions God’s supreme lordship or ownership.
From the history of the facts that pertain to religion we
learn that these same elements are always present. Thus
1 Synopsis Major Theologia Dogmatica, Ad. Tanquerey.

12

CHAPTER I

religion differs from philosophy, ethics, art; and to a greater
degree it differs from superstition and magic.

b. Subjectively considered, religion is the voluntary
inclination of rnan by which he acknowledges God and directs
his life correctly towards God by accepting moral truths
and by undertaking the offices and obligations of worship.
The special acts of religion are faith, adoration, thanksgiving,
petition, and penance for sins.
c. The following definitions of religion we must reject because
they are false or incomplete :
1. the definition of Kant who held that religion consists
only of morality, since the dictates of conscience are regarded
as the voice of God ;
2. the definition of Fichte, according to whom religion is a
merely speculative science concerned with very lofty things;
3. the definition of the Modernists who think of religion as a
certain emotional communion with divinity, which has arisen
from the subconscious;
4. the definition of the Positivists who state that religion
is a puerile explanation of natural phenomena, the cause of which
is not known; therefore religion is the equivalent of superstition.
2. Division.

According to its origin religion may be
a. natural, if it is founded in the very nature of things,
if it is acquired by means of the reason alone, and if it is directed
towards a natural end ; as a matter of fact, a completely natural
religion has never existed.

b. supernatural or revealed if it is made known by a positive
revelation, if it contains dogmas or precepts which have
been manifested by the explicit will of God, and if it leads
to a supernatural end. We call this supernatural religion
primeval when it refers to the religion that was given to
Adam and to the patriarchs; Mosaic when it concerns the
religion promulgated by Moses; and Christian when it relates
to that preached by Christ.

13

RELIGION IN GENERAL

II. THE NECESSITY OF SOME RELIGION
17 State of the Questions. Atheists, Materialists, Positivists,
Agnostics, Pantheists, and the out and out Indifferentists
deny that there is a need of any religion. Others, stating
that God must be adored in spirit and in truth, reject the
need of any external and public cult.
In the first thesis we shall show the need of some religion;
in the second thesis, the need of a public cult, (second thesis,
number 29).
First thesis : Everyone has a moral obligation of professing
religion, i. e., of acknowledging God as the beginning on
Whom we depend and to Whom we must give worship.
In proving this thesis we shall make use of a two-fold
argument; the first, an historical-psychological argument,
and the second a metaphysical one. The first argument
prepares the way for a demonstration by showing directly that
man needs religion, and by showing indirectly that he is
obliged to give worship to God; the second argument
demonstrates this obligation directly.

First Argument : The necessity of some religion
is proved by the historical-psychological argument.
The arguments that are drawn from history and psychology
can be reduced to one because they depend on one and the
same fact, namely, the religious inclination of human nature
as we study or consider it in the human race as a whole and
in the individual man; both lead to the same conclusion.

i° An Explanation

of the

Facts

about

Religion 1

18 That the fact of religion is a universal fact no learned
man today denies or can deny. Both among people whose
history is known and among uncivilized people, who are called
1 Huby-CAtisIks, Manuel d'histoire des Religions, Beauchcsne, Paris, 1912;
Bricout, Où en est l’histoire des Religions; Letouzey, Paris, 1912; Pinard
De La Boullaye, Etude comparée des religions.
Major Synopsis, n. 109-171.
N® 642 (I). — 3

14

CHAPTER I

Primitives, we detect a certain religious worship. Everywhere
we find dogmas, at least a belief in the existence of some
Supreme Being superior to man, caring for or interested
in man, capable of harming him or of benefiting him.
Therefore, this Supreme Being must be appeased, adored,
and conciliated. Everywhere we find moral precepts which,
although different on many points, always forbid impiety
towards the gods and parents, and injustice towards one’s
fellow men. Everywhere the gods are worshipped by rites
which are very accurately marked out and which must be
scrupulously observed.
19 That we may better understand the nature of this fact, religion,
we shall make some brief references to the religion : a, of the
Primitives, b, of the Nations of the Far East, c, of the Nations
of the East, d, of the Nations of the West.

a. The Primitives 1 admit man’s dependance on a Supreme
Being who made all things; they admit the existence of spirits
and of man s immortal soul, and a distinction between moral
good and moral evil; they have rites, sacrifices and ceremonies,
all of which they regard as obligatory.

b. Among the Nations of the Far East :
1. The Chinese practiced a three-fold worship, according
to the testimony of Confucius, namely, of a Supreme Being,
of genii who work wonders throughout the world, and of their
elders and ancestors who after death are numbered among the
genii.
2. The ancient inhabitants of India professed Brahmanism
and its teachings are contained in their oldest books called Vedas.
The Brahmans conceived divinity, somewhat obscurely, as a
Superior Being to whom sacrifices were offered. In the popular
or common Neo-Brahmanism the number of gods increased
adorned with many heads and arms. Its ethics teaches a rigid
asceticism, and at the same time encourages impure orgies. In
the sixth century before Christ Buddhism arose. (See note under
15x, Chapter V).
1 By Primitives wc do not mean the first men, but rather, the people of
today, still uncivilized, living in Africa, America, and Oceania, who arc believed
to represent, as it were, a stage in the already accomplished evolution of the
human race, and to retain, therefore, the earliest form of religion. Thus
Sal. Reinach, Cultes, Mythes et Religions, Introduction.

RELIGION IN GENERAL

15

3. The Persians and the Medes followed the religion of Zoro­
aster which recognizes a two-fold principle, of good and light,
of evil and darkness; each of these is eternal and independent.
God who is pure must be revered; therefore, not only actions
but also words and thoughts must be pure.

c. In the Orient :
1. The Semites, that is, the Assyrians and Babylonians,
Chanaanites, the Aramaeans, the Arabs, the Edomites, the
Moabites, the Ammonites — we shall refer to the Israelites later
— acknowledged some Supreme Being which they called El or II;
however, they later added Baalim, Moloch, and Astaroth; to these
they offered sacrifices of various kinds.
2. The ancient Egyptians had an idea of one invisible Supreme
Divinity; to this they added various gods; Ra, Thot, Osiris.
Animals as such they worshipped. Even a cult of the dead flou­
rished among the Egyptians.
20 d. In the West :
1. The Greeks reverenced Zeus, the father of the gods and
the king of men; he was provident and all other gods had
to have recourse to him. '1 he Greeks revered, also, the forces
of nature and their outstanding men, their heroes. Their religion
included, too, a cult of the family of the nation.
2. From ancient times the Romans adored Janus whom
they considered the beginning of all things. Then, after capturing
Greece, they worshipped the gods of this country. The Romans
were very religious, first of all in the family over which I-arcs and
Penates presided, then in the tribe or clan which solemnized
a tribal worship, and finally in the state which had its own
tutelar deities, Romulus and Remus, its own goddess, Vesta, to
whom the Romans dedicated a special temple. In this temple
virgins kept perpetual watch over a sacred fire.
3. In the time of Caesar, the Gauls were polytheistic; their
rites were carried out by Druids.
4. The Scandinavians had three special gods; to these they
united goddesses and many secondary gods. The priests offered
sacrifices, at times even human sacrifices, to these deities.
5. In the forests the Germans honored a Supreme Divinity
which they represented neither in pictures nor in statues; in
addition, they had other gods which were almost the same as
those of the Scandinavians. Many superstitions, magical arts,
and impure and cruel rites debased their worship.

16

CHAPTER I

I RELIGIOUS FACTS BRIEFLY EXPLAINED

21 We state : From the history of religions we rightly infer
that religion is so natural to human nature that it must be called
necessary; that is, it is necessary to man in this sense that
man by his entire nature is moved to pay worship to a Supreme
Being whose existence he recognizes, as it were, spontaneously.

This statement we prove :
1. by refuting the theories of the opposition
2. by setting down the true explanation.
22

A Opposing theories or hypotheses we reject as false and
incomplete, especially three theories which adversaries propose :

a. The Positivists teach that ignorance of the laws of
nature produces the concept of a Supreme Being to whom
worship is given. This means that religion, through a
progressive evolution, assumes various forms : naturalism,
animism, fetichism, idolatry, polytheism, and, finally, mono­
theism, which in turn will soon die away as science casts
its light forward.
This hypothesis, first of all, takes for granted that tme
science is incompatible with the concept of a Supreme Being
That such a supposition is false is evident when we consider
the cases of men who are skilled in the sciences and who
at the same time are devoted to religion.
This hypothesis, secondly, is opposed to facts that arc
historically certain because religion among many peoples
has little by little declined from monotheism to idolatry and
polytheism.
Thirdly, this hypothesis has no foundation, for the first
religion of man before revelation remains unknown to us,
it cannot be shown that the uncivilized tribes living today
have preserved a more ancient form of religion *, and many
1 M. J. Lagrange, Etudes sur les Religions sémitiques, 1903, p. 5, rightly
thinks that the Semites added many accidental and complex rites, and likewise
Many intricate precepts to primal or primeval religion; so much the more
is this true of today’s primitives.

RELIGION IN GENERAL

17

affirm that these tribes were not given up to naturalism
or animism only
Fourthly, this hypothesis is unequal to explaining the
moral fruits of the religious idea, and by no means can it
explain the ideas or notions that arc essential to any religion
whatsoever, for example, the ideas of a right, of a ceremony,
and of a moral obligation.
23 b. The Psychologists think that the religious sense arises
from the subconscious in certain circumstances and is, in
the first place, a particular religious emotion; moreover,
from this emotion the intellect extracts gradually certain
concepts according to the ideas that have already been
acquired. Thus in an inherent or subjective manner the
concept of divinity is acquired which, substituted for various
religious experiences, is thereafter associated with them
according to the laws of evolution. This hypothesis the
Modernists favor. It is based on the philosophical doctrine
about the subconscious. This is a false doctrine in that
it leads to pantheism; without cause it supposes that ideas
originate from emotions; nor docs it explain the moral
obligation which all religious impose.
c. The Sociologists state that religion arises from a certain
sense of dependence on collectivity (on people as a body) which
is conceived by the ignorant as a certain Superior Being
that must be religiously reverenced.
This explanation is insufficient, for society can give the
idea of a coercive force, but not of a moral obligation f. Besides
Totemism, upon which it depends, is not a universal fact,
nor has it been thoroughly examined. Now many do not
regard it as the first social form of Religion.
We must conclude, therefore, that these hypotheses are
not sufficient for explaining the origin of Religion. We
admit, however, that our opponents have collected many

24

’ Mgr Lf. Roy, La religion des Primitifs, p. 464-465.
’ Cf. Michelet, Dieu et l'agnosticisme contemporain, p. 1-46.

18

CHAPTER I

facts which show the great contribution that the extraordinary’
phenomena of nature, the religious sense, and human society
have made for preserving Religion.
25 B The true explanation of the religious fad. The true
cause of the fact of religion must be sought in the whole
man, who cannot attain his end or his happiness without
religion.
The end of man and also the happiness of man consist
in this that he attain the true and the good with all his faculties.
But religion alone offers man the greatest truth and good,
that is, God Himself. Therefore, only through religion can
man attain his end and his happiness. Thus, religion is
necessary for man.
a. The end of man. Man does not find happiness except
in the complete gratification or contentment of his noblest
aspirations :

1. The aspirations of his intellect which is striving toward
a knowledge of the complete truth about his origin, his nature,
his final end, and the means toward this end, etc. ;

2. The aspirations of his will which is pursuing the whole
and perfect good ;
3. The aspirations of his sensible nature which is in need
of some satisfaction and which is moved and borne onward
by manifold affections towards the Supreme Being who
is known by his intellect and sought for by his will.
26

b. Religion satisfies these aspirations.

1. For Religion teaches the intellect that our origin is
from God, that our final end is God Himself; and further.
Religion points out the means for attaining this end.

2. In Religion the will finds whatever is necessary for
attaining good : namely, a supreme legislator, an effective
sanction or authority, and powerful aids and assistance.

RELIGION IN GENERAL

19

3. In worship our sensibility shares the happiness of our
intellect and of our will. Thus the whole man attains his
happiness and his end.
27 c. Without Religion these aspirations cannot be satisfied.
Of those who reject religion, some profess dilettantism, others
profess positivism, and still others avow spiritism, magic,
or theosophy; and then there are those who fall into pessimism.
But dilettantism leaves man restless because it maintains
that there is nothing certain to be known about those things
which the human mind is searching after. Positivism offers
no answer regarding the questions of man’s ultimate end
and the means for attaining that end because the positive
sciences pursue phenomena only. Spiritism, magic, theosophy,
and likewise various kinds of superstitions show themselves
in the likeness of religion, but anyone who examines the
foundations of these systems perceives how empty and unreal
this likeness is.
Pessimism kindles new sorrow’s when it proclaims the
extinction and the permanent annihilation of man’s noblest
aspirations.
Accordingly, the conclusion follows1 that religion is entirely
necessary for man in order that he may fulfill his loftiest
desires. Also, in this conclusion only can there be found
an explanation of why the fact of religion is universal in
space and in time.
Second Argument : The metaphysical argument demonstrates
directly that there is in each man individually a moral obliga­
tion of professing Religion.

28 The foundation of any obligation is the directing or
regulating of any being to its ultimate end, or it is the order
1 This same conclusion G. Huby makes in Christus, p. 1011. Whoever will
consider objectively the facts treated in this manual will learn that religion
is an essential, permanent, and superior part of humanity. He must also
admit its legitimacy or doubt completely that human activity has any direction
or any purpose.

20

CHAPTER I

which right judgement directs must be followed either in the
exercise of one’s own faculties or in one's relations with other
beings. Therefore, wherever a relation exists which rational
nature orders must be kept, there arises a moral obligation l.
But right reasoning dictates or lays down those relations
between God and man which are included under the name
of religion.
a.That Religion in general is obligatory can be deduced
from the fact that God is the efficient cause of man. For
an effect, as an effect, depends totally on its cause. But
man, in his very entity, is the effect of God. Therefore,
he depends entirely on God. Moreover, the voluntary and
free recognition of this dependance is nothing other than
religion itself, therefore, Religion is truly obligatory.

b. Particular acts of Religion are imposed on man :
1. because in as much as he has been created by God,
has been preserved in existence, and has been helped by divine
coopération, he depends completely on God and therefore,
ought to acknowledge the supreme dominion of God by
adoration in order to preserve the moral order;
2. lx?cause man having freely received from God existence,
rational life, and innumerable benefits, ought to return to
Him acts of thanksgiving;
3. liecause man, conscious of the fact that he has offended
God very often by his sins, is impelled by right reasoning
to compensate for his committed offences by sincere repentance ;
4. because man, perpetually needing new helps and benefits,
should, according to all reason, have recourse through prayer
to the Author of all good; for without changing His plan,
God can nevertheless be pleased with our prayers since He
has foreseen them, and He does want us to pray because
He is supremely good and is our benefactor extraordinary.
Therefore, on each man rests the grave obligation of professing
religion, that is, of acknowledging God as the beginning
* Philosophers treat this topic in explaining the foundation of a moral
obligation.

RELIGION IN GENERAL

21

on Whom he depends, and of giving worship to Him.
Accordingly, it must be stated that Religion is not only
most useful to man, in that through it the aspirations of his
nature are satisfied, but also obligatory to man in the strict
sense that God has the right to be worshipped by every man.
29 Second thesis : A worship not only internal but also external
and public or social1 is due to God.

I. An external worship or cult is due to God :
a. by reason of Himself. The body as well as the soul
comes from God and therefore God must be given glory
in as much as lie is the creator of the body. In an external
cult this glory is given to God in a very great degree.
b. by reason of an internal cult because an internal worship,
if it is sincere, necessarily must be expressed by gesture,
words, and various external acts, and an internal worship
is increased very much by external signs and ceremonies.
Experience has shown all of this.

30 2. A social cult is due to God.
a. God is the founder and benefactor of human society
as well as of every individual. Therefore, society as such
ought to acknowledge God as the Supreme Lord and ought
to offer Him worship.

b. Society should publicly promote religion because in
this manner religion is preserved among the people most
effectively; and without religion, the fear of God is taken
away, the authority of our leaders is looked down upon,
and soon all things are disrupted.
31

Conclusion.

I. No one, therefore, may look down upon Religion and
reject it as an empty superstition which science must destroy ;
nor may one adopt an attitude of indifference towards it.
> Major Synopsis, n. 172-179.

22

CHAPTER II

But on everyone there is the grave obligation of embracing
Religion so that God may be worshipped in a proper manner.
2. There are many religions flourishing today which differ
greatly in dogmas, precepts, and rites. Which is the true
Religion? Which one should be professed by all?
3. Some religions are spoken of as revealed by God. This
statement must not be denied a priori as if all religions were
equally the offspring of human ingenuity.

CHAPTER II

REVEALED RELIGION
Consequently we must investigate Revealed Religion.
In
1.
2.
3.
4.

regard to revealed religion, we wish to discover :
What is revealed religion.
Whether it is possible.
Whether it is necessary.
Whether it is obligatory.

I. THE CONCEPT OF DIVINE REVELATION

32

i.

The Notion or Idea of revelation.

A Revelation in general. Revelation (drawing back the
veil) is the making manifest of a thing which previously was
obscure, hidden or unknown. This manifestation may be
made by man or by God.

B Divine revelation properly called is the manifestation
to us of some truth by God through the supernatural illumi­
nation of our mind>.
’ St. Thomas, a», 2», q. 171-175. Major Synopsis, n. 182-192.

REVEALED RELIGION

23

This illumination of our mind is called the speaking of
God1 because divine concepts are really and properly mani­
fested to man who hears. In other words, God in revelation
both manifests the truth, and at the same time gives witness
by His own authority, that it is He who is speaking *
*.
33 Revelation is something supernatural, that is, something
that surpasses the essence, the needs, and the forces of created
nature. It is supernatural :
1. by reason of its end, which is God as He is to be seen
in Himself, face to face;
2. by reason of its proper object, which is the very mystery
of the divine life, containing the truths which can be known
either by reason alone or not.
Revelation is called supernatural quoad modum (supernatural
as to manner) only, when the truth revealed is knowable to
reason; it is called supernatural quoad modum and quoad
substantiam (supernatural as to the manner and the subs­
tance) when the revealed truth surpasses reason.
Revelation differs from the illuminations of actual grace;
it differs from the inspiration of a sacred author; it differs
from the divine assistance which enables us to avoid error.

C This idea of Revelation 8 must be carefully preserved
in order that the errors of the Liberal Protestants may be
detected. They retain the word but in an entirely different
meaning. Thus Loisy says that revelation is the consciousness
acquired by man of his relationship to God.
1 Hebrews, I, i, 2.
’ Garrigou-Lagrange, Révélation, tract I, p. 150 sq. St. Thomas
describes immediate revelation in the Summa Theologica, 2·, 2”, q. i73· a· *·
* Cf. the Decree Lamentabili — proposition 20 : Revelation could be nothing
but a consciousness acquired by man of his relationship to God; proposition 22 :
The dogmas which the Church presents as revealed are not truths which have
come down from heaven, but are a certain explanation or interpretation of
religious facts which the human mind has acquired for itself by laborious
effort ; propositim 26 : Dogmas of faith must be retained only in a practical
sense, that is, as a preceptive norm of acting, but not as a norm of believing.
Denzinger-Bannwart, 2020, 2022, 2026. Cf. Encyclical Pascendi, D. B., 2075.

24

CHAPTER II

2. Kinds of Revelation. Supernatural revelation is
immediate when God manifests a truth through Himself or
through an angel without the intervention of man ; otherwise
it is mediate.
Immediate revelation is effected externally or internally
in as much as the truth is manifested by a preternatural
action of God either to the external senses or to the
imagination and intellect only.
Supernatural revelation is -public, if it is set forth primarily
and intrinsically for the usefulness of the human race or
society generally; otherwise it is called private.

II. THE POSSIBILITY
OF DIVINE REVELATION·
We shall use a threefold thesis to prove this possibility;
it has been assailed in a threefold way.

Thesis I : Supernatural revelation in itself is possible and
also is entirely appropriate. This statement is philosophically
certain, it is theologically de fide .*

35

Proof of the first statement in the thesis, namely, super­
natural revelation is possible :
A

On the part of God

a. God can physically reveal since He is omniscient and
omnipotent. Through His infinite power He can show things
unknown to man by means of external images which He
produces or by means of internal images which He awakens
in the imagination and in the intellect, or fashions
directly and without intermediary. Also, He can increase
and assist the keenness of man’s intellect by infusing a new
light into it.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 193-206.
* Vatican Council, session III can. 2, On Revelation; D. B., 1807.

REVEALED RELIGION

25

b. God can morally reveal, for revelation is not repugnant
to His majesty, His wisdom, or His other divine attributes.
From all other viewpoints, there is nothing contrary to
reason in this.
B On (he part of man
When man’s intellect has become submissive to God in
all its acts, it is then aided by a supernatural light that God
infuses; in that state it can perceive that, among all the
ideas which it already possesses, there is a harmony, and
that through its own power it cannot achieve this harmony.
Also, liis intellect becomes aware that this harmony is
produced by God.

This does not mean that the dignity or autonomy of human
reason is endangered or jeopardized; for what could be more
fitting for human reason than to listen to a teacher who is pre­
eminent in knowledge and in authority; and what could be more
liberating than to receive truth from an infallible witness?
Proof of the second part of the thesis, namely, supernatural
revelation is fitting or appropriate :
a. for God, who makes His attributes known in reve­
lation ;

b. for man, who is raised to a superior knowledge, who
is preserved from many errors, and who is inspired to humility,
to a love of God, and to other virtues.

36

Thesis II : Mediate revelation is possible and is entirely
fitting. This is certain.

A It is possible — for by the power of His supreme dominion
God can choose someone as His minister through whom
He will communicate His will to others; then this man, under
the influence of divine light, can perceive that God is making
known this truth to him for the intention that he transmit
it to others; finally, other men by most certain signs can
discern God’s message.

26

CHAPRET II

B

Certainly it is appropriate :

a. for God, who, while not multiplying miracles without
necessity, is wont to govern the world according to the laws
of unity and of simplicity : certainly He wishes that life,
knowledge, and virtue in the natural order be communicated
by parents to their children, and that all in society be bound
together among themselves by a multiple bond. In like
manner it is fitting in the supernatural order that revealed
doctrine be made known to a few, who then can transmit
it in its entirety to others.

b. for man, who instructed in the natural order by others,
thus shuns the dreams and hallucinations that would arise
from an immediate universal revelation, and can thus reach
his ultimate goal more safely.
37 Thesis III : The revelation of mysteries is possible and is
most expedient. This is philosophically certain, it is theologically
de fide .*
A theological mystery properly called is to be understood
as a truth which reason by itself cannot discover, and which
reason cannot understand or prove intrinsically even after the
truth has been revealed for example, the mystery of the Most
Holy Trinity.

Proof of the first part of the thesis, namely, the revelation
of mysteries is possible :
a. On the part of God: God knows many things that
are impervious to human reason and these He can show
us just as He reveals other knowledge to us.

b. On the part of man : man can understand that the
agreement between two concepts which he already has is
being corroborated for him by God even though he cannot
discover this agreement nor prove it intrinsically, nor even
see it. For indeed we can believe that a thing is so although
1 Vatican Council, session III, D. B., 1816.

REVEALED RELIGION

27

we cannot perceive how it is thus. A mystery is above or
beyond reason, but it is not contrary to reason.
Proof of the second part of the thesis, namely, the révélation
of mysteries is most expedient:

a. on the part of God : God, the greatest good, thus commu­
nicates Himself to man through revelation ;
b. on the part of man : the revelation of a mystery enriches
our intellect and offers us the opportunity of practicing
many virtues, namely, humility, faith and religion. For
example, the Incarnation is the object of faith and also an
example of humility.
38 Corollary. God can reveal positive precepts :
1. since He is the supreme Lord of men, He has the right of
giving them orders and instructions which will direct them in
the present life without any suppression of their liberties;
2. he can manifest His will in these same ways, and also
he can manifest speculative truths.

III. THE NECESSITY OF DIVINE REVELATION ‘
39 This necessity we can consider either in regard to the truths
and precepts of the natural law or in regard to supernatural
mysteries and positive precepts.
I. The necessity of a revelation of the truths and precepts
of the natural law.
40 Tn regard to this matter the Traditionalists and the Fideists
are in error, for they teach that revelation is absolutely
necessary even for these truths because human reason is
in no way capable of attaining them.
The Rationalists also err on this point, for they deny the
necessity of revelation since human reason can know fully,
1 Major Synopsis, n. 209-233.

28

CHAPTER II

in the physical and moral orders, whatever pertains to natural
religion. The Catholic doctrine stands between these extremes.

Thesis : Continuing in its present state and operating by
its own powers, the human race is not morally capable (unless
some special help of God, such as revelation, is given to it)
of knowing with readiness, with real certitude and without some
mixture of error, the sum total of religious truths which is needed
for the correct ordering of life: as a result it may be stated that
the revelation of these truths is morally necessary.

41

This is certain.
a. This thesis applies to the human race collectively taken,
as it exists now, that is, after original sin.

b. It treats of a moral inability, which nevertheless
implies the physical power of placing an act; but this power
is impeded by so many obstacles (among them the customs
of men) that it can pass over into act only with great difficulty.
We do not at all deny that within man there is the physical
power of knowing the truths and precepts of natural religion.
Thus we are at variance with the Fideists and the Tradi­
tionalists.
c. without the special help of God or without an intervention
which is not due to us, no matter what the nature of this inter­
vention may be. Some intervention other than revelation
can be conceived, but if de facto God chooses revelation as the
medium by which He comes to the assistance of man, then
this revelation becomes a necessity.

d. know readily, for the human race stands in need of this
easy, certain, and safe knowledge of natural religion by
means of which it may pursue its goal.
e. the sum total of truths, not one truth or another, but
a collection of the truths and of the duties which are necessary
for rightly arranging moral life.
This thesis we prove with a twofold argument, one historical,
and the other psychological.

REVEALED RELIGION

29

A The historical argument ’. If all the people who have
been placed outside revelation have fallen into most evil
errors concerning religion and into most wicked customs,
which reason alone could not correct or relieve, then the
human race truly lies in a state of moral impotence in regard
to knowing readily, certainly, and safely the truths of natural
religion — provided, of course, that the power which never
elicits an act is deservedly called morally impotent of eliciting
tliis act.
But, it is evident from history that all people who have
been outside revelation, have fallen into the most evil errors
concerning religion and into the most wicked customs, which
reason alone could not correct.
Therefore, the thesis holds true.

The minor is proved by setting forth the facts
a.Tt is evident from history that all people who have been
placed outside revelation have fallen into the most vicious errors :
1. concerning religion. Polytheism, dualism and idolatry
corrupted the idea of the divinity; the gods were subordinated
to destiny or fate, and indulged in vices and lusts; worship more
often fostered license; the immortality of the soul was either
denied or affirmed with great doubt; the future life was considered
unpleasant enough even to the good.
2. concerning customs many perverse things were not only
not forbidden, but rather they were permitted as licit : fornication,
sins against nature, exposition of infants.

43

b. These errors reason alone could not correct. The most
illustrious philosophers among the pagans could not lead
the people to the true worship of God because of the failure
of knowledge and of authority; in fact, it is true that they
did not wish to, because many of them looked down upon
the common populace.

We may not state that modern philosophers enjoy greater
authority than the ancient philosophers : for they have taught
scepticism, subjectivism, pantheism; also positivism, materialism,
1 Confer Abbé De Broglie, Les fondements inteiectuels de la foi chrétienne,
p. 83-96.
N® 642 (I). — 4

30

CHAPTER II

agnosticism; they have got rid of natural ethics; they have even
held that the religious sense is an infirmity of the intellect.
Nor can the natural sciences offer religious truth to us, as is
evident from the affirmations of the experts in these fields.
Therefore, we rightly conclude that some divine help is morally
necessary. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that almost
all religions have presented themselves as divinely revealed.
44 B Psychological Argument. This is evident from the
debilitated state of human nature.

In order that the human race may be morally able to
know easily, certainly, and safely the truths that are necessary
for the right ordering of life, it is required :
a. that these trutlis be adapted to the understanding
of all, even of the ignorant ;

b. that they may be acquired by all without hindrance
or delay;

c. that they may be acquired by all without serious error.

But these required conditions are lacking.
a. since they may not at all be adapted to the understanding
of everyone, many ignore them because of a lack of natural
talent, or of time, of or diligence;

b. they are so lofty that only after a long time, and very
often after youth, do men of mature age attain them.

c. finally, they often are not perceived on account of the
debility of our intellects, and also because of the maze of
confusion in our minds; and therefore many fall into error
or remain in doubt *. Nor may we say that the uninstnictcd
can learn these abovementioned truths from those who are
more learned. For according to experience, the learned
themselves have fallen into the most vicious errors, and even
today are still falling into these errors. Moreover, they
lack the authority to teach the people.
1 Coaler St. Thomas, Contra Gentiles 1. I, C. 4.

REVEALED RELIGION

31

Therefore in its present state the human race is far removed
from the moral capability of possessing by its own power
a sufficient knowledge of natural religion. Thus it is morally
necessary that God come to the help of man in another way :
such a way is supernatural Revelation.
2. The necessity of revelation in regard to supernatural
mysteries and positive precepts.

45 Thesis : If we accept the hypothesis of man’s elevation to a
supernatural order, then the revelation of mysteries is absolutely
necessary because by reason alone we cannot know what
is divine life. No one can discover something supernatural
by natural means. But apart from this hypothesis, the revelation
of mysteries cannot be called absolutely or morally necessary,
but only convenient or suitable on the part of God or of man.
Now that the necessity of Revelation has been proved,
the human mind is well disposed to seeking and embracing
Revelation.
TV. THE MORAL OBLIGATION OF
SEEKING AND EMBRACING REVELATION
*

46 In opposition to the Rationalists who reject this obligation
we laj' down.
Thesis I : If we posit the moral necessity of revelation in
regard to natural religion and the suitableness of the revelation
of supernatural truths, (hen there is a grave obligation incumbent
on everyone to search for revelation and to embrace it when
it has been found. This is certain.

Proof :
a. from the reverence due to truth and to God. If we take
as probable the existence of divine revelation, then this
reverence demands that we seek after true revelation and
accept it.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 234-238.

32

CHAPTER Π

b. from the obligation of professing religion : Tliis obligation
has already been proved. Therefore man is bound to use
the means that are necessary for knowing the true religion. But
from the moral impotence of the human race it is evident
that revelation is a morally necessary medium for seeking
the true religion.
Therefore, a serious obligation binds everyone of using
the special help that has been given by God, and accordingly
of finding out what this help is, for we cannot use it unless
first of all we know it. Moreover, men have always been
convinced that help of this kind is Revelation properly called.
Nor can we say that arguments which establish the fact
of Revelation are lacking. Therefore, man is bound to find
out whether this help is really Revelation, since this is an
a priori hypothesis which must not be rejected.

47

We may not claim that Revelation is a gratuitous gift of God
and that, therefore, it can l>e refused. It is gratuitous indeed
in this sense that God is not bound to reveal anything to us.
But it is, not withstanding, obligatory if God, as one who has
the right, wishes to impose positive precepts on man. Moreover,
actually He did wish thus, as is more than probably evident
from the fact that the human race needs Revelation for the
correct planning of its life. Besides, when we posit the raising
of man to a supernatural state, revelation is absolutely necessary
for knowing his end «.
48 In opposition to the Indifferentists, who think that all
religions are equally good and that anyone is permitted
to remain in whatever religion he has been bom or to embrace
another religion which is more adapted to himself, we state.
Thesis II : Man cannot indifferently profess any religion
at all which claims that it is revealed, but he is bound to seek
out the true Religion and to embrace it*
*.

Proof : I. From the unity of religious truth :
If God has revealed some religion to man, tliis religion
is certainly one, just as truth is one. Therefore, since it is
one and only one, all must search for it and accept it.
* Confer Mgr Pie, Instruction Synodale, July 7, 1855·
* Confer Lamennais, Essai sur ΓIndifférence.

REVEALED RELIGION

33

2. From the very nature of God : God cannot be worshipped
equally in truth and in error. Furthermore, religions that
differ cannot at the same time be true. Therefore, they
are not equally good; thence it is not licit to accept any
religion you wish.
SCHOLION.

THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE IN REGARD
TO REVELATION

49 The Church teaches :

1. Supernatural Revelation is not absolutely necessary
for human nature even in its present state in order that
it may know the truth of natural religion, but it is very useful;
however, it is absolutely necessary for directing man to a
supernatural goalM.
2. The Revelation of mysteries is useful, although mysteries
are above and beyond the human intellect ’.

It is de fide from the Vatican Council that :
I. Supernatural revelation quoad modum (as to the manner)
is possible, nay, rather it is expedient, although God can
certainly be known by human reason ;
1 “ It is to be ascribed to this divine revelation, that those divine things
which arc not inaccessible to human understanding in itself, can, even in
the present condition of mankind, be known by everyone with facility, with
firm assurance, and with no admixture of error. This, however, is not the
reason why revelation is to be called absolutely necessary; but because God
of His infinite goodness has ordained man to a supernatural end ”. Vatican
Council, session III, chap. 2; D. B., x?86.
* “ Reason indeed, enlightened by faith, when it seeks earnestly, piously,
and calmly, attains by a gift from God some, and that a very fruitful, under­
standing of mysteries; partly from the analogy of those things which it naturally
knows, partly from the relations which the mysteries bear to one another
and to the last end of man; but reason never becomes capable of apprehending
mysteries as it does those truths which constitute its proper object. For the
divine mysteries by their own nature so far transcend the created intelligence
that, even when delivered by revelation and received by faith itself, they
remain covered with the veil of faith itself, and shrouded in a certain degree
of darkness, so long as we are pilgrims in this mortal life... ”. Vatican Council,
session III, chap. 4; D. B., 1796.

34

CHAPTER III

2. Supernatural revelation quoad substantiam (as to the
substance) is possible;

3. Revelation contains de facto true and proper mysteries;

4. Divine Revelation can be made credible by external
signs l.

CHAPTER III

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION
We shall consider successively criteria in general and then
miracles and prophecy.
I. THE CRITERIA
OF DIVINE REVELATION IN GENERAL·
50 i.

State of the question.

a. It is certain, contrary to the opinion of the Rationalists,
that the sole criterion of Revelation is not its conformity to the
principles of reason. This criterion can indeed prove that
1 If anyone shall say that the one true God, our Creator and Lord, cannot
be certainly known by the natural light of human reason through things that
have been created, let him be anathema.
If anyone shall say that it is impossible or inexpedient that man should
be taught by divine revelation, about God and the worship to be paid to
Him, let him be anathema.
If anyone shall say that man cannot be raised by a divine power to a higher
than natural knowledge and perfection..., let him be anathema.
If anyone shall say that divine revelation cannot be made credible by
external signs..., let him be anathema.
If anyone shall say that in divine revelation there arc no mysteries, truly
and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood
and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason,
let him be anathema. Vatican Council, Session III.. D. B. 1S06 ct sq.
* Major Synopsis, n. 240-231.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

35

a doctrine is true, but not that a doctrine is revealed. For
the historical fact of revelation should be investigated histo­
rically with diligent examination, and not considered
speculatively only. Nor can this criterion be taken for the
truths of the supernatural order which surpass human
understanding.

b. The erroneous opinion of the Modernists must likewise
be refected. Rejecting miracles and prophecies, they teach
that intimate religious experience is the only sign of Revelation,
and therefore that Apologetics should be directed to this
end, namely that each one may experience within himself the
truth of Christianity. St Pius X deservedly rejected this theory
of the religious experience of each one who believed, for
it leads to subjectivism. Also, if it is accepted, all religions
will be equally good and equally revealed because everyone
believes that he experiences the truth of the religion he pro­
fesses **. (refer to note 13.)
c. The Vatican Council teaches that divine revelation
is proved primarily by external arguments, namely by
" divine facts, and especially by miracles and prophecies
which... are the most certain signs of revelation and are
adapted to the intelligence of all ” 2. These signs are called
the criteria of revelation or the motives of credibility.
51 2. The idea of criteria and the kinds of criteria. If these
criteria are taken from revealed doctrine, they are called
internal; if they arc taken from facts which follow Revelation,
they are called external, (refer to note 5.)
a. Internal critera are negative or positive.
I. From the negative criteria nothing can be concluded
except the possibility of divine Revelation, for from these
we are shown that nothing hinders this Revelation from
being divine. Criteria of this kind are freedom from error,
from all contradiction, from fraud. If these negative signs
1 Encyclical Pascendi, D. B., n. 2x02.
* D. B., 1790; refer to 18x2.

36

CHAPTER III

are present, then there is a presumption in favor of the divine
nature of this Revelation.
2. The positive signs show, with greater or less certitude,
that the religion, in favor of which they arc given, is revealed
by God. Criteria of this kind are the perfect conformity of
a doctrine with reason, the excellence of a doctrine both in itself
and its effects ; the doctrine is such that it is completely suitable
to human nature, and omits nothing which is necessary for
integrity of living. The evidence will be stronger if, after
a comparison has been made of the foremost religions, one
of them is apparently transcendent, especially if this excellence
is so great that it cannot be explained without special divine
intervention.
b. External criteria are taken from marvellous facts,
especialty from miracles and prophecies, which accompany
the doctrine extrinsically and show its divinity. These
criteria arc negative, if they prove that nothing opposes the
divine origin of this doctrine; or they are positive if they
directly prove its divine origin : for example, the miracles
of Christ.

52

3.

The use of criteria.

A All Catholics acknowledge that the truth of revelation
is to be discovered from both intrinsic and extrinsic signs;
but they disagree in regard to method. Some wish that
the historical method, which rests upon extrinsic signs, be
used almost exclusively; others choose the philosophical
method which is based on intrinsic arguments *.
B But if we seek the perfect method, which is sufficient
for persuading the minds of our contemporaries, then we
must join the intrinsic arguments with the extrinsic arguments.
a. The intrinsic argument prepares the way for our proof
because it is through the intrinsic argument that it becomes
evident that religion is entirely in accord with human nature ;
‘ Le Bachelet, De ΓApologétique traditionnelle el de ΓApologétique moderne;
De Poulpîqvet, L'Objet intégral de ΓApologétique, p. 425-465·

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

37

b. The historical arguments complete the proof; it is
through that the place of divine intervention becomes apparent ;
c. Finally, a comparison of the various religions confirms
our proof.

II. MIRACLES
There arc four points to be considered in regard to a miracle :
the concept of a miracle, its possibility, its discernibility and
its demonstrative force.
I*

53

THE CONCEPT OF A MIRACLE

A The word miracle, coming from miror, to marvel at,
etymologically signifies that which is likely to excite wonder
or astonishment. In the strict sense a miracle is a deed that
is sensible, extraordinary and divine.

a. a deed, that is, a certain effect like the curing of a blind
person, the changing of water into wine, the resurrection
of a dead person.
b. sensible, that is, in some way this deed or fact can
be perceived by the external senses, either directly as in the
case of curing a paraclytic, or indirectly, as in the conversion
of St. Paul or in the knowledge and manifestation of the
secrets of the heart. Somewhat differently should we consider
an action that is preternatural and divine, such as the changing
of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This
should not be regarded as an obvious sign of divine Revelation.

c. extraordinary, that is, this action is accomplished outside
the usual order of nature, or beyond or above or contrary
to the laws of nature.
• Summa Theologica, I, q. 105, a. 7; q. no, a. 4. — Contra Gentiles, 1. Ill
c. ιοί, 102, 109; ci. Van Hove, La doctrine du miracle chct S. Thomas;
Tonquédec, a. Miracle in Dictionnaire Apologétique. — Major Synopsis,
n. 252-258.

38

CHAPTER III

God governs creatures in a two-fold manner :
I. by preserving and following the order of the world or by
universal laws;
2 by directly intervening in a particular case independently
of the usual laws of nature in order to produce a special effect;
for example, the resurrection of a dead person. Thus a miracle
takes place. Therefore, a miracle is not a violation or a suspension
of the laws of nature, for these laws are hypothetically unchange­
able, but a miracle is an effect produced immediately by God,
Whose power transcends the force of all nature.

d. divine \ that is, this action can be produced only by
God through the power that is proper to Him. And so,
after al! the circumstances of this concrete fact have been
examined, this action or fact must be attributed to God
alone. It is not necessary that this miraculous work in itself
reach an infinite power; rather, it is sufficient that, after
all things have been most carefully considered, it be evident
that there is no proportion between the natural causes and
the effect produced ; moreover, that the effect does not proceed
from the devil. When proportionate natural causes are
lacking, it will truly be a miracle as long as the effect must
be attributed to God.
54 B Kinds A miracle is physical, intellectual, moral, according
to whether it happens beyond the laws of the physical,
intellectual, or moral order. In the past theologians made
this distinction among miracles : beyond nature, above nature,
and against nature. A miracle is said to be beyond nature
when the miraculous effect could have been brought about
by nature, but in a completely different way; a miracle is
said to be above nature when it could not have been produced
by nature in any manner; a miracle is contrary to nature
when nature, following its usual laws, would have produced
an opposite effect. However, a miracle is not against nature
directly, but more truly it is against the tendency that is
a part of any nature .*
1 Summa Theologica I, q. no, a. 4; q. 114, a. 4; 1·, 2", q. in, a. 4; q. 1x3,
a. 10; 2‘, 2*, q. 17S, a. 4.
* Summa Theologica, I, q. X05, a. 6.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

39

55 C. False Theories — Many retain the name, miracle, but
they reject the actual thing. Thus there are the nationalists,
according to whom miracles are merely natural facts, the causes
of which are not known. Also, there are the liberal Protestants,
who teach that miracles are extraordinary natural happenings.
And then the Modernists think that a miracle arises from faith,
and that it must be considered as a manifestation of a superior
natural law.

The Possibility of a Miracle
All Atheists and pantheists deny the possibility of a miracle ;
some theists who falsely think that a miracle is a violation
of the laws of nature also deny this possibility.

56 Thesis : If we admit the existence of God, then a miracle is
in no way inconsistent or repugnant; rather it is possible and
in many ways it is entirely proper. This thesis is philosophically
certain; it is theologically de fide >.
Proof of the first part of thesis: If miracles were repugnant,
then this repugnance would exist on the side of the laws
of nature, or on the part of God. But neither can be said.
In regard to the minor premise :

A A miracle is not inconsistent with the laws of nature.
The thing must be viewed philosophically, for through philo­
sophy alone can we discover whether the intervention of
God in this world outside or beyond the order of the laws
of nature is, of itself, impossible. God’s intervention beyond
these laws would be repugnant if the laws which govern
created forces limited divine freedom itself. But it is evident
from Philosophy that God is emminently free both in esta­
blishing and in fulfilling the dynamic laws of beings, the
forces of which He directly brings forth and puts into action
according to His own will. Therefore, He remains the Master
of the laws which He has established, and nothing impedes
1 Contra Gentiles 1, II, c. 22-30; 1. Ill, c. 98-99; Quast. disp., De.Potentia,
VI ; — Major Synopsis, n. 259-265.

40

CHAPTER III

His ability to comply with these laws or to produce an effect
independently of them in any way He wishes.
It would be contradictory to tliink that divine action
is restrained by the laws of nature, as if created forces could
exist without the Creator, could be employed independently
of a divine Cause, or could oppose the will of the Creator ».
57 Science cannot prove the impossibility of a miracle because
it does not trouble itself with preternatural causes; but it
is apparent from a true concept of the unchangeableness
of the laws of nature that there is a place in the world for free
intervention on the part of God. Truly the law of nature
demands that, given only all natural causes in necessary
circumstances, an effect follow; but it does not hinder a free
agent from intervening for the purpose of laying down new
causes, or of removing those which exist, of changing cir­
cumstances. Everyday these things are being done by man.
Furthermore, if man is able to intervene in order to prevent
or to gain some effect, when he wishes, a fortiori God. This
free intervention of man is not a miracle because man indeed
applies the laws of nature, but in a different way. He is
always dependent on nature and in obeying nature, he protects
nature. But the intervention of God is a miracle because
God works the effect independently of the laws (since He
is the Lord and governor of all beings) by producing their
entire reality, functioning, and efficacy.

Some offer the objection that the order of nature is upset by a
miracle; however, there is no merit to this objection, for the laws
are not changed, but only the circumstances in which natural
beings act arc somewhat modified ·.
58

B

miracle is not inconsistent with God.

a. His unchangeableness remains unimpaired, since God
from all eternity foresaw and decreed a miracle together
with a law ;
* P. De Toxquédec, Introduction à l'étude du merveilleux et du miracle, p. 200.
3 Périer, Le miracle est-il une violation des lois de la nature lin Revue pratique
d'Apologétique, April 1-15, xgao.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

41

b. His wisdom remains unimpaired, which orders that
laws be observed in common but which does not exclude
extraordinary intervention provided that it takes place for
a sufficient reason and not by the arbitrary will or desire
of improving the world’s failures *.
59

Proof of the second and third parts of the thesis
A A miracle is possible because immediately and by
Himself God can bring about effects through His omnipotence
which commonly works with secondary’ causes, and also
because God can accomplish many other things which surpass
the forces of created nature. Divine action in the working
of a miracle is not more difficult for the intellect to grasp
than divine action in ordinary daily encounters: the power
of the divine influence which proceeds from the Infinite
does always escape our notice.
B In many ways a miracle is entirely proper because
through miracles God can accomplish many excellent ends,
namely, a manifestation of His power or goodness, and espe­
cially the confirmation of some truth or some other end
in the moral and religious order *. It appears morally necessary’
in an hypothesis on revealed religion because hardly any
other sign that is open and obvious to all can be imagined
through which God makes it apparent that He on His own
authority bears witness to this religion.

III. THE DISCERNIBILITY OF A MIRACLE
*

60 The Positivists and many· Rationalists deny the discemibility
of a miracle. In order that a miracle may be recognized,
three things must be made known : I the reality’ or the histo­
ricity of the fact, 2 the preternaturalness of the fact, 3 the
divine quality of the fact.
1 Sortais, La Providence et k miracle.
• P. De Tonquédbc, Introduction l'étude du merveilleux et du miracle, p. 207
’ Major Synopsis, n. 266-275·

42

CHAPTER ΙΠ

A The historicity or historicalness
of a miraculous happening can be established
61 a. According to its definition a miracle is a sensible (evident
to the senses) fact, and thus it can be observed as any other
fact.

b. By written or oral testimony it can be preserved and
handed down, like any other happening, for example, the
healing of a blind man.
The preternaturalness of a miraculous happening offers no obsta­
cle, for a miracle is not preternatural in itself as a fact, but only in
its cause since it proceeds from a suprahuman agent. Therefore,
it can be looked at by those who arc not philosophers — for
example, the resurrection of a dead person.
Hume states that a thousand witnesses come forward in op­
position to the one witness who supports a miracle. This state­
ment is just a sophistry, for the thousand witnesses confirm a
law which ordinarily holds, but the one witness of a miracle
confirms one extraordinary fact which has been produced by
the special intervention of God. Therefore they are not bearing
witness about one and the same object.

B

The preternaluralness of a miraculous
happening can be discerned1

62 In order that the preternaturalness of a miraculous happening
be established it is required and it suffices that, after the
nature of the thing and all the concrete circumstances have
been studied, it is apparent that there is no proportion
between the means used and the effects produced, so that
such effects can be attributed to a preternatural agent 2.
Indeed all this can be established :
I. from the nature of the fact — the resurrection of a dead
person is certainly preternatural as is also the multiplication
of matter;
1 De La Barre, Faits surnaturels et forces naturelles; — Le Bec, Preuves
médicales du miracle.
* De Bonxiot, Le miracle et scs contrefaçons.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

43

2. from the circumstances — in natural phenomena three
things are found namely, regularity, proportion, time.

But these are lacking in miracles.
63 The objection is put forward that not all the forces of nature
are known and that therefore certitude is never possible concer­
ning the preternaturalness of any fact. In answer to this — in
order that we be certain in regard to the preternaturalncss of a
concrete fact, it is not necessary that we know all the forces of
nature, and that we be able to state how far their power can
extend itself, but it is sufficient that we be able to judge practically
what they cannot work in definite circumstances. Instructed
by the experience of centuries, wo know that certain effects in
certain conditions cannot be produced by physical nature; thus
we know that a dead man that is fetid cannot be recalled to life
only by the command of a voice. Whence, if effects of this kind
are produced in these circumstances, rightly it is concluded
that these proceed from a preternatural power, either divine or
diabolic
64 Another objection claims that many happenings are regarded
as miracles which can be attributed to imagination or to hypnotism.
We answer this objection thus :

1. The force of imagination is known by Catholic Doctors,
as is likewise the power of somnambulism, of magnetism and of
hypotism; however, according to medical doctors diseases which
proceed from an injury of a certain organ cannot be healed by
any of these means; therefore, all marvellous cures cannot be
explained by the force of phantasy.
2.When a cure is obtained by these natural causes, the natural
laws known by the skilful are observed; in the case of a miracle
the cure is effected beyond or outside these laws.

3. Finally, all miraculous events are not the curing of diseases;
many others are listed, for example, the resurrection of the dead
in the Gospels.
1 Le Bec, Les forces naturelles et les guérisons miraculeuses in Eludes,
August 20, 1922, p. 423*
*432.
* Benedict XIV, On the Beatification of the Servants of God, hands down
clearly the rules for discerning miraculous cures.

44

CHAPTER III

C

The divine nature of a miraculous
event can be discerned

65 A priori there should be signs by which the works of God
arc distinguished from diabolical prodigies. There signs
arise :

a. from the nature of the work which can be performed
at any time by God alone — as the resurrection of a dead
person, the foretelling of future happenings;

b.
1.
2.
3
4.

from the moral qualities of the work, namely,
from the character of the miracle worker,
from the manner in which the miracle takes place,
especially from the effects;
from the doctrine with which it is connected.

In this way divine miracles are very often distinguished
from the prodigies of the devil. We should realize that God
allows extraordinary things to be performed by devil.

66 We must conclude, therefore, that many works can certainly
be recognized as miraculous if the effect produced is carefully
examined and if the natural causes and the moral and the
religious circumstances are thoroughly investigated. This
certitude is greater or less in regard to different works, but
it should always be called moral certitude in as much as
it is acquired under the influence of moral dispositions with
the union of the will .*
The demonstrative force of Miracles

67 Thesis : Since miracles point out very clearly the omnipotence
of God, they are most certain signs of divine revelation; (besides,
they are suited to the intelligence of everyone;) so that the doctrine
1 De Tonquédbc, Introduction Λ I'etude du merveilleux et du miracle, p. 228;
De Povlpiquet, Lc miracle, et ses suppléances, chap. IV.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

45

which is confirmed by their presence must be regarded as revealed
by God.
This thesis is certain philosophically; it is de fide theolo­
gically.

I. Explanation of thesis: In order that a miracle may
be a most certain sign of revelation, it is absolutely necessary
that it be accomplished in order to confirm a doctrine which
is regarded as revealed. For if there were no connection
between the miracle and the doctrine, the miracle would
indeed be an extraordinary intervention on the part of God,
but it would not be the seal of God impressed upon the
doctrine.
In confirming a doctrine a miracle can be helpful in a twofold
way :
a. directly, if someone explicitly or equivalently asserts
that a miracle will follow in order that in this way the truth
of a doctrine may be manifested ;

b. indirectly, if someone, declaring that he is a divine
legate, appeals to miracles previously performed by himself.

2. Proof of thesis: It is impossible for God to deceive.
Moreover, God would equivalently be producing falsehood
if He were performing miracles in order to demonstrate
that some false doctrines or a doctrine that is altogether
human has been revealed by Himself. Ergo.

68

This argument is confirmed by using the comparison of a royal
seal which is not affixed to writings unless they are truly authentic.
Since the demonstrative power of a miracle is of itself entirely
decretory or decisive, a miracle is suited or accommodated to the
intelligence even of our contemporaries. This is evident from the
fact that many return to God witnessing a miracle. If certain
contemporaries of ours do not understand, the fault should be
attributed to them, to their prejudices®, not to the miracle.
1 De Poulpiquet, L'objet intégral de ΓApologétique, p. 69-75;
Miracle
et ses suppléances, 1914, p. 188 and following Major Synopsis, n. 376-279.
1 Dk Tonquédbc, book I (see previous footnote).

N» 642 (I) — 5

46

CHAPTER III

The legitimate autonomy or independence of reason presents
no obstacle to this reason : since a miracle is produced directly
and immediately by God, it offers a sufficient motive for giving
assent.
Often the objection is voiced that miracles are found in false
religions and that, therefore, there is no demonstrative force to
miracles. A very serious inquiry should be made to discover
whether these alleged facts are historically true and preternatural
or whether they are produced by the devil. If they should be
true miracles, then it is certain that they have not been performed
in order to confirm false doctrine.

69

IV.

PROPHECY ’

1. The concept of prophecy (A prophecy (from πρόφημι)
means to foretell, to predict, or to speak for another. Here
it is taken in the sense of foretelling. In the strict sense
a prophecy is a certain foretelling of a future event which
cannot be foreseen naturally.
2. Possibility of prophecy. A prophecy is possible because
God knows all things even future contingencies, in accordance
with His eternity, His causality to all things, and His infinite
perfection ; and then God can manifest all things.
3. Discernibilily of prophecy. At one time or another,
with historical certainty, prophecies can be known and distin­
guished as truly supernatural that is to say, as divine,
especially when a miracle is announced.
4. The probative force of prophecy is the same as that
of miracles because prophecy is a miracle in the intellectual
order.

It should be noted that miracles in the moral order have
great force in the Christian apologetic. They are facts which
are produced beyond the order of moral nature by the special
intervention of God: for example, the heroic fortitude of the
martyrs. They can be recognized :
I. as historical because they are evident to the sense
either in themselves or through their effects;
1 Major Synopsis, n. 280-284.

THE CRITERIA OF DIVINE REVELATION

47

2. as supernatural because they surpass the moral powers
of man and must be attributed, by reason of circumstances,
to the special help of God.
For a discussion of the possibility and of the demonstrative
force of prophecy reference should be made to number 56
and what follows, to number 67 and what follows.
The Catholic teaching about Miracles

70 From the Vatican Council it is certain that :
a. miracles can happen ;
b. miracles can be known with certainty at some time
or another;
c. miracles rightly prove the divine origin of the Christian
religion ;
d. divine revelation can be made credible by external
signs and, therefore, men should be moved to faith 1 not by
each person’s internal experience alone or by private inspiration
alone.
1 " Nevertheless, in order that the obedience of our faith might be in harmony
with reason, God willed that to the interior help of the Holy Spirit there
should be joined exterior proofs of His revelation; namely, divine facts, and
especially miracles, and prophecies, which, as they manifestly display the
omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God are most certain proofs of His
divine revelation, adapted to the intelligence of all men
Can. 3. "If anyone shall say that divine revelation cannot be made credible
by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to be moved to faith solely
by the internal experience of each or by private inspiration; let him be
anathema
Can. 4. " If anyone shall say that miracles arc impossible, and therefore
that all the accounts regarding them, even those contained in Holy Scripture,
are to be dismissed as fabulous or mythical ; or that miracles can never be
known with certainty, and that the divine origin of Christianity cannot be
proved by them; let him be anathema ”, Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3,
can. 3 and 4, D. B., 1790, 1813, 1813.
In the formal statement, Jurisjurandi prescribed by St Pius X it is stated :
" Secondly, I admit and recognize the external arguments of revelation, that
is, divine facts, and especially miracles and prophecies as most certain signs
of the divine origin of the Christian religion; these same I hold are best adapted
to the intelligence of all ages and of all men, even of this day
D. B., 2145.

TRACT Π

CHRIST, A DIVINE LEGATE

OR THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 1

The necessity of some religion and also the possibility and
at least the moral necessity of revelation have been shown.
Now wc state as certain that Jesus Christ was the true
ambassador of God sent for the purpose of revealing the true
religion to mankind. This office of ambassador or this legation
can be historically proved by using the chronological order.
We shall show :

71

1. that the divine legation of Christ was -prepared by
divine providence;

2. that it has been proved by an internal argument — that
is, its own excellence;
3. that it has been proved by an external argument — that
is, from the person and testimony of Christ, from His miracles
and especially from His resurrection ;

4. that it has been corroborated from the history of early
Christianity;
5. that it has been confirmed by comparing the Christian
religion with other religions.
1 Léonce De Grandmaison, Jésus-Christ, sa personne, son message, ses
preuves; Lepin, Le Christ Jésus; P. Lagrange, L’évangile de Jésus; J. B. Bord,
L'apologétique par le Christ,

CHRIST A DIVINE LEGATE

49

INTRODUCTORY NOTES CONCERNING THE BOOKS
OF THE OLD AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 1

I.

The Books of the Old Testament

72 The books which will be used in the following historical
proof are the Pentateuch, the Books of Kings and the writings
of the Prophets. All Catholics and many rationalists admit
the authenticity of these books.
II.

The Books of the New Testament

η·), The sources from which evidence about Christ’s mission
is drawn are the books of the New Testament, especially
the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Paul.
The authenticity and the historical authority of particular
Epistles and of the Acts of the Apostles, the non-Catholic
critics themselves admit **. Therefore, the following comments
refer only to the Gospels

In the field of Apologetics the credibility of the Gospels
is the human authority of the Gospels : we ask whether they
give an account of facts to which complete human credence
can be given. In order that complete belief be given to these
books, they must be I. authentic, 2. at least substantially
entire, and 3. truly historical 4.
* Major Synopsis, n. 287-298.
* Prat, La Théologie de S. Paul, I, p. 9-16; E. Jacquier, Histoire des Livres
du N. Testament, T, III.
* On June 19, 1911 and June 26, 1912 The Commission on the Bible Question
gave their answers to tbe questions concerning the authorship, the time of
composition, and the historical truth of the Gospels according to Matthew,
according to Mark and according to Luke; also concerning the mutual relation­
ships among the three first Gospels. Refer to E. Levesque, Nos Quatre
Evangiles, Paris, 1917· This author shows learnedly and wisely that the three
Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of St. John, although different in scope,
are so joined or united that they by no means contradict one another, but
rather that they complete and explain one another.
* E. Jacquier, Histoire des Livres du N. Testament, Π, IV; Lepin, in
Diction. Apologétique, a. Evangiles, vol. I, p. 1598.

50

TRACT Π

i. The authenticity of the Gospels. Catholic authors admit
that the synoptic Gospels were composed by Matthew, Mark
and Luke before the year 63, and that the fourth gospel
was written by the Apostle John at the end of the first century.

74

By extrinsic arguments we prove that the four Gospels :
a. at the end of the second century were commonly attributed
to those authors in whoso name they were published or spread
abroad. This is evident from the testimony of Irenceus (died in
202), of Tertullian, of Tatian, and from the Muratorian fragment;

b. were already known among the Christians in the first part
of the second century; for they are mentioned by Justin, Papias,
Hermas, in the epistle of Polycarp, in the epistles of Ignatius, of
Clement of Rome, and of Barnabas ;
c. were regarded as genuine by the heretics and pagans.
How could these Gospels alone, to the exclusion of the apocryphal
writings, have been received as genuine by the diverse and scat­
tered Churches; how could they have been read in the liturgical
gatherings unless they had been composed in the times of the
Apostles?
The genuineness of the Gospels is confirmed by internal criteria,
for the Gospels make reference to the smallest circumstances
(describing these circumstances with a truth which only contem­
poraries can acquire in describing places, customs, persons, and
things) which were entirely changed when Jerusalem was captured
and the Temple destroyed.

2. The substantial integrity of the Gospels is not to be
impugned, for it is evident from the harmonious and concordant
testimony of manuscripts and of quotations.
75 3. The historicity of the Gospels. The sincerity of the
evangelists is acknowledged by nearly all scholars. Their
testimony has historical validity and force for they were not
deceived. They knew the events; their descriptions of places
and of the customs of the people disclose writers who were
perfectly informed; they tell even those happenings which
show the Apostles in an unfavorable light. Further, they
could not have been deceivers since they were narrating
facts at a time when many of the witnesses of these facts
were still living.

CHRIST A DIVINE LEGATE

51

76 For the purpose of rejecting this historical validity the
rationalists have thought up many systems and theories :
for example, naturalism, the theory of myths, the theories
of those engaged in “ higher criticism ”, .Many today think
that the words and deeds of Jesus were somewhat transfigured
by the enthusiasm and faith of His disciples between the time
of His death and the time in which the Gospels were written.
A Wo insist that :
a.this idealization is not very likely because the Synoptists are
intent on narrating true history, and are reporting the political,
moral, and religious state of the Jews.
b. this idealization is morally impossible, for how could the
Christian teaching, as it is explained by the Synoptic writers,
be discovered or devised or how could it be substantially unchan­
ged? And who could alter facts while witnesses of these facts
were still living?
c. this idealization is contrary to the facts : if the words and
deeds of Christ had been gradually transformed to this end that
the Master was at first believed to be a faultless man. then the
Messiah delegated by God, and finally the true God incarnate,
the Gospels would not have narrated the infirmities, the griefs,
the sadness and anxieties of Jesus, but very clearly and explicitly
they would have set forth His divinity and the reparatory force
of His death, since these dogmas were being accepted on faith at
the time when these books were being written.
Therefore, we can make use of the Synoptic books as historical
documents l, especially if we mention not just one or another
text but recount many evidences which unito harmoniously to
prove one point.
77

B Liberal critics state that facts narrated in the Fourth
Gospel are fabricated, that they are allegories or symbols for

inculcating some doctrine, that the discourses in this Gospel
which have been ascribed to Christ arc not the Lord’s words,
but are theological compositions of the writer ». We do not deny
that the fourth Gospel, in as much as it was written for more
learned readers, delivers a loftier teaching than do the SynopticGospels, and that it is dogmatic as well as historical : from this
it can be inferred that the author selected those words and deeds
1 Mancexot, Les Evangiles synoptiques.
* Lbpin, Valeur historique du 4** Evangile.

52

CHAPTER I

which prove more effectually the divinity of Christ. But we deny
that the reported events are just allegories and that the words
ascribed to Christ were not mentioned, at least as regards their
substance
Consequently nothing keeps us from giving to the fourth
Gospel tne faith which we give to the others. However, in Apo­
logetics we shall use the Synoptic Gospels more often so that the
arguments may have greater force among unbelievers.

CHAPTER I

THE DIVINE LEGATION OF CHRIST
IS PROVED FROM ITS PREPARATION

78 State of the Question.
a. The preparation that pertains to the prophets *. God,
who sets all things in order prepared the way for the Christian
religion by selecting the Jewish people and by instructing
them in a special way; to them He entrusted a deposit of
revelation. However, because this chosen people, in spite
of the light of revelation, was prone to idolatry and to injustice,
God continued to recall it in man}' places and in many ways
to monotheism and to the observance of the divine law through
a long line of Prophets. These Prophets prepared the way
for Christianity both by preaching the fundamental truths
on which Christianity rests, and by predicting the coming
of a messianic kingdom which is nothing other than the
Christian religion.
1 Commission on the Bible, on May 29, 1907 teaches that the historical
truth of the Fourth Gospel must be retained. Decree Lamentabili, D. B., 2014-2019.
* Mangbnot, Dictionnaire de la Bible, a. entitled Prophètes; Pelt, Histoire
de Γ Ancien Testament; Abb* De Broglie, Questions bibliques.

THE DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE PROPHETS

53

79 b. Preparation that preceded the Prophets x. Among the
Hebrew's prophets are called the Seers or the interpreters
or legates of God. According to the biblical mannerof speaking,
prophets are the interpreters of God impelled by Him to make
known to other men divine orders which have been revealed
to them about things of the past, of the present, or of the future.

Prophets advance the kingdom of God by words and by
deeds. Prophecy supposes therefore .·
1.

a supernatural revelation

2. a mission accepted from God for the purpose of commu­
nicating to others what has been revealed.
Prophecy differs from inspiration, for every prophet is
no impelled to write. Prophets have been both proclaimers
and predictors. We shall treat successively of their proclaiming
or preaching and of their prophecies.

c. The argument in general. It is historically evident
that prophets in a wonderful manner prepared the way for
Cliristianity by their religious and moral preaching and by
their prophecies concerning Christ, the legate of God.
But that preaching and the prophecies cannot be explained
by natural causes.
Therefore, it must be said that God prepared the way
for Christianity by extraordinary interventions and that
God proved that Christ is His true Ambassador.
ARTICLE I.

I.

THE PREACHING OF THE PROPHETS

The Preaching of the prophets prepared
the way for Christianity

80 A Some prophets preached with deeds. Thus :
a. Moses taught monotheism and promulgated the moral
law and the civil law in the name of Goa;
1 Major Synopsis, n. 301-323.

54

CHAPTER I

b. by the intervention of the Judges God turned the Israelites
away from the worship of Baal and Astarte ;

c. in the time of the Kings He sent prophets such as Nathan,
who impressed the moral law on the kings themselves.
d. after the schism of the Israelite Kingdom of Israel, Elias
and Eliseus proved that worship was to be given to Jahweh alone.
81

Others among the prophets recorded their preaching in writings.
a. In the kingdom of Israel. Amos preached pure monotheism
and internal religion.
Osee gave a very vivid description of
B

the people's sins and warned them that they were soon to be
chastised for their transgressions.

b. In the kingdom of Juda. Isaias told the people about
the great holiness of God and encouraged them to practice purity
of heart, justice, kindness towards the poor, and true repentance.
c. Jerernias foretold the downfall of the Jews; he likewise
foretold their restoration : a new covenant that would embrace
not only a relationship between God and the people, but even
a union between God and the individual faithful soul. Esechiel
asserted that sins were their outstanding trait and that a new
kingdom had to be established which would have its foundation
in justice and in observing the old laws.

82 Thus, through eleven centuries the Prophets preached
faith in one God, infinite, holy, merciful, provident, and
rewarding; they preached religious worship, external and
internal, purity in morals, justice and charity. In this way
they prepared the way for a more perfect order, and this they
announced was the complement to the old religion. This
order, in which the fatherty mercy of God towards all and
the brotherly love among all creatures even towards our
enemies, would be more clearly impressed and the worship
of God and justice and charity would be spread throughout
the world, this order is Christianity which does not differ
from the Mosaic religion in regard to essentials, but which
perfects it or completes it : for Jesus did not come to destroy
the law, but rather to fulfill or complete it.
It is evident, therefore, that the Prophets prepared the
way for Christianity by their preaching.

THE DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE PROPHETS

55

II. The Preaching of the Prophets
cannot be explained by natural causes 1

False Expositions.
a. The preaching of the Prophets cannot be considered
as the expression of the thought of the times, for very often
they preached a doctrine that was contrary to the prejudices
of their fellow citizens, and as a result suffered many
afflictions. As a matter of fact, they can be distinguished
from the false prophets in this way that they announced
to the kings and to the people not what would please them,
but only what would promote the worship of the one God.
b. Neither can it be stated that the prophets drew their
doctrine from the soothsayers and lawgivers of the neighboring
nations, since these nations were ignorant of absolute mono­
theism and taught a natural ethics that was defiled by numerous
errors.

83

84

A

B Real Explanation.

The teaching of the Prophets has its origin in the revelation
of God. To this the Prophets bear witness explicitily and
often. Because they are certainly honorable and mentally
competent, their testimony is entirely worthy of trust. This
fact becomes more apparent when we realize that some of
the prophets, ignorant of the others, depict various charac­
teristics of the messianic kingdom separately and singly and
yet all arrive at the same conclusion. This can be explained
only by concluding that God Himself directed their minds
and their writings.

85 C The force of these facts as a proof of Christ's ambassadorship.
The Jewish religion as announced by the Prophets remained
imperfect and, as it were, fragmentary. It required a com­
plement. As a matter of fact, it found this complement to
perfection only in Christ’s doctrine concerning the fatherly
mercy of God concerning charity, patience in adversity,
1 Cruveilhier, Revue pratique d’Apologétique, VI, p. 8x4.

56

CHAPTER I

and universality of religion. Furthermore, such an unexpected
doctrinal innovation certainly proves that the same God
who once spoke to us through the prophets has spoken most
recently and lastly through Christ, who did not destroy
the law, but who fulfilled or completed it.
ARTICLE II.

THE PROPHECIES WHICH ANNOUNCE

CHRIST’S AMBASSADORSHIP

86 State of the Question.
We shall omit the prophets’ predictions in respect to the
Jews and the neighboring nations and shall treat of the
messianic prophecies only.
Some prophecies are applied to the Messiah in a literal
sense ; others are applied in a figurative or spiritual sense. These
arc true prophecies and among Christians they offer absolutely
certain proof, but the Rationalists reject them. Therefore,
it is wise to use only those prophecies which are applied
to Christ in a literal sense. Our intention is not to expound
all the literal prophecies, however, but to present only those
that are considered special, those which the Rationalists
who arc in good faith cannot reject.
The argument. If Christ fulfilled the messianic prophecies,
we should believe that He is the Messiah, that is, a divine
legate; and that His religion proceeds from God. But it is
evident that the messianic prophecies have been perfectly
fulfilled in Christ. Therefore.

I.

Explanation of the Prophecies

87 Particular prophecies are related to the rule or kingdom
of God and to the Messiah ;
I. Prophecies about the universal rule or kingdom of God
in monotheism — All the Prophets foretold with complete
1 Major Synopsis, n. 324-342.

THE DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE PROPHETS

57

faith that monotheism would prevail among all nations, that
Yahweh would rule over the whole earth. They foretold
that the universal rule of the true God alone was to be
established and proclaimed through Israel; that the kingdom
of God would be not only external but internal also, since
it is to be an intimate union of God with the soul of each
of the faithful.

2. Prophecies about the Messiah, the head of this kingdom.
— The Prophets taught :
1) that the Messiah King would arise from the ancestry
of David and would be bom in the tow of Bethlehem;

2) that He would be called the son of God, strong God,
and that He would be filled with the gifts of the Holy Spirit ;
3) that He would judge His people in justice and equity,
that He would inscribe His law in the hearts of His disciples;
4) that He would be opposed but that He would overcome
His enemies;
5) that the Messiah would complete His work and would
save His people by His humble obedience, His passion, and
His glorious death ;

6) that after various struggles He would gain a final victory
when, at the end of the world, He wall judge all nations,
and will crown the just in glory and in honor.

II.

The fulfillment of the Prophecies in Christ

88 A Explanation of the facts.
The prophecy in regard to the universal kingdom of God
through Christ has been perfectly fulfilled. For the religion
which was preached by Jesus Christ is the pure and absolute
monotheism of the Jewish nation; it was spread throughout
the world by the Jeu’s; it exacts worship in spirit and in
truth; it proclaims and extols an intimate union between
God and the soul. In this way all the prophecies concerning

58

CHAPTER I

the Messiah are surely fulfilled in Christ. Jesus was bom
of the family of David in Bethlehem; He was acknowledged
as the Son of God and as one filled with the Holy Spirit;
He taught equity and justice by word and by example; He
instituted a kingdom wholly spiritual, peaceful, and universal;
He saved His people not by an earthly triumph, but by
humiliations and sufferings borne in patience; Christianity
has been subjected to many persecutions, but it continues
invincible.

89 B The force of these facts as proof.

These proclamations in regard to the victory of monotheism
and in regard to the life and works of the Messiah-Christ
are truly divine. For they preceded the event and are so many,
so certain and so extraordinary that it cannot be said that
they have been brought about through human sagacity.
Many of the prophecies were contrary to the expectations
and desires of the Jews, particularly those concerning the
passion of the Messiah and the conversion of the Gentiles.
It cannot be stated that they are diabolical, but rather it must
be said that from their end, from their circumstances and
results, they are divine. Christ, therefore, is truly an ambas­
sador sent by God, and His religion is divine.
90

The objection is preferred that the prophecies were not fulfilled
because temporal happiness and the restoration of the Israclitic
kingdom were predicted.

In answer. — Temporal happiness and the restoration of the
Israelitic Kingdom were a completely secondary element in the
prophecies, an element which was lacking in certain prophecies
and which was excluded from others. Consequently, these texts
are to be understood as figures of a spiritual Jerusalem, that is,
the Church of Christ. Whatever was spiritually fulfilled in the
prophecies is also daily fulfilled in the Christian religion. Prepared
and foretold by the Prophets, Christ extended and perfected the
doctrines that were contained in the Old Testament in embryo
form; at the same time He fulfilled the predictions set forth by
the Prophets. Therefore, this first-in-importance and principal
ambassador is divine; His teaching we should willingly and fully
accept as divinely revealed.

CHAPTER II

59

CHAPTER II

DIVINE LEGATION
OF CHRIST IS SUPPORTED
BY HIS TEACHING

91

Proved indirectly through prophecies, the divine legation
or ambassadorship of Christ is demonstrated directly from
history particularly; the internal argument, from Christ's
doctrine itself, offers a good introduction to this proof.
Proceeding logically, we shall show that :
1. Christ truly taught a certain doctrine;
2. this doctrine is so excellent that it must be attributed
to God alone.
ARTICLE I.

92

CHRIST PROCLAIMED HIS DOCTRINE

In opposition to the liberal Protestants and Modernists,
who state that Christ taught nothing specifically but left
us only a model of living, the following thesis is laid down :

Thesis : Christ truly taught a doctrine properly so called,
that is, a sum total of dogmatic and moral truths which all must
believe. This is historically certain and theologically de
fide.

Proof :
a. from the Synoptic Gospels — in these Christ appears
among the Jews as the messenger of a teaching which has
1 Major Synopsis, n. 350-371.

60

CHAPTER II

been published in the name of God, which is necessary for
salvation, and which is imposed on all ;
b. from the Gospel of St. John — in this Jesus is shown
as the light of the world, as truth itself; belief in Him is
absolutely necessary for salvation ;
c. from the Ads and the Epistles it is equally evident that
the Apostles understood the teaching of Christ as a dogmatic
collection or unit which had to be taught and preserved
faithfully.
ARTICLE II.

THE EXCELLENCE OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

93 The Argument in general. The Catholic Christian doctrine,
considered in itself, in a very special way gives an answer
to the legitimate aspirations and needs of man's higher
faculties.
But a religious doctrine that is so outstanding, that is
concerned with the weakness of human nature and also with
divine Providence, is deservedly called supernatural.
Therefore the Catholic Christian teaching is truly super­
natural.

I. An explanation of the excellence
of the Catholic-Christian doctrine
94 Thesis : The Catholic-Christian doctrine is entirely superior;
or this doctrine before all others gives an answer to the aspirations
of man's higher faculties .**
Man possesses the noblest of aspirations : to discover
truth, to do what is honorable and good, to gain happiness.
AH these aspirations are proper because they arise from
the rational nature of man, and the more each one strives
to live according to reason, the more vigorously he experiences
these aspirations.
1 Major Synopsis, η. 345'349* Lacordaire, Conferences, 14'37·

THE DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

61

95 This thesis we shall prove part by part.
A The Catholic-Christian doctrine gives the best answer
to the legitimate aspirations of the human intellect.
a.

The anxious intellect is searching for :

1. A doctrine which is complete in regard to the origin, the
existence and nature of the Supreme Being, the origin and nature
of man, the final end and the means necessary for attaining this
end.

2. A doctrine which is not opposed to any certain truth, even
in the scientific order, since truth cannot contradict truth.
3. A doctrine which is harmoniously one, that is, a doctrine
the parts of which are united among themselves.

4. A doctrine which is adapted to the talents of all, because all
should profess religion.
b. But the Catholic-Christian doctrine gives an answer to these
aspirations. For it offers :
1. A doctrine which is complete : it teaches that the world

was created from nothing; it sets forth wonders concerning the
nature of the Supreme Being; it explains the nature of man,
and the existence of physical evil; it states that our final end is
the beatific vision.

2. A doctrine which is opposed to no certain truth : for no error
could ever be found in Christian doctrine. A worthless theory
that implies contradiction between science and Catholic doctrine
arises principally because either the dogmas of faith are not
understood or explained according to the mind of the Church,
or because the conjectures of opinion are taken in place of the
axioms of reason.
3. A doctrine which is harmoniously one : for all the dogmas
are so joined among themselves that one proceeds from the
other and one cannot be denied without impairing the others.
Besides, Christian ethics cannot continue without dogmas.
4. A doctrine which is adapted to the talents of all: because,
as experience shows, this doctrine in its profundity affords matter
for the investigations of the learned, and in its simplicity it can
be explained in so few words that children and the uneducated
are aware of all those necessary teachings which are required
for salvation.
N° 642 (I) — 6

62

CHAPTER II

96
B The Catholic-Christian doctrine gives an answer to the
legitimate aspirations of the will.
a.

The will rightfully requires :

1. A safe and complete rule of acting because mail cannot
embrace a good unless he first knows it. Each one wishes to
know his own individual duties; also ho wishes a prudent rule of
life that is safe and binding;
2. A sufficient authorization by means of which he will be
attracted to good and drawn away from evil;

3. Powerful incentives for observing the law, the more difficult
tho law the more powerful the stimulus;
4. Consolation in the tribulations of this life.
b. But the Catholic-Christian doctrine satisfies these proper
aspirations of the will.
1. It oilers a safe rule of acting which, all acknowledge, has
integrity and excellence; also a complete rule which includes all

the duties of man toward himself, his neighbor, and God, and
which at the same time gives the reason for the obligation, namely,
the will of God Who creates us and raises us to a supernatural
order.
This rule of conduct, although difficult, cannot be called ruinous
to human nature, or harmful to living, since it extols all the natural
and supernatural virtues through which we imitate divine per­
fection, since it enjoins mortification not as an end but as a means
for increasing moral living, and since it reminds us that we can
gain eternal life only by fulfilling these duties in the present.
2. It offers a sufficient authorization : to the just it promises
eternal life in heaven ; to the evil it threatens eternal punishment
in hell.
From this we may not infer that the practice of Christian
virtues is a mercenary work; they are cultivated for the sake
of integrity as well as of a reward. Further, the reward itself is
nothing more than love of God and nothing nobler than this can
be conceived.
3. It offers powerful incentives for observing law, namely,
the examples of Christ and of the saints — and graces with which
God supports us that we may always be able to do our duty.
4. By faith we know that the miseries of this life are a punish­
ment for sin, that they can bring about an increase in virtue
and in reward, and that they offer a sure way to happiness.

ΤΠΕ DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

63

97 C The Catholic-Christian doctrine gives an answer to the
legitimate aspirations of man’s sensible nature.
Certainty man needs :
1. to be led from the exterior things that appeal to his senses

a.

to the things of God, for he has a soul as well as a body;
2.

to have his bodily energies awakened and made holy.

b.

But the Catholic-Christian doctrine satisfies these inclina­

tions :
1. It practices an external cult, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and
performs an entire Liturgy which leads man to God through
hymns, prayers, ceremonies and communal services.
2. it calls forth man’s energy by impressing on him the fact
that all arc bound by the law of work. In this way it directly
fosters the sciences and the arts; it supports commerce and
industry. Indirectly it promotes material progress by awakening
a love for spiritual progress.
Therefore our major premise stands, namely, that CatholicChristian doctrine in itself answers in a very special way the
rightful desires of our faculties. It is possible to strengthen this
argument by referring to the effects which the Catholic religion
produces. (Refer to notes 137 and the following in this volume).

II. The supernaturalism
of Catholic-Christian doctrine1

98 Thesis : This Catholic-Christian doctrine, which answers
perfectly the aspirations of our higher faculties, is good and
transcendent; but more than that, it deserves to be called super­
natural. Therefore, it must be considered divinely revealed.
A Proof of the first part : This doctrine is good and
transcendent. Through his own powers and without the
divine help which is not due to him, man cannot morally
discover the sum total of truths which suffice for correct
living. Therefore, a fortiori, he cannot, without God’s
intervening discover the religious doctrine which perfectly
satisfies all the rightful aspirations of his rational nature.
* Major Synopsis, n. 372-385.

64

CHAPTER Π

Christianity alone enjoys this special facultyx. Therefore,
it is good and transcendent.
Proof of the second part : This doctrine must be called
supernatural. No natural cause can explain the transcendence
or supremeness of Catholic doctrine.
The opponents state that man alone, endowed as he is
with remarkable qualities, could perhaps discover such a
doctrine. But experience shows that outstanding ability
rarely rises above mediocrity unless the circumstances of
place, of time, and of education are also present. Furthermore,
Jesus-Christ, Who preached the Catholic-Christian religion,
never spent His time studying in the schools of science.
If we admit the hypothesis that this doctrine is divinely
revealed, we can understand the extraordinary fact of its
transcendence : for the same God Who is the Author of the
human mind has revealed a doctrine that is suitable to human
nature.
If we do not admit this hj'pothesis, we have an inscrutable
mystery : a doctrine, which even the greatest of philosophers
could not discover, was proclaimed in Judea by a workman
inexperienced in the sciences, and by fishermen and publicans
addressing the crowds.

B The systems of the Rationalists which deny the super­
naturalism of this doctrine have come to naught.
99 The Christian doctrine has not been changed by other religions
or by philosophers.

a. Il was not changed by the Jewish doctors of the law.
Although both doctrines have many things in common,
and while it is true that Christianity is the complement to
the Mosaic religion, nevertheless there arc so many differences
that Christianity could not have been naturally evolved
from Mosaism without God’s special and new intervention.
1 De Broglie, Problèmes el conclusions de Γhistoire des Religions, chap. IX
and X.

THE DIVINE LEGATION PROVED FROM THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

65

Thus, Mosaism is a religion proper to one people; Christianity
is universal. The Messias expected by the Jews was a temporal
King; Jesus was a spiritual Messias.
In regard to dogma — the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemp­
tion through the cross, justification through faith and through
good works, all these were unknown to the Jews. In regard to
ethics — the precepts of Christ differ greatly from the traditions
of the Elders and of the Pharisees.

100 b. The Christian doctrine was not changed by the Greeks
or Latins 0/ that time.
We acknowledge the fact that many things are found
among the pagans which are in accord with Christian doctrine
— human reason can attain to certain truths in moral or
religious matters — but the differences between Christ's
religion and the philosophers’ opinions are so many and
so great that it is morally impossible that Christianity has
been evolved from these — without God’s special intervention.
In regard to dogma — the pagans have no knowledge of the
Trinity, of the Redemption, of sanctification through grace.
In fact, many of the most distinguished are in doubt about the
immortality of the soul, about Providence. In regard to ethics —
some precepts are almost identical in the matter of phrasing,
but the motives upon which they rest are manifestly exceedingly
different.

101 c. This Christian doctrine cannot be explained by syncretism.
According to the opponents of Christianity, syncretism is
a synthesis of oriental cults (of Isis, of Mithra, etc.) and
of Greek wisdom, which Paul preached. However, this
hypothesis is contrary to the facts : Paul was hostile to these
religions and taught the doctrine which he had received
from Christ Himself. If syncretism advanced a religion
which is universal as well as individual, it did not do so in
the same sense and in the same spirit as Christianity did.
Syncretism inclines towards pantheism and fosters a sanctity
that is merely external. On the other hand, the Church,
at the time of St. Paul, was ever opposing those (for example,
the Gnostics) who were trying to mix Christian dogma with
external religions. When these people persisted in their
teachings, the Church expelled them from her fold.

66

CHAPTER III

Conclusion

Therefore it is rightly concluded that the Christian doctrine
or the Christian religion is truly an original religion and
that it has been promulgated by Jesus Himself. If Jesus
has been sent by God to teach men the true religion, all things
are understandable; but if otherwise, then something is
to be considered incomprehensible, that is, there is an effect
without a sufficient cause. Thus the transcendence of the
Christian doctrine proves its supernaturalism.

CHAPTER III

CHRIST’S DIVINE LEGATION
OR AMBASSADORSHIP IS PROVED
HISTORICALLY FROM HIS LIFE1
In
1.
2.
3.

regard to Christ we must consider three things :
His person and testimony,
His miracles and prophecies,
His resurrection.
ARTICLE I.
THE PERSON AND TESTIMONY OF CHRIST

102 Thesis : Christ's natural qualities and His sanctity are
so superior that they must be regarded as a miracle in the moral
order and as a sign of His divine legation.
id

1 Pascal, Ptnsées, a. XII; P. Léonce De Grandmaison, a. Jésus-Chris
D. A., col. 136X-1404; Major Synopsis, n. 388-395.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

67

1. Description of Christ's natural qualities. By all the
Evangelists Christ is described as the perfect man :
a. in regard to intellectual endowments. I. In Jesus
these shine out : a wonderful keenness of mind and correctness
of judgement, the greatest wisdom, a sublimity and at the
same time a simplicity of doctrine, authority accompanied
by gentleness and humility.
b. in regard to the will: I. Both His disciples and His
enemies acknowledged that Jesus was free from all sin.
2. He cultivated the positive virtues :
a) His charity towards man was universal, active, effectual,
constant and unsurpassable ; He had no faults.
b) Towards Himself He practiced complete self-denial
in a spirit of great sincerity and of genuine humility. In
a word, His virtue was all-embracing and very pleasing.
c) Towards God He showed piety and all-surpassing religion
in His prayers and in His acts.
103 2. Conclusions that are to be drawn from Christ’s super­
natural legation. Christ’s gifts of mind and of will are so
eminent that without a doubt they constitue a miracle in
the moral order. This fact Jesus explains thus : with authority
and gentleness He announces this sublime but simple doctrine
because He has been sent by God and teaches God's doctrine.
“ My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me ” x. Therefore,
there is a real link between the eminence of the person of
Christ and His doctrine and His divine ambassadorship.

B THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST

I. An explanation of Christ's testimony about His divine
ambassadorship.
104 State of the question :
Catholics affirm that Jesus Christ, in the entire course
of His public life, taught that His mission was divine, but
1 Gospel according to St. John, VII, 16; St. John, V, 30; St. Luke, X, 16.

68

CHAPTER HI

that He set this forth gradually in order that He might slowly
prepare the minds of the Jews for receiving His spiritual
kingdom.
But Rationalists deny that Jesus said that He was the Messiah;
they assert that the messianic declarations referred to in the
Gospels arise from the idealization of the first Christian genera­
tion. Certain Liberals and Modernists think that Jesus said that
He would be the Messiah of an eschatological kingdom in the very
near future, which actually did not take place. He was mistaken;
and His disciples, after vainly awaiting for a time the parousia,
established the Church.

105 Thesis : Christ very often declared both implicitly and
effectively, and explicitly and solemnly, that He was God’s
legate foretold by the prophets, especially sent by God to teach
men the true religion
This is historically certain, it is theolo­
gically de fide.

It was necessary that the Messiah (The Anointed, a word
which means the same as Christ) announced by the prophets,
have the three-fold mission, of king, of priest, and of prophet.
This title Jesus claimed for Himself and in a very special
way He fulfilled the doctrinal mission of Messiah. This
is proved historically from the Gospels. In order that the
testimony of Jesus about Himself may be more manifest, we
shall distinguish four periods chronologically in His public
life.
106 A From the beginning of His public life Christ proclaimed His
messianic and doctrinal mission :

i. by His manner of acting, for He performed the offices of
the Messiah; and as one sent by God, he taught His religion.
He declared that the messianic kingdom announced by the
prophets had drawn nigh ·, and He spread His teaching abroad
in the villages, streets, and synagogues, as one having power ·.
He selected and instructed and endowed His disciples, whom
’ Lepin, Jésus Messie et Fib de Dieu, fourth edition, p. 78-218; Major
Synopsis, n. 396-413.
* Gospel according to St. Mark, I, 15.
* Gospel according to St. Mark, I, 22.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

69

He sent out to publish the coming of the messianic kingdom,
with the power of casting out devils and of healing the sick ’.
He purified the Mosaic law by eliminating certain customs, and
in His own name He fulfilled and perfected it, stating, '* Tt was
said to them of old... but I say to you... ’* ». At the same time
Ho performed miracles in order to prove His divine mission.

2. by words that were equivalent in meaning when He declared
that He was the Lord of the Sabbath 1
*3, greater than David,
Jonah, and Solomon 4*7— He who is to come — and upon whom 0
rests the spirit of the Lord ·. Certainly on these occasions He
affirmed that the messianic prophecies had been fulfilled in
Himself.
3.in clear and open words, as early as the occasion of His
speaking to NicodemusT, during His encounter with the Samaritan
woman, *, after healing the paralytic at the pool called Probatica
in Jerusalem ♦.
107 B.

During the last year of His life He spoke explicitly :

1. to His disciples. — At Caesarea Philippi He asked them :
" Whom do you say that I Am? ” Simon Peter answered : “ Thou
art Christ ”. To this declaration Jesus gave the most solemn
approbation ·.*
2. To the people. — If you read chapters VIT, VIII, X of the
Gospel according to St. John, you will see that Jesus could not
have affirmed His messianic and religious mission more clearly.
Likewise, Jesus made His entrance into Jerusalem as the Messiah
-King while the young boys were crying out : “ Hosanna to the
son of David
and when the Pharisees questioned Him about
this, He replied that in this way the Propnccies were being ful­
filled. During the following days He taught in the Temple as
the Messiah, openly declaring to the magistrates who questioned
Him, by what authority He was doing this “.
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, IV, 18-22.
’ Gospel according to St. Matthew, V, 21-22.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XII, 8.
‘ Gospel according to St. Mark, XII, 35-37.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XI, 4-5.
* Gospel according to St. Luke, IV, 21-25.
7 Gospel according to St. John, III, 13-18.
* Gospel according to St. John, IV, 26.
* Gospel according to St. John, V, 19-46.
’· Gospel according to St. Matthew, XVI, 13-19.
” Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXI, 23·

70

CHAPTER III

C Al the time of His Passion when the Chief Priest, rising up,
said to Him : “ I adjure thee by the living God that you tell us if
you are the Christ, the Son of the Living God ”, Jesus replied
to him : “ Thou hast said it1*”. Jesus realized that this declaration
would be the cause of His condemnation, but nevertheless He
spoke out explicitly, and after that Ho sealed His testimony
with His own blood’ by freely accepting death.

D Finally, after His resurrection. He appeared to His disciples,
when they were in doubt about His divine mission, in order to
strengthen them in faith. " Ought not Christ to have suffered
these things, and so to enter into His glory? " *

Therefore it is historically established that Jesus Christ
affirmed that He was the Messiah especially sent by God
for the purpose of teaching men the true religion 34.
108

Conclusions.

A That these declarations are not the genuine words of Jesus
but the inventions of the first generation of Christians cannot
be granted for :
a. They are so integrally a part of the whole narrative that,
if they were eliminated, the thread or the design of the Gospel
would bo lastingly rent or upset; and the few fragments that
remained would be entirely unintelligible. For example, the
death of Jesus could not be explained historically.
b. Moreover, it is certain that the Apostles at the time of
Pentecost were teaching that Jesus was truly the Messiah *.
Thus the time necessary for idealizing the life of Jesus was lacking.
Also. Paul proclaimed in the synagogue that Jesus was the Mes­
siah foretold by the Prophets ·.

B Nor can it be said, as Loisy states, that Jesus affirmed that
He would be a Messiah only in an eschatological sense. A Messianic

Kingdom should embrace a two-fold stage or period : the first
on earth, the second in heaven after the final coming of the Mes­
siah.
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXVI, 62-66.
’ Gospel according to St. Luke, XXIV, 13-53.
■ The following proposition is condemned : " While He was exercising
His ministry, Jesus did not speak with the object of teaching that He was
the Mcssias, nor did His miracles tend to prove it ”, Decree Lamentabili,
Proposition 28. D. B., 2028.
4 Cf. Acts of the Apostles, II, 36.
4 Acts of the Apostles, XIII, 27.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

71

Jesus declared that He was already the Messiah in the
first sense, that He was performing the offices of the Messiah ;
(all this is evident from previous notes) Jesus declared that
He would be the Messiah in the second sense when all things
would be consummated *
*.

II.

The Meaning of Christ’s testimony

109 Thesis : If we examine Christ's character and talents, then
we must admit that the testimony which He expressed concerning
His divine mission is true; and that therefore Christ is a divine
ambassador 2.
In order that the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth about
Himself may be worthy of belief, two things are required :
1) that Jesus was not a deceiver; 2) that Jesus was not deceived.
But these arc evident. Therefore.
no Proof of the minor : a. Jesus was not a deceiver. All concede
this. It was a settled point in Christ’s mind that He had
been sent by God as the Messiah for the purpose of teaching
men the true Religion.

b. Jesus was not deceived. Certain Rationalists, along
with Renan, contend that Jesus was somewhat deceived;
and that this belief or persuasion was nothing more than
a very vivid consciousness of His union with God.
This opinion has to be rejected. From the beginning
of His public life Jesus affirmed that He had been sent by
God in order to teach men the doctrine necessary for salvation.
Further, He proclaimed this divine mission as a 'principal­
dogma which must be believed under the penalty of eternal
damnation. If such an affirmation were false, the conclusion
would follow that Jesus was truly deluded, and perpetually
deluded. Such a condition could arise only from a pathological
state of the mind or of the will. But perpetual or continuous
1 Cf. De La Brjère, a. Eglise, in Dictionnaire Apologétique, vol. I, 1230.
* Picard, La Transcendance de Jésus-Christ.

72

CHAPTER ΙΠ

hallucination on the part of Christ cannot be admitted.
wisdom and His extraordinary sanctity do not allow it.

His

in Therefore, the testimony of Jesus, Who was neither
deceiving nor deceived, is worthy of full belief. (This is
more effectually proved from His miracles.) So, Jesus of
Nazareth was truly the Messiah sent by God in order to
reveal the true religion to men; accordingly the Christian
Religion which He preached is truly divine and must be
embraced.
article

π.

Christ’s miracles

AND PROPHECIES

112 Thesis : In order to prove His divine mission Christ performed
many historical and divine miracles, and proclaimed many
prophecies. This thesis is historically certain, it is theologically
de fide.

A CHRIST’S MIRACLES1*

113 Christ accomplished many miracles; in fact the gospels
tell the individual stories of more than forty. St. Thomas
observes that these miracles were performed in relation to
spiritual substances, to heavenly bodies, to men and irrational
creatures. Through miracles Christ progressively manifested
His divine ambassadorship. Also, to His Apostles He gave
the power of performing miraculous deeds.
Christ’s miracles can be viewed either singly or collectively
for the purpose of proving the divinity of Christianity.
Because it is briefer and more effective we shall regard them
collectively 8.

114 The Argument in general : If Jesus of Nazareth worked
true miracles in order to confirm the divinity of His religious
1 Major Synopsis, n. 414-435.
* Fillion, Les miracles de N. S. Jisus-Ckrisi.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

73

mission, we ought to believe that He has been sent by God
to teach us the true Religion which all men should embrace.
But it is evident that Jesus of Nazareth performed true
miracles for proving the divinity of His religious mission.
Therefore.
The major premise is evident from what has been stated
under number 67.
The minor premise is proved part by part : 1. Christ’s
miracles are historically certain ; 2. they arc truly supernatural
and divine; 3. they were performed in proof of His divine
mission.

I. Christ’s miracles are historically certain
115 That this is so has already been deduced from the historicity
of the Gospels. However, there are those who admit the
historicalness of the Gospels and yet reject the miracles.
In opposition to these we appropriately add these special
arguments.
a. The same witnesses report the life of Christ and tell of Christ’s

miracles. They are worthy of equal belief as they narrate incidents
in each category. After all, miracles are sensible, extraordinary,
and public happenings.
b. In regard to several miracles a judiciary examination was
instituted by Christ’s enemies; for example, concerning the cure
of the boy born blind.
c. Further, the miracles are so much intertwined with the
plan of the evangelical narrative that they cannot be denied without
rejecting at the same time Christ’s entire history.
d. Finally, both the Apostles and the Fathers appeal with
confidence to Christ’s miracles as to the best known facts.

II. Christ’s Miracles are truly preternatural and divine
116 Many state that these facts were acknowledged as preter­
natural by Christ’s contemporaries because the Jews were
inclined to admitting miracles readily on account of their
ignorance of the law’s of nature. But :

72

CHAPTER III

hallucination on the part of Christ cannot be admitted. His
wisdom and His extraordinary sanctity do not allow it.
in Therefore, the testimony of Jesus, Who was neither
deceiving nor deceived, is worthy of full belief. (This is
more effectually proved from His miracles.) So, Jesus of
Nazareth was truly the Messiah sent by God in order to
reveal the true religion to men; accordingly the Christian
Religion which He preached is truly divine and must be
embraced.
ARTICLE II.

CHRIST’S MIRACLES

AND PROPHECIES

112 Thesis : In order to prove His divine mission Christ performed
many historical and divine miracles, and proclaimed many
prophecies. This thesis is historically certain, it is theologically
de fide.
A CHRIST’S MIRACLES1*

113 Christ accomplished many miracles; in fact the gospels
tell the individual stories of more than forty. St. Thomas
observes that these miracles were performed in relation to
spiritual substances, to heavenly bodies, to men and irrational
creatures. Through miracles Christ progressively manifested
His divine ambassadorship. Also, to His Apostles He gave
the power of performing miraculous deeds.
Christ’s miracles can be viewed either singly or collectively
for the purpose of proving the divinity of Christianity.
Because it is briefer and more effective we shall regard them
collectively 8.

114 The Argument in general : If Jesus of Nazareth worked
true miracles in order to confirm the divinity of His religious
1 Major Synopsis, n. 414-435.
* Fillion, Les miracles de N. S. Jdsus-Ckrisl.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

73

mission, we ought to believe that He has been sent by God
to teach us the true Religion which all men should embrace.
But it is evident that Jesus of Nazareth performed true
miracles for proving the divinity of His religious mission.
Therefore.
The major premise is evident from what has been stated
under number 67.
The minor premise is proved part by part : 1. Christ’s
miracles are historically certain ; 2. they arc truly supernatural
and divine; 3. they were performed in proof of His divine
mission.

I.

Christ’s miracles are historically certain

115 That this is so has already been deduced from the historicity
of the Gospels. However, there are those who admit the
historicalness of the Gospels and yet reject the miracles.
In opposition to these we appropriately add these special
arguments.
a. The same witnesses report the life of Christ and tell of Christ’s

miracles. They are worthy of e<jual belief as they narrate incidents
in each category. After all, miracles are sensible, extraordinary,
and public happenings.
b. In regard to several miracles a judiciary examination was
instituted by Christ’s enemies; for example, concerning the cure
of the boy born blind.
c. Further, the miracles are so much intertwined with the
plan of the evangelical narrative that they cannot be denied without
rejecting at the same time Christ’s entire history.

d. Finally, both the Apostles and the Fathers appeal with
confidence to Christ’s miracles as to the best known facts.

II.

Christ’s Miracles are truly preternatural and. divine

116 Many state that these facts were acknowledged as preter­
natural by Christ’s contemporaries because the Jews were
inclined to admitting miracles readily on account of their
ignorance of the laws of nature. But :

ΊΑ

CHAPTER III

a. Not all of Christ’s contemporaries, certainly not the
Pharisees or His enemies, were inclined to multiplying the
miracles which He performed.
b. Even if we grant that His contemporaries were deceived
because of their ignorance of the laws of nature, certainly
they could see and report these happenings correctly; then
it becomes our concern to judge whether these happenings
arc truly preternatural. If we consider the nature of many
things that Christ accomplished and the manner in which
these things were carried out, then it is certain that they
go beyond the laws of nature — for example, the sudden
healing of the paralytic (St. John, V, 5-9), the complete cure
of the leper by mere touch (St. Matthew, VIII, 3) the resur­
rection of the dead man who was fetid (St. John, XI).

c. These miraculous happenings cannot be explained by
the power of suggestion or by hypnotism. For :

1.

the cures are too diverse;

2. Christ performed His healings instantaneously, without
assistance, by a mere command or touch, sometimes, in fact,
at a distance x.

HI.

The divine nature of Christ’s miracles is manifest:

117 a. oftentimes from the nature of the work which could
be accomplished only by God, for example, the resurrection
of a dead person ;

b. from the character of the miracle-worker, who possessed
all virtues;
c. from the circumstances of the miracles and especially
from the effects of the miracles.
1 Refer to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, VIII, 5 ; XV, 32-28.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

75

IV. Christ’s miracles were performed
as a proof of His divine mission

118 Very often He explicitly appeals to His works, that is,
to His miracles, when He wishes to prove the divinity of His
mission to His disciples or to the people *
*. Before He called
Lazarus back to life, He openly and clearly declared His
purpose : “ that they may believe that thou hast sent me ” *.
Consequently because of His miracles the disciples
acknowledged the divine authority of Jesus, and from His
miracles they proved that His mission was divine.
Therefore the minor premise stands.
119 Conclusion. We should believe that Jesus of Nazareth
has been truly sent by God in order to teach us the true
Religion which all ought to embrace. If this is not so, then
we have been deceived by God.
B CHRIST’S PROPHECIES’

120 If Jesus of Nazareth uttered true prophecies in order to
confirm His disciples’ faith in His divine mission, it is necessary
to believe that He has been truly sent to teach us the true
Religion.

But it is evident that Jesus uttered true prophecies in
order to confirm His disciples’ faith in His divine mission.
Therefore :

I. Jesus of Nazareth uttered true prophecies4. Clearly
and minutely He predicted many future events which were
prefectly fulfilled :
a. in regard to His Passion and Resurrection ·,
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XI, 4-5; Gospel according to St. Luke,
VII, 21; Gospel according to St. John, V, 36; X, 24; XIV, 10; XV, 24.
* Gospel according to St. John, XI, 42.
* Major Synopsis.n. 436*442.
4 Refer to Batiffol, L'enseignement de Jésus, p. 251.
4 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XVI, 20-23; XVII, 21-22; XX, 17-19.

76

CHAPTER III

b. in regard to His disciples and the destiny of the Churchx,
c. in regard to the Jews or in regard to the destruction
of Jerusalem a.
2. These prophecies prove the divine mission of Christ.
a. They are truly divine : They greatly preceded the events ;
further, they could not be foreseen naturally, in as much
as clearly and certainly they announced determined acts
with detailed circumstances at a time when all these
still depended on the free will of men and of God. Moreover,
all of these very many predicted events, even the most
unimportant, were brought to pass — as history shows.
b.Jesus uttered prophecies in order to strengthen the
faith of His disciples in His divine mission, in order to confirm
the souls of the Apostles lest perhaps thay might be scandalized
by His death. This is evident from the Gospel according
to St. John, XIV, XV, XVI. Therefore, if the doctrine of
Jesus be false, it is God Himself who is the patron and protector
of this falsity.
ARTICLE III.

CHRIST’S RESURRECTION

121 Argument. If Jesus of Nazareth actually arose from the
dead, we must believe that He has been really sent by God
in order to teach us the true Religion.
But it is historical!}' established that Jesus rose from the
dead.
The Major premise is certain ; for
1. rising from the dead is a miracle, possible to God alone.
2. Jesus had often prophesied His death and His
resurrection, and had offered His resurrection as a proof
of His miracles and as an argument for His divine mission.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXVI, 21-25, 31, 34; X. 17-18.
’ Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXIV, 7, 11, 15-18; according to St. Luke,
XXI, 20-24.
’ Maxcexot, La Resurrection de Jésus; Ladeuze, La Résurrection du
Christ devant la critique contemporaine ; L. De Graxdmaisox, in D. A., a.
Jésus-Christ, col. 1414-1514; Major Synopsis, n. 443-471.

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

77

In order to demonstrate the minor premise, we shall establish
three points :
1. Jesus was truly dead,
2. Jesus was buried in the sepulchre,
3. Jesus rose.
I.

JESUS TRULY DIED ON THE CROSS

122 It is certain that Jesus died on the cross.
1. This is evident from the witnesses who stood by the
cross : from friends who report that he expired crying out
with a great voice; from enemies who very carefully kept
guard in order that the sentence of death be carried out ;
2. This is evident from the testimony of the centurion
whom Pilate summoned before he handed over the body
to the disciples, and from the testimony of the soldiers who
ascertained that He was dead and for that reason did not
break His bones;

3. This is evident from the fact that no one contradicted
the Apostles when they preached in public that Jesus had
died on the cross.
II

CHRIST WAS BURIED IN THE SEPULCHRE

123 This is manifest from the narratives of the Evangelists,
from the authority with which St. Paul describes the honorable
burial of Christ *, from the words of St. Peter in which he
compares the burial of Christ with David’s burial *. Loisy’s
opinion, which states that Christ was cast into a pauper’s
grave, contradicts the testimony of history and the customs
and the laws of the Jews in regard to those condemned to
death and their burial.
11 Corinthians, XV’, 4.
* Acts of the Apostles, II, 24-32.
\O 642 (I) — 7

78

CHARTER III

III

JESUS ROSE FROM THE DEAD

124 Errors. No one today claims that the Apostles were
deceivers; but Liberals and Modernists believe that the Apostles
were deceived by some delusion or some spiritual vision; or
they say that belief in the resurrection was not a belief of
the first age, but that it gradually originated from faith
in Christ’s immortality.
125 Thesis : Christ truly rose from the dead in His own flesh,
glorified, it is true. This is historically certain, it is theolo­
gically de fide.*
The thesis states : 1. that He truly rose in His own flesh,
for the very flesh or body which hung on the cross, this
possessed life once again; 2. that the body was glorified,
because after the Resurrection Christ’s body enjoyed impassi­
bleness, definiteness, brightness, quickness, and all the
endowments of glorified bodies !. The testimony of St. Paul
and that of the Evangelists are particularly à propos on this
point.
126 A

The Testimony of St. Paul ’.

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians Paul relates the
resurrection as an unshaken fact, known to all, handed down
through tradition : “ For I delivered unto you first of all,
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose
again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that
He was seen by Cephas, and after that by the eleven. Then
was He seen by more than five hundred brethren at once...,
after that He was seen by James, then by all the Apostles;
and last of all He was seen also by me as by one bom out
of due time ” «.
1 From symbols, from the ordinary magisterium, and from the liturgical
practice of the Universal Church.
* Refer to Diction, de Théologie Cathol., a. Corps glorieux by D. D. Chollet.
* Refer to Mancenot, La Résurrection de Jésus, p. 74·
* First Epistle to the Corinthians, XV, 3-8.

CHAPTER III

79

In this testimony, preeminent because of its antiquity,
Paul narrates Christ’s death, burial, resurrection; and the
resurrection he proves by means of the six appearances which
he mentions.
121 The Rationalists are in error when they offer the objections :

1. that Paul does not relate the appearances in Jerusalem,
since Paul’s purpose was not to enumerate all the appearances
of the risen Cnrist ;
2. that Paul presents these appearances only as of the spirit,
for the context demands corporeal appearances : Ho who was
dead and buried in the flesh, the same has risen and has been seen
in like manner in the flesh. Christ, in His resurrection in the
flesh, is the exemplar of our resurrection in the flesh.

Therefore Paul bears witness that Jesus has arisen from the
dead in His own flesh, glorified, it is true.
Verses 42-44 in the 15th Chapter of St. Paul’s First Epistle
to the Corinthians make tiffs apparent.
128 B Testimony of the Evangelists
Two Evangelists demonstrate : 1. that on the third day
the tomb was found to be empty; 2. that after His death
the living Christ appeared on many occasions.

a. The empty tomb. According to the Evangelists, the
body of Christ, taken down from the cross, was wrapped
in a sheet and buried in a new tomb which had been cut
out of rock. A great stone was rolled to the entrance of the
tomb, the stone was sealed, and guards were assigned. Then
on the first day after the sabbath the tomb was found empty.
Where was Christ’s body?
Certainly it was not swallowed up in the earth; nor was
it taken away by Christ’s disciples who have never been
condemned as violators of the tomb; nor was it carried off
by the Jews who would have brought the dead body forward
’Refer to Mangenot, La Résurrection de Jisus, p. 177.

80

THE DIVINE LEGATION FROM HIS LIFE

to the Apostles when they were proclaiming Christ’s
resurrection.
One explanation remains, namely, the real resurrection
of the Lord, as reported by the Apostles.
129 b.

The Appearances or Apparitions of Christ.

There has been an objection that the tradition concerning
Christ’s appearances has been two-fold, one tradition centered
in Galilee and the other established in Jerusalem. The objectors
claim that the two are in opposition to each other. From this
the Rationalists infer that the apparitions were contrived during
the first Christian generation in order more readily to convince
souls of Christ’s resurretion.
This conclusion does not follow from these premises. The
apparitions in Galilee do not exclude the apparitions in Jerusalem.
The risen Christ appeared to the Apostles and to the disciples
first in Jerusalem, and then in Galilee; He showed Himself as a
living being in various ways : He walked with them. He talked
to them, He ate with them; His body, which had been nailed to
the cross, He exhibited in its usual appearance; He ordered that
the print of the nails in His hands and in His feet and that His
wounded side be touched ».
After these happenings the Apostles on many occasions affirmed
that they were witnesses to Christ’s resurrection ·, which had
been made manifest to them in a sensible manner, even though
it was supernatural in cause, and even though the renewed and
resurrected body had been endowed with supernatural qualities.

130 Those who bear witness to the appearances of the risen
Christ have not been deceived. For there are many witnesses;
at many times, in many places, over a period of forty days
they saw Christ appearing, they touched Him, they talked
with Him and they remained with Him.
Those who bear witness are not deceivers. At first they
did not wish to believe in the resurrection, they scoffed at
the women when they announced the resurrection, and only
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXVIII; Gospel according to St. Mark,
XVI; Gospel according to St. Luke, XXIV; Gospel according to St. John, XX,
1 Acts of the Apostles, I, 22; II, 32; III, 15; IV, 33; V, 32.

CHAPTER III

81

after being won over by the evidence did they finally give
themselves up to a belief in the risen Christ.
Therefore, the}7 arc worthy of belief and from their testimony
we can be certain that Christ truly arose.
131 It cannot be claimed that the Apostles were suffering from
delusions, for any delusion from which men of sane mind might
suffer would not be of long duration. Nor can it be said that
the appearances were only of a spiritual nature, because the
Apostles not only saw the body of the Lord, but also they touched
it. In answer to the charge that the disciples’ belief in the resur­
rection originated from the idea of an immortal Christ, we reply
that from the very beginning both Peter in the Acts of the Apostles
and Paul in his preaching and in his Epistles bear witness to the
fact of the resurrection.

132 C The fact of Christ’s resurrection is further corroborated
by the wonderful change which took place in the Apostles
after the resurrection. After this event the Apostles,
strengthened by the Holy Spirit, became fearless, daring,
constant in soul. Publicly they proclaimed the resurrection
in the face of threats, blow’s, and imprisonment, and in a
short time they sealed their belief by shedding their blood.
If the crucified Christ remained in the tomb, then this
transformation is unintelligible to everyone. Only the bodily
resurrection of Christ can explain it.

Therefore, it is historically 1 obvious that Jesus of Nazareth
truly arose from the dead.

1 In the decree Lamentabili these two propositions concerning Christ’s
resurrection are condemned :
36. The Resurrection of the Saviour is not properly a fact of the historical
order. It is a fact of merely the supernatural order, neither demonstrated
nor demonstrable, which the Christian conscience gradually derived from
other facts.
37· In the beginning faith in the Resurrection of Christ was not so much
in the fact itself of the Resurrection as in the immortal life of Christ with God.

CHAPTER IV

THE HISTORY OF EARLY CHRISTIA­
NITY CORROBORATES CHRIST’S DIVINE
AMBASSADORSHIP.
133 The change that Christianity introduced into the world
can be accounted for only by divine power; in fact, it is really
a miracle — a miracle in the intellectual order (the fulfillment
of Christ’s prophetic declarations and of the prophecies)
or a miracle in the moral order, a miracle which was effected
in favour of Christ’s divine ambassadorship.
ARTICLE I.
THE WONDERFUL PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY 1

134 Because the rationalists teach that the spread of Christianity
was natural, it is proper (for the purpose of drawing up the
argument as strongly as possible) to unite two facts, namely,
the very rapid propagation of Christianity and its effect on
morality.
The constancy of the martyrs (number 144) gives further
strength to our argument ’.

135 Thesis : In the face of the circumstances then prevailing,
the most rapid spread of the Christian religion throughout the
world and its force in restoring morality must be recognized
as a miracle in the moral order, which proves its divinity.
First, we shall set forth the facts ; then we shall explain them.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 473-507.
* Refer to De Poulpiquet, L'objet intégral de t’Apologétique, p. 121-187.

CHRIST’S DIVINE LEGATION FROM HISTORY

83

I THE FACTS SET FORTH

136 A The very rapid spread of Christianity.
1. Numbers. — While the Apostles were still living, there were
greats numbers of Christians. This fact is obvious from a reading
of the Acts of the Apostles and of the Epistles. After the death
of the Apostles, St. Clement, St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian,
Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Junior affirm that the Christians
comprise a vast group.

2. Geographic extension. — Around tho middle of the fourth
century Christianity prevailed in Asia Minor, Thrace, Cyprus,
and the territory of Edessa. It had spread into Coelesyria, Egypt,
southern and central Italy, into proconsular Africa and Numidia,
into Spain, Greece and southern Gaul.
3. Social extension. — It soon spread through all classes of
society. In this respect Christianity, unlike Mithraism, was not
spread exclusively among soldiers.
From these facts we may infer tliat through the first three
centuries Christianity was diffused very rapidly throughout
the entire Roman Empire, in fact even outside the boundaries
of the Empire.

137 B

The force of Christianity in restoring morality.

1. It strengthened men individually because it proclaimed
religious truth to each man and to all men, even to the uneducated,
to the jx>or and to the slaves. It condemned impurity, drun­
kenness, and other offenses against nature which philosophers had
approved of and tolerated: and in marvellous manner it promoted
virtues. (The pagans acknowledged this).

2. It restored the family by protecting the children, the wife
and the slaves.
a. It maintained the dignity of wives because it enjoined the
unity and indissolubility of marriage, it praised virginity, and
promoted devotion to the Blessed Mother.
b. It preserved the lives of children because it forbade and,
with the severest penalties, it punished abortion, the exposing,
the selling, and the killing of infants.
c. Little by little it moderated the condition of slaves because
it preached the brotherhood of all men, it regarded all with
equal reverence and love, it commended the freeing of a slave
as an outstanding work of charity, it ennobled work.

84

CHAPTER IV

3. It renewed civil society.
a. It promoted liberty by teaching that all authority comes
from God and is to be exercised for the common gooa of the
citizens, not for the usefullness of the ruler.
b. It restored justice among men by proclaiming the dignity
of every man redeemed by the blood of Christ, a candidate for
eternal· life. Everywhere'it set up charitable institutions for
orphans, for abandoned infants, for the sick and the old. (Our
adversaries willingly admit all this ’).
c. It introduced humane behavior into the relations among
the different peoples : thus the horror of wars was gradually
diminished, defenceless people were treated with more kindness,
those who caused wars were not put to death when they were
defeated; faith in treaties was lætter preserved, quarrels among
nations were oftentimes adjusted according to the judgement of
Bishops ·.

138

The Christian Religion, therefore, was truly the mistress
of life, the destroyer of vice, the fruitful parent of virtue;
thus by far it excels other religions
II.

EXPLANATION OF THE FACTS

139 It can be stated that these facts represent a miracle in
the moral order, that is, they can be explained only by the
extraordinary’ intervention of God. This statement becomes
apparent when we compare the impediments which stood
in the way of Christianity with the natural means Christianity
employed.
140 A

The impediments were very great.

I.

They were from without :

a.

from the Jews who clung tenaciously to the rites and

ceremonies which Moses had prescribed, and to the traditions
which the Pharisees had spread abroad. Another Messiah
1 Refer to Lallemand, Histoire Je la Charité, vol. 11.
* Refer to E. Chenon, Le Rôle social de l’Eglise, Paris, 1921; Lallemand,
Histoire de la Charité, vol. II.
• Refer to Abbé De Broglie, Religion et Critique, p. 131-139.

CHRIST’S DIVINE LEGATION FROM HISTORY

85

they hoped for, and this Jesus Whom they had crucified
they would not adore ;

b. I. from the Gentiles, some of whom were indifferent
to religion, and others of whom, deceived by the many
prejudices that were spread among the people, or led on by
pride and ambition and by political motives, opposed and
obstructed Christianity in every’ possible manner.
2. The impediments were from within :

a. on the side of doctrine which contained mysteries that
could not be proved by reason but that had to be accepted
by faith alone.
b. on the side of ethics which, although pleasing to the
pure of heart, was very' odious to a corrupt society.
Anyone who is acquainted with the difficulties which
today, after centuries, oftentimes hold back the conversion
of our contemporaries and sometimes, in fact, make their
conversion impossible will be able to understand how great
these impediments or obstacles were.
B The natural means employed were of themselves unequal
to producing this effect.
The first preachers of the Gospel were few, in general were
Jews, unlettered, poor, ignorant of philosophy and of the
art of argumentation. They used no violence or force of arms;
since each one became a Christian only willingly; violence
was rather the method used to deter souls from Christianity.
Nor did they employ the allurements of pleasure since the
new religion openly' waged war on all vice. Finally, they
did not depend on eloquence — the Apostles relied on no
persuasive words of human wisdom.

141

142 Conclusion. By themselves the natural means employed
cannot explain the very' rapid spread of the Gospel among
the Romans and the barbarians, among all classes of society.
Even if the previously' mentioned obstacles were not present,
there still would be no natural explanation for the expansion.

86

CHAPTER IV

This fact is all the more unexplainable when we consider
the marvellous transformation that swept over the world.
Such a change implies a mentality converted and a will
strengthened to so great a degree that ancient vices are
eradicated and virtues, loftier than most of the pagan world
even knew, flourish. Only God’s preternatural intervention
could bring about such an effect.
To put the argument more briefly :
If the wonderful spread and tremendous force of the Christian
Religion can be explained only through the extraordinary
intervention of Providence, then we must believe that it is
true and all should embrace it*. For God cannot deliberately
propagate error in any matter, religious or otherwise.
But it is obvious that the amazing spread and force of the
Christian religion can be explained only through the extra­
ordinary intervention of Providence.
Therefore.

143 The assertion that other religions have been auspiciously
propagated is not a valid or meritorious one for this reason :
the fact that many people accept a certain doctrine is not
miraculous; but what is miraculous is this : a religion which
is full or mysteries and which is opposed to pleasure spreads
very quickly without human assistance and produces an
abundant field of virtues in a society that has been given
over to vices. Such an accomplishment can be found only
in the history of Christianity.
ARTICLE II.

THE CONSTANCY OF THE MARTYRS1

144 Etymologically the word martyr means a witness; quoad
rem or in this case it signifies a disciple of Christ who patiently
and heroically suffers death for affirming and maintaining
the Christian Religion.
’ This nexus between a miracle and the Christian religion is evident from
the very purpose of divine intervention.
• Major Synopsis, n. 508-517.

CHRIST'S DIVINE LEGATION FROM HISTORY

87

145 Thesis : All things considered, the heroic constancy of the
martyrs is a miracle of the moral order; it -proves the divine
ambassadorship of Christ for whom the martyrs gave up their
lives .*

i° ΙΠιβί are the facts?
It is evident from the written testimony of the Fathers
and of the pagans, also from many other documents, that
there were very many martyrs. Even the rationalists of
today acknowledge this.
In the Roman Empire and in the kingdom of Persia many
thousands suffered death for Christ. Later among the Moham­
medans, more recently among the Japanese and the Chinese,
in our days among the natives of Africa, many have endured
great torments.
Actually never in the history of the Church has the testimony
of blood been wanting. These martyrs were men and women,
boys and girls, of all ranks, 0/ every state in life. The most intense
physical and moral torments they endured so meekly, bravely,
and constantly, in fact, so eagerly for the sake of Christ that
they offered at all times a splendid example of heroic patience.

146 20 All things duly considered, this constancy is a miracle
in the moral order.

a. In the moral order that is a miracle which cannot be
explained by means of the natural powers of the human will.
But the constancy of the Martyrs, all things considered,
cannot be explained solely by means of the natural forces
of the will; for while certain men at any time can be heroes,
an immense crowd of all ages, of all conditions, of both sexes,
cannot be heroes. It is the lot of few naturally to accomplish
heroic acts, especially when there is no human motive, no
hope of praise, no blind wilfulness, no wild enthusiasm leading
them on and aiding them.
1 Refer to P. Allard, Dix leçons sur le Martyre; D. Leclercq, Les Martyrs.

88

147 b.

CHAPTER IV

The following facts confirm this argument.

1. The martyrs believed that they were being helped
by divine aid, and that they could overcome these torments
only by means of the grace of the Omnipotent God.

2. This divine aid was made manifest in many miracles
which strengthened the martyrs’ spirit and which sometimes
converted the persecutors.
3. The blood of Martyrs was the seed of Christians.
Viewed naturally, Christianity should have been diminished
or been destroyed by so many and such great persecutions;
it should not have increased.
The Martyrs, therefore, were strengthened by God so
that they might not deny the faith. Thus we should exclaim :
The Finger of God is Here! Since God, then, by this moral
miracle has confirmed the faith of the Martyrs in Christ’s
divine ambassadorship, this faith cannot be false.
148 Seholion. Some apologists present the argument differently :
they proceed from the testimony of the martyrs concerning the
miracles of Christ, of the Apostles and of the Christians .*

a. The force of this argument depends on miracles that were
performed previously, not on the martyrs who only bear witness
to facts which were already known in another way;
b. It is not established that the Martyrs are witnesses to
the facts; many think (this opinion seems sounder) that the
Martyrs are witnesses to doctrine, and that therefore their constancy
demonstrates their unconqucred persuasion and belief, but that
it docs not prove the truth of the Christian religion.
149 The opposition states that other religions have their martyrs.
We answer that martyrdom can prove the divinity of a religion
only if martyrdom occurs under circumstances which are bound
up "inseparably with the truth of this religion. At the same time
the martyrdom must not be ascribed to human forces, even
though they have reached a point of the most intense zeal, but
it must be ascribed to divine power. In the light of this principle,
the claims alleged by opponents appear and are feebly futile.
1 Refer to P. Allard, Dix leçons sur le Martyre, p. 309; Rivière, Autour
de. la question du Martyre, in R. P. .4., IV, p. 625-643.

CHAPTER V

CHRISTS DIVINE AMBASSADORSHIP IS
MORE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED BY DRAW­
ING A COMPARISON BETWEEN CHRIS­
TIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS1.
150 Since we have proved the divinity of the Christian Religion
by means of intrinsic and extrinsic arguments, it is necessary
to do nothing more than confirm our argument by making
a comparison with other religions.
There are two religions in particular which some put on
a basis of equality with Christianity or set before Christianity,
namely Buddhism and Islamism. We shall enlarge somewhat
on these two.

I.

Buddhism 2

151 Buddhism flourished in India during the sixth century
before Christ and even now it thrives in the island of Ceylon,
in Siam, among the Chinese people, in Tibet, and in Japan.
It has a great following — between 220.000.000 and
400.000.000.
I.

History of Buddism.

It is difficult to learn much about the life of its founder. It
appears that Siddharta, of the Gautama family and of royal
* Refer to Auuft De Broglie, Problèmes et conclusions de VHistoire des
Religions.
• Refer to Huby, Christ, p. 138, 258; Bricourt, 0Λ en est I’llistoire des
Religions, I, p. 267; Dk La Vallée-Poussin, Bouddhisme ; Major Synopsis,
n. 519-530·

90

CHAPTER V

race, later called Buddha or the wise one, was born approximately
in the year 557 before Christ. He abandoned his country, hi's
home, his wife and children in order to pursue wisdom among
the Brahmans. Afterwards he withdrew into solitude where
through constant meditation he dicovered a way of salvation.
This doctrine he preached and an order of monks he instituted
who, following in his foot-steps, preached and taught with him.

152

2.

Its Doctrine.

A Buddhism teaches nothing about God; all beings are
essentially equal; all things are changing constantly, except
the Law alone by force of which good actions produce a reward,
and bad actions bring forth punishment; therefore man docs
not differ essentially from other beings; he is subjected to
a metempsychosis until he acquires perfection in nirvana.

B The liighest perfection is the extinction of any desire
whatsoever in the soul. This is attained by meditation and
by a confession of faults. Siddharta recommended a universal
sympathy and ordered his followers to give alms to the religious.
To the faithful lying, drunkenness, murder and adultery
are forbidden; for the religious celibacy and poverty are
prescribed.

Today there are many sects among the Buddhists. While
there is no atheism among the people, nevertheless, there
is polytheism with many idols and many obscenities.
*53 3·

Criticism of Buddhism.

If at first consideration there seem to be certain similarities
between Buddhism and Christianity, the likeness rests in
certain rites or practices, but not in the doctrines which
are worlds apart : Christianity leads to a perfect life, Buddhism
leads to annihilation.

These likenesses are easily explained (without suggesting
that one religion is influencing the other) from the common
aspirations which flourish among men and which all religions
strive to satisfy.

Christ’s

divine legation and other religions

91

154 But there are so many dissimilarities between Buddhism
and Christianity that the two religions cannot be compared
or put on an equality.
A Christ performed miracles in order to prove the divinity
of His teaching; these miracles arc lacking in Buddhism.
Even if miracles were present, they would not establish the
divinity of Siddharta’s mission because he said nothing
about God.
B The excellence of Christian doctrine is an argument
in favor of its divine origin : the dogma of Buddhism, however,
is greatly defective and incomplete (refer to above notes);
its ethics, while superior to its dogma, nevertheless inclines
one to pride and to love of oneself.

C The spread of Christianity is a miracle in the moral
order; but the spread of Buddhism is not — its propagation
is adequately accounted for by the qualities and defects
of this religion.
Thus it is evident that Buddhism is the result of human
invention or ingenuity; that it is entirely inferior to
Christianity.

II.

Islamism1

155 Islamism had its birth in Arabia during the seventh century
after Christ; it spread into Asia, Africa and part of Europe.

i. Its History.
Mohamed, born about the year 570, tended his flocks, and
later worked as a tradesman. He said that the angel Gabriel
appeared to him; then he began to preach a new doctrine. In
the year 622 he migrated from Mecca to Medina. Later, this
day on which he escaped became the beginning of the Mohamme­
dan era. By force of arms ho imposed his religion on many. He
died on June 8, 632.
‘ Huby, Christus, p. 541; Bricourt, Où en est ΓHistoire des Religions, I,
p. 424; Carra De Vaux, Le Mahométisme; Major Synopsis, n. 531-540.

92

CHAPTER V

2. Its Doctrine.
Six special dogmas Mohammed proclaimed :

1) the existence of God, with the trinity of persons excluded ;

2)

the existence of angels ;

3) the divine mission of the prophets (he is the greatest
of the prophets) ;
4)

the revelation of a sacred book called the Koran;

5) the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the
body;
6) fatalism.
Gambling, wine, the flesh of swine, and images were
forbidden; prayers, ablutions, fasts, pious pilgrimages, alms,
and circumcision were obligatory; above all the holy war
was recommended. Polygamy and divorce are allowed;
also the slavery of the infidels.

*57

3-

Criticism of Islamism.

A Islamism contains many truths. This fact is easily
explained : They were borrowed from Judaism and Christianity.
However, Islamism cannot be considered as a renewal of
an ancient revelation and of Christianity since dogmas which
are essential to Christ’s religion Mohammed denied.
B Besides, absolutely nothing proves that Mohammed
was sent by God to restore the true religion :
a. He asserted his mission, but his testimony is not worthy
of belief since he confirmed it with no miracle;

b. His affirmation is false, for God cannot allow wanton
and inordinate passion ;
c. The spread of Mohammedanism was accomplished
by force of arms;

CHRIST'S DIVINE LEGATION AND OTHER RELIGIONS

93

d. The effects of tliis religion must be attributed to
fragments of truths (to monotheism especially) which
Mohammedamism preserved.
Finally, Mohammedanism is a human accomplishment,
Christianity greatly transcends it.
159

Conclusion.

From this comparison of Christianity with other religions
it follows that only Christianity is supreme'. Thus it may
be inferred very probably that Christianity is divine, for
without the special intervention of Providence this transcen­
dence cannot be accounted for. This conclusion becomes
certain when the historical argument (previously explained)
is added. From the latter we deduce that Christ’s testimony
concerning His religious and doctrinal mission, corroborated
by His sanctity and His many miracles, is completely worthy
of belief.
CONCLUSION OF THIS TRACT
All should accept the Christian Religion

We have proved :
1. everyone should reverence some religion;
2. some revelation is morally necessary for the human
race;
3. Christianity is today the only revealed religion ;

160

1 Abbé De Broglie very learnedly develops this argument in ProbUmes
el conclusions de Γ Histoire des Religions; chap. VIII, IX, X and XI should
be read in their entirety. From them it becomes evident that Catholics do
not fear that a history of Religions become common knowledge; but on the
contrary, that they expect much from a comparison between Christianity
and other Religions. Xo other religion can be found which shows so many
obvious signs of divine intervention : in its Founder; in its institution, spread
and preservation; in its moral force; in its preparation. Therefore not only
docs the Catholic religion surpass all others, but also, considered by itself,
it is so transcendent that all should regard it as the work of God.

Ν’ 642 (I) — S

94

CHAPTER V

Therefore upon everyone there is the obligation of embracing
the Christian faith.

161 This conclusion can be proved directly from the words
of Christ and of the Apostles :
a. " He that believeth in him is not judged; but he that
doth not believe is already judged, because he believeth not
in the name of the only begotten Son of God ”
“ He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be condemned 3

b. Likewise spoke Peter :
“ Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is
no other name under heaven given to men whereby we must
be saved 3 ",
And Paul :
“ Man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ4
Thus God has openly promulgated this obligation.
We have, then, an answer to the question which we set
up for a solution in the beginning of this Tract : is man bound
to embrace a religion, and, if so, what religion must he accept?
The answer — all must profess the Christian religion.

1 Gospel according to St. John, III, 18.
* Gospel according to St. Mark, XVI, 16.
* Acts of the Apostles, IV, 12.
* Epistle to the Galatians, II, 16.

TRACT III

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

162 As a matter of fact there are many societies today that
glory in the name of Christian : and yet they are entirely
different, one from the other. Thus, the Protestants deny
that Christ established a supreme and infallible authority
which preserves revelation safely and propagates it. The
Greek schismatics admit an infallible authority which they
place in the corporate body of Bishops acting together. The
Catholics maintain that the supreme authority belongs to
the corporate body of Bishops, but also that it rests in the
Head of this body, the Roman Pontiff, who carries on the
offices of Christ on earth.
We ask consequently : which of these three concepts is true,
or which is in accord with the mind of God? Which is true
Christianity ?

INTRODUCTORY *
163

i.

Meaning of the word, " Church

A According to the name :

1) In the Greek version of the Old Testament church means
either the act of congregating, or the group congregated,
or the place where the congregation comes together.
2) In the documents of the New Testament church signifies
either a group of Christ’s faithful or all the faithful of one
1 Major Synopsis, n. 542-548.

96

TRACT ΙΠ

place, or the universal society of the faithful; sometimes
it refers to the Church (learning), being taught, or the Church
teaching, etc.

B Actually the Church is the gathering of Christian pilgrims
or travellers united because they profess the same Christian
faith and participate in the same sacraments under the rule
of the Roman Pontiff.
164 2. Division of this Tract.
In order to prove by rational and historical arguments
that Christ founded the Catholic Church only, we shall establish
three points :

A Once we posit the fact of revelation, then the institution
of some living and infallible magisterium must be expected
a priori;
B It is historically true that Christ founded a Church
with a living and infallible magisterium in the College of the
Apostles under the authority of the Roman Pontiff;
C The divine institution of the Catholic Church is
demonstrated by special signs or marks *.

165 3. The nature of the arguments to be employed at this
point.

We shall make use of :
A The testimony in the books of the New Testament,
especially the words and doings of Christ and of the Apostles.
It should be noted that a scientific and complete portrayal
of the Church should not be looked for in Scripture, but only
its essential nature or constitution ;
1 We use this order because it is better suited to the present and general
state of the discussion. However, because the arguments of apologetics must
be adapted to various minds, Apologists may invert the order in accordance
w'th the psychological dispositions of the hearers or readers.

THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

97

B the oral apostolic traditions, received from the Lord,
which preserve the teachings that He handed over;

C natural reason, which points out those things that are
better adapted to attaining the purpose which God intended
when He instituted the ecclesiastical society.
PREFATORY NOTES ABOUT
VARIOUS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES1

In addition to the Roman Church there are many non­
Catholic societies in which the idea of the Church is understood
differently.
1°

THE GREEK CHURCHES SEPARATED

FROM THE SEE OF ROME

The Greeks, who call themselves Orthodox, teach that the
visible Church was set up by Christ, and that this Church was
endowed with the privilege of teaching and of proposing laws
infallibly; and that this privilege rests in the corporate body
of Bishops. They contend that the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
is not a matter of divine law, but only of church law, granted
at first to Roman Pontiffs because of the greatness and dignity
of the city of Rome. Further, they maintain that this primacy
was later deservedly transferred to the Archbishops of Constan­
tinople, at least in' reference to the Eastern Churches. They
acknowledge the authority of the first seven (Ecumenical Councils.
Therefore, they hold that the Church is an aristocratic society,
ruled by a college of Bishops.

2°

THE VARIOUS PROTESTANT SECTS

167 All of these reject the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, and
acknowledge only one rule of faith, namely, Sacred Scripture.
The Lutherans say that while the true Church of Christ is invi­
sible, the faithful on earth are, nevertheless, united by the bonds
of baptism, of the Lord’s Supper, and of the preaching of the
1 Major Synopsis, n. 549-57»·

98

TRACT III

Gospel. But because this society was not set up by Christ as a
visible society, many have recourse to Casarism, acknowledging
the authority of the State over the Church.
The Calvinists admit a visible Church in which the administra­
tion of the church rests with the presbyters delegated by the
people and equal to bishops by divine right. This system is
called Presbyterianism.

Many of the A nglicans grant a visible society instituted by Christ
and governed by bishops. Thus their name — Episcopalians.

Finally, very many groups hold that Churches exist of their
own right and enjoy the power of constituting laws for themselves
and of appointing ministers according to their own wishes. This
is the error of the Multitudinists.

3°

168

THE LIBERALS AND MODERNISTS

A Libera! Protestants

1. These deny that Christ established a Church as a society
since he believed that the kingdom of heaven, together with the
end of the world, would soon come;
2. They explain the formation of the Church by means of a
natural process : at first the faithful were equal; then they chose
elders who presided over their religious meetings. In the face
of serious opposition from the Montanists, the power of the Bi­
shops, who presided over the Churches, gradually increased
until soon they were regarded as the successors of the Apostles.
By the time that Gnosticism arose, a rule of faith was established,
namely, a tradition reaching from the Apostles to our times,
through the succession of Bishops. Afterwards, the authority
of the Roman Pontiff became powerful and finally reached a
point of being entirely supreme. But since this ecclesiastical
power of the Supreme Pontiff and of the Bishops is only human,
and oftentimes is tyrannous, everyone enjoys the right of approa­
ching God directly and of entering into a very close union with
Him.

B Insisting on this same evolution in the setting up of the
Church, the Modernists think that private judgment of conscience
should be placed before the Church’s authority; but they reject
a religious individualism and hold the Church is necessary for
preserving and spreading the true faith, and that obedience must
be given to it as to social authority.

CHAPTER I

REASON SPEAKS IN FAVOR OF THE
DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH
169 State of the Question. The most important question is
this : did Christ establish a living and infallible teaching office
for the -purpose of protecting and propagating His teaching?
This subject must be considered historically. However an
a priori argument, by way of introduction, can prepare our
minds to realize the force of the historical proof.
Among the Protestant :
1. Some called Liberals, repudiate any kind of authority,
even the authority of Scripture, and advocate a religion
of the spirit ;
2. Other maintain that there is an authority, not indeed
a living one, but a written authority, namely Sacred Scripture,
which is to be interpreted through private examination and
consideration.
Our purpose now is to prove the following two statements :
1. A certain infallible authority is necessary;
2. Scripture is insufficient; rather, a living and infallible
magisterium is desirable.

I.

THE MORAL NECESSITY OF SOME AUTHORITY
WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM CONSCIENCE AND WHICH
IS INFALLIBLE IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED ».

170 In this matter authority is called a rule of faith, or a pattern
through which those things are known which must believed
’ Major Synopsis, n. 573 581.

100

CHAPTER I

and performed in order to attain to eternal life; infallible, that
is, we can place complete confidence in this authorityl.
Thesis : If this matter is regarded a priori, then it is entirely
probable that Christ established an infallible authority to set
forth, to preserve, and to spread His teaching.
I. Proof of the statement concerning the necessity of some
authority :
a. From the social nature of religion :
Just as a society contributes very great strength to men
in political, industrial, and scientific affairs, so too in the
matter of religion; in fact, religion is more easily preserved,
more quickly propagated and more fortunately protected
from enemies in a society. For this reason many religions
have assumed a social character or aspect. The historj' of
religions attests to the truth of this statement.
Bui a religious society, like every other society, cannot
continue without supreme authority.
Therefore, it is exceedingly probable that Christ established
the Church endowed with social authority.

171

b. From the nature of Christian revelation :

The Christian Religion, divinely revealed, (Refer to preceding
tract) embraces dogmas, precepts, and rites which cannot
be preserved entire and uncorrupt without authority. Dogmas
are intellectually difficult and full of mysteries and therefore
easily changed; precepts are irksome and opposed to all
the vices, and accordingly are subject to a milder interpre­
tation; rites very easily decline into various superstitions;
these are facts needing no proof. Therefore, it is most probable
that Christ bequeathed real authority to His Church.

c. From the history of religions :
Religions cannot for any length of time avoid errors unless
there is some authority to help them. When all authority
* Infallibility is not here understood in a strictly theological sens*

PROOF FROM REASON

101

has been rejected, they fall into errors and into great
dissensions. Therefore, in all likelihood, Christ gave doctrinal
authority to His Church.
d. From the testimony of conscience :
In things pertaining to religion conscience very strongly
feels the need of some authority.
172 2. Proof of the statement about the necessity of an infallible
authority.
a. from the necessity of certitude which is required especially
in matters that pertain to eternal salvation ;

b. from the nature of divine revelation which cannot teach
error;
c. from the nature of religious authority which would be
only a human teacher if it were capable of making a mistake.
Therefore, in all likelihood, it should be stated a priori
that Christ, Who was endowed with extraordinary genius,
foresaw that an infallible authority would be necessary and
so instituted such an authority. Through this His religion
would be preserved and propagated.
II.

THE MORAL NECESSITY OF A LIVING AND
INFALLIBLE
MAGISTERIUM
OR
DIRECTING
OFFICE IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED
.
*

173 State of the Question. The need of some infallible authority
in the religion which Christ established has been asserted.
Now this question follows : Π'ΛαΖ is this authority? is it an
inspired book only? or is it a living and infallible magisterium?
Nearly all Protestants teach that Scripture is the only rule
of faith. If difficulties arise, many Lutherans and Calvinists
hold that they must be solved by private consideration;
* Major Synopsis, n. 582-597.

102

CHAPTER I

mystical sects rely on private inspiration; the Anglicans
find the solution in history and human tradition.
The Catholics admit a two fold rule of faith, a remote rule
and a proximate rule. The remote rule is the word of God,
written or handed down by tradition. The proximate rule
is the living and infallible magisterium of the Church, which
magisterium sets forth the word of God in an authoritative
and trustworthy manner.
174 Thesis : If this subject is viewed a priori, it is very probable
that Christ established a living and infallible magisterium,
through which His leaching would be set forth, preserved, and
propagated.
We prove this statement by examining the qualities or
properties of a rule of faith. The rule of faith necessary for
preserving and spreading revealed teaching must be :
a.

secure and complete,

b. attainable by everyone,
c. appropriate for settling disputes.
Otherwise it would be impossible for many to know from
it what must be believed and practised for salvation.
But the Protestant rule of faith, that is, the Sacred
Scriptures without a living magisterium, does not possess
these qualities; on the other hand, the Catholic rule of faith,
the living and infallible magisterium of the Church, does
enjoy such properties.
Therefore.
175 Proof of the first part of the minor premise.
The Protestant rule of faith

a.
not safe and complete since it does not offer a certain
criterion by which the inspired books may be distinguished,
nor can it prove that all the revealed truths are contained
in Scripture ;

PROOF FROM REASON

103

b. it is not attainable by all, for all Christians in all times
could not lay hold of the Sacred Scriptures; nor could they
understand that from them they were to produce for themselves
a creed of faith. We realize this when we consider the
innumerable difficulties which arise from the peculiarities
of the languages in which these books are written, from the
errors of the translations, from the manner in which the
teaching is examined, from the obscurity of the prophecies,
from the profundity of the dogmas, from the numerous senses
which are made use of in the Scriptures, etc. ;
c. it is not adequate for settling disputes, because even
if there were such a thing as private inspiration, it could
not authentically be discerned; further, more often than
not, no certitude about the true meaning of a text can be
obtained from private examination. All this becomes apparent
when we think of the multiplicity of Protestant sects.

176 Proof of the second part of the minor premise.
a. On the other hand, the living and infallible magisterium
of the Church is a secure and complete rule, because it faithfully
explains all the revealed truths contained in Scripture and in
Tradition;

b. It is a rule of faith which is attainable by all, because
it offers the word of God to all and explains it to all;
c. It is a rule which is capable of settling disputes, because
the teachers or directors are living who, by spoken and written
word, are able to make known their thoughts and intentions
and to explain the real meaning of dogma.

177

Conclusion

In all likelihood, therefore, we should believe that Christ,
who wanted His Gospel preached to every' creature, chose
as a religious authority a living and infallible magisterium.
The historical proof of this follows.

CHAPTER II

THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF CHURCH
PROVED FROM HISTORY

178 Ina thrcc-fold division we shall explain the official Catholic
teaching concerning the institution of the Church by Christ —
Christ founded the Church :
1.

in the manner of a society properly called;

2. in it He set up Bishops with the power of teaching an
of ruling;
3. He conferred the primacy of jurisdiction on the Roman
Pontiffs in this Church.
To put it more briefly — Christ founded the Church as a
society properly called, hierarchical and monarchical.
ARTICLE I
CHRIST ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH

AS A SOCIETY PROPERLY CALLED 1

179 State of the Question. According to liberal Protestants
and Modernists Christ thought of His kingdom as an eschato­
logical one; according to many orthodox Protestants He
did not institute the Church as a visible society. In opposition
to these we assert the following thesis :
Thesis : Without intermediary and with determined deliberation
Christ established the Church as a visible society, one that was
1 Major Synopsis, n. 599-622.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

105

to persevere and to last until the end of the world. This thesis
is historically certain ; it is theologically de fide.
H’e prove the thesis :
1. by explaining Christ’s preaching on the Kingdom of
God and by showing that this preaching prepared the way
for the institution of the Church ;
2. by demonstrating that Christ wished to unite within
the Church the disciples of the Kingdom of God.

180 I. In preaching the coming of the Kingdom of God Christ
prepared the way for the establishing of the Church.
The prophets had announced the messianic kingdom, national,
and at the same time universal, spiritual and eschatological;
in the time of Christ, the Jews were awaiting a particular
type of kingdom which was temporal and national.
From the very beginning of His preaching Jesus announced
the kingdom of God. What is that kingdom of God? As to
what it is the Liberals and the Catholics are in disagreement.
With Loisy some think that the kingdom of God which
Christ proclaimed is only eschatological, and that the many
words which Clirist uttered about the eternal life of the just
in heaven are to be thus understood. But others, with Harnack
and Sabatier, teach that the kingdom of God is internal, for
Christ disclosed the dispositions of soul necessary for entering
into this kingdom, namely, penitence, faith, etc.
181 However, the kingdom of God is not only of the future:
it has arrived already, already it is present at the time of
Christ1; nor is it internal only, abiding in the faithful soul,
but it is external and social, as is evident from the parables
in the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter XIII.
If we bring together and consider all the Gospel texts
concerning the kingdom of God, we can distinguish three
periods or stages so to speak : there is the ultimate and perfect
‘ Gospel according to St. Matthew, XI, ra-xj; XII» aS; Gospel according
to St. Luke, XVI, x6 ; XVII, 20, 21.

106

CHAPTER II

period which is the eschatological kingdom; but this must
be prepared for by the internal reign or kingdom of God
in each one’s soul; and this internal kingdom must be pro­
claimed and extended by a social and external kingdom already
existing in the time of Christ.

By preaching the kingdom of God Jesus prepared the way
for the institution of the Church ; for :
a. He ordained the end of the Church, or the glory of
God which is to be obtained in the eternal kingdom of heaven ;
its beginning is the kingdom of divine grace in the just.
b. also, he arranged the means which He Himself chose
for this end, namely, a society which is visible, external,
spiritual, progressive, universal — the Church.
182 2. Christ united the disciples who were devoted to the preaching
of the Kingdom of God into a true society which He called the
Church.
In the days of the Apostles those believing in the Kingdom
of God as proclaimed by Jesus formed a true society. This
group on Pentecost had their own doctrine, their own rites,
their own leaders; they were not dependent on the Synagogue.
Approximately 20 to 30 years later, spread throughout
the world, this group exists as a visible united society, which
would endure unto the end of the world, a society which
had been founded by Christ, which was called the Church.
Truly, therefore, Christ established the Church as a society
properly called with a purpose or end, a doctrine, its own
rites ; and as a society which would continue in existence.
article π
CHRIST INSTITUTED THE CHURCH
AS AN HIERARCHICAL SOCIETY

183 Every society implies or supposes authority; this authority
comes from God directly or immediately when prelates receive
authority from God or His legate; the authority comes from

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

107

God indirectly or mediately when the leaders or heads hold
authority from God with the people acting as intermediary.
In the first case (immediate) the society is called hierarchical ;
in the second (mediate) it is called democratic.
We purpose to prove that Christ established a true hierarchy
in His Church, namely the Apostles and their successors.
Bishops; and that He bestowed on the company (college)
of Apostles and of Bishops infallibility in teaching.
I. THE INSTITUTION OF THE APOSTLES’

184 Thesis : Christ established the Church an an hierarchical
society by bestowing on the Apostles the threefold power of teaching,
of ruling and of sanctifying the faithful.
This thesis is historical!}' certain, it is theologically de fide.
185

Proof of the Thesis

I. Proof from the Gospels.
Not only did Christ announce a social and external kingdom,
but also He very explicitly marked out and settled the essential
elements of this kingdom when He trained the Apostles and
sent them out into the world.

A Christ chose twelve Apostles whom He called expressly
and individually by name; He trained them by the example
of His own life which they observed day by day, and by
the many explanations with which He set forth the parables
about the kingdom of God; He sent them forth to preach
the kingdom of God to the children of Israel. Do not all
these facts intimate that Jesus was in this way preparing
preachers of the Gospel?

B Very explicitly He made known His mind by promising
them the power of teaching, or ruling, and of sanctifying
the faithful in His kingdom.
’ Major Synopsis, n. 624 636.

108

CHAPTER H

1) He gave assurance to Peter :
a. that he would be the foundation of His Church;
b. that he held in his hand the keys of the kingdom ;
c. that he had the right of imposing or of removing various
obligations in the spiritual orderx.
2) He promised to the twelve Apostles :
a. the power of binding and of loosing, that is, the power
of ruling the Church 2 ;
b. the special assistance of the Holy Spirit in preaching
the Gospel

C The resurrected Christ gave the power which He had
promised to Peter *
*, and to the Apostles ·. Thus the College
of Apostles received from Jesus Christ, who was administering
the offices of God, the power and authority to teach the
Gospel to all peoples, to impose laws through which the divine
law was preserved, and to sanctify souls through the
administration of the sacraments.

186 2.

Proof from the early history of the Church.

From the day of Pentecost the Apostles established the
company of Christians as an hierarchical society both in
Palestine and in the Gentile nations.

187 A In Palestine, especially in Jerusalem, the community
of the faithful was manifestly an hierarchical society, distinct
from the Synagogue, having their own special rites, not just
a certain mystical sect of illuminati.
1) Hierarchical, in as much as this society was ruled by
the corporate body of the Apostles, who exercised the three­
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XVI, 1S-19; Refer to numbers 207 and ff.
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XVIII, 18.
• Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 16-17, 26; XV, 26-27; XVI, 13.
♦ Gospel according to St. John, XXI, 15-18.
» Gospel according to St. John. XX, 2X-33; St. Matthew, XXVIII, 18-20;
St. Mark, XVI, 15-16; St. Luke, XXIV, 44'49·

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

109

fold power of teaching, of governing, and of sanctifying
as a power divinch’ received, and to which body the faithful
made themselves subjectl.
2) Distinct from the Synagogue : although at first the Apostles
offered prayers in the *
,
Temple
very soon thereafter they
openly declared that they were independent of the Jewish
authorities3; and then they separated themselves entirely
from the Jews by admitting' into their society uncircumcised
Gentiles *.
3) Having their own special rites, in particular :
a. baptism, distinct from the baptism of John the Baptist5
without which no one could enter this new community ·;
b. imposition of hands, which was conferred by the Apostles
alone and through which the Holy Spirit was bestowed in
a special manner ’ ;
c. the breaking of bread, which obviously was the celebration
of the Eucharist, instituted by Christ at the Last Supper ·.
From these facts we infer that the community at Jerusalem
from the time of its very beginning was truly an hierarchical
and an independent society.

188 B Among the Gentiles.
After the conversion of Cornelius, the centurion, the Gospel
was preached far and wide outside Palestine; among the
Gentiles Christian communities were set up which were in
turn subject to a holy hierarchy and which formed one body
under the Apostles :
1 Ads of Ike Aposilts, I, 12-26; II, 37-43; IV, 35-37; V, i-u; 28-41
VIII, 14-20, etc.
* Acts of the Apostles, II, 46; III, 1, 2, 11, etc.
• Ads of the Apostles, IV, 8-20; V, 27-33.
♦ Ads of the Apostles, X, 3-33.
1 Ads of the Apostles, XI, ι6; XIX, 1-5.
* Ads of the Apostles, II, 37-41.
7 Ads of the Apostles, II, 33; VIII, 14-17; XIX, 6.
• Acts of the Apostles, II, 42 and 46.
N® 642 (I). — 9

110

CHAPTER Π

i. They were subjeci to a holy hierarchy, that is, to the
Apostles who exercised supreme authority among all the
communities of the Gentiles; indeed this authority was viewed
as divinely received. The Apostles oftentimes claimed it
for themselves in their epistles, in teaching \ in judging12,
in correcting 3, in proposing4* laws or precepts, not just for
the faithful but also for the elders who took care of the faithful.
Serving under the Apostles were inferior ministers : deacons,
priests or bishops, who in turn took upon themselves some
authority in spiritual matters and who thus formed, along
with the Apostles, a true hierarchy 4.

109

2.

They formed one body under the Apostles.

This body at this time was called the Church; its unity
St. Paul made clear with various comparisons, likening it :
a. to a temple, the unity of which is visible since its
foundation is the Apostles and the Prophetse ;

b. to a body, in as much as the Church is the body of Christ
of which we arc the members. But this body is one, not
only because there is one Spirit, one God, one faith, but
also because there is one baptism ’, and one magisterium
which comes together into the edifice of the one body of
Christ. Therefore in the Church unity is visible, and is
preserved through the mediating hierarchy of its ministers 8.
190 From these facts we conclude that Christ Himself established
the Church as an hierarchical society ; for, first of all, immediately
after Pentecost the Apostles organized a community of the
faithful after the manner of an hierarchical society, distinct
1 St. Paul's First Epistls to Corinthians, II, 1-5; VII.
* St. Paul's First Epistle to Corinthians, V.
* St. Paul's First Epistle to Corinthians, VI.
4 St. Paul's First F.pistle to Corinthians, XI, XII, XIV.
6 First Epistle 0/ St. Peter, II, 9, 12, 25; V.
* St. Paul’s Epistle to Ephesians, II, 20.
’ St. Paul's Epistle to Ephesians, VI, 5.
* St. Paul's Epistls to Ephesians, IV, 14.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

111

from the Synagogue; and secondly, they acted in this way
because of the authority which Christ had conferred on them,
and for the purpose of fulfilling the mission entrusted to them.
II. THE BISHOPS
ARE THE APOSTLES’ SUCCESSORS
*

191 Thesis : By divine right the Apostles’ successors are the
Bishops collectively taken, as far as the powers to teach, to rule,
and to sanctify the faithful are concerned.
This thesis is historically certain; it is theologically de lide
since it has been proposed to faith tlirough the ordinary
magisterium of the Church.
The words by divine right are used because Jesus wished
the office of the Apostles to be a perpetual one in the Church.
Therefore, we should not use the term by ecclesiastical right
only as the Protestants and Modernists do.
We say Bishops collectively taken, because only the college
of Bishops was made the heir of the Apostolic College.

We shall prove the thesis part by part :
1. The Apostles had to have successors in office;

2. The successors of the Apostles in their three-fold power
of teaching, of ruling, and of sanctifying the faithful are the
Bishops.
192 I. The Apostles had to have successors in office —■ This
is de fide.

A Reason very strongly suggests this point. For Christ
committed to His Apostles the office through which the
integrity and unity of the faith would be preserved, and through
which the faithful would be able to attain their supernatural
goal more safely because of protection of the laws.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 637-663.

112

CHAPTER Π

But even to the end of the world the integrity and unity
of the faith will have to be preserved and the faithful will
have to be safety led to their supernatural goal. In almost
like manner can we reason in the matter of the lawgiving
and judiciary -power and authority.
Therefore, it is altogether likely that Jesus willed that
the Apostles would have successors in their office.

193

B

Scripture proven this point.

According to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, Chapter
XXVIII, verse 20, even unto the consummation of the world,
Jesus will be with the Apostles as they teach, rule, and sanctify
the faithful of all nations.
Bid this work the Apostles do not carry on in their own
person.
Therefore, they will carry it on through successors who
will obtain this same office.
194 2. The successors of the Apostles in the three-fold power
of teaching, of ruling, and of sanctifying the faithful are the
Bishops. This is de fide.
It has already been shown that the Apostles ruled the Church
by divine right. Opponents admit that at the end of the
second century the episcopacy was in existence with this
three-fold power. It remains to be proved that these two
extremes join each other : through the Apostolic age, the
beginning and the end of the second century.
195

A

The Apostolic Age.

From the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles we gather
that leaders or directors were chosen by the Apostles at
Jerusalem, at Ephesus, in Crete, in order that they might
carry on in a stable manner the work of teaching and of ruling.
While the Apostles were still living, a single bishop was
appointed, at least in certain churches. This fact is evident
from the pastoral epistles, from the history of St. John in

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

113

Asia Minor, from the history of the early Church in Jerusalem.
The authority thus granted to priests or to delegates of the
Apostle Paul embraces the work of ruling, of teaching and
of sanctifying.

196 B

The Beginning of the Second Century.

From the year 70 to the year no the number of Bishops
who were ruling the Churches monarchially was greatly
increased because of necessity. The Apostles, in particular
St. John in Asia Minor, appointed them. This hierarchy
enjoyed the three-fold power which proceeds from God through
Christ and the Apostles.

97 C

The Clone of the Second Century.

Throughout the entire Christian world the monarchical
episcopacy with its triple authority was very much in evidence.
A proof for this statement is the many documents of episcopal
rites, the catalogue of Hegesippus, the testimony of St. Irenaeus
in respect to all the churches, and, in a special way, to the
church of the Romans and of the inhabitants of Smyrna.
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen tell us the
same story about the tliird century.
198

Conclusion
From the previous facts we may licitly infer that :

1. the Apostles gave to certain disciples of theirs the fulness
of the priesthood, and that these governed the churches;
2. that these are the men who in the second century and
thereafter were called Bishops;

3. that a monarchical episcopacy goes back to the days
of the Apostles, and that, therefore, it was intentionally
established by Christ, since the Apostles openly declared
that they were following out their Master’s commands.

114

CHAPTER II

Therefore, Bishops, as such, are by divine right the successors
of the Apostles in regard to the power of teaching, or ruling,
and of sanctifying the faithfull.
III.

THE INFALLIBILITY CONFERRED
ON THE COLLEGE OF APOSTLES
AND OF BISHOPS’

199 Thesis : The power of teaching granted to the College of
Apostles and of Bishops causes or brings about the privilege
of infallibility, so that the Church teaching is infallible in the
matter of faith and of morals. This is historically certain,
it is theologically de fide from the ordinary magisterium.
Infallibility is a privilege granted by God through which
error is always safely avoided in matters of faith and of morals.
It arises from the fact that the Holy Spirit is present in a
special manner in the Church teaching, preserving it from
error. Infallibility differs from inspiration which, in addition
to inerrancy, indicates a positive motion to write; Infallibility
differs from revelation which supposes the manifestation
of a truth formerly unknown. This privilege belongs to the
College of Apostles and likewise to the College of Bishops,
but not to individual bishops singly.
We shall prove this thesis by means of three arguments;
these, if joined together, offer an historical proof which is
entirely convincing.

I. From the Promises of Christ.
A Christ promised that He would give to the Apostles
the Spirit of truth who would remain with them forever,
and who would bring to their minds whatever He had said «.

200

1 Rightfully, therefore, is this proposition of the Modernists condemned
in the Decree, Lamentabili, 50 : " The elders who fulfilled the office of watching
over the gatherings of the faithful were instituted by the Apostles as priests
or bishops to provide for the necessary ordering of the increasing communities
and not properly for the perpetuation of the Apostolic mission and power
D. B., 2050.
* Major Synopsis, n. 664-678.
• Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 16-17, 26; XV, 26, 27.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

115

But this promise :
1) was made to the college of Apostles and to their
successors;
2) it implies and signifies the special assistance of the
Holy Spirit since He is the teacher of truth ;
3) and indeed this promise had to be set forth and published
in the teaching of Christ.
Therefore Christ truly promised infallibility in the sense
previously mentioned.
B Likewise, Christ1*promised to the College of Apostles :
1) that for all days even unto the end of the world He
would remain with them as they taught His doctrine,
2) in order that they might publish it more faithfully.
For this, indeed, is the meaning of the words : Behold I am
with you. Therefore.

201 2. From the Apostles' manner of speaking and of acting.
A The Apostles understood the promises of Christ thus :
they say that the Holy Spirit (with themselves) is a witness
of all the things which they preach ’, together with them
settling dogmatic principles and establishing disciplinary
decrees3. Therefore, they claim and demand full assent4*
and anathemize those teachers, even if they be Angels, who
preach a different Gospel.

B In their writings they affirm that the Church is the pillar
and foundation of truth6; that the doctrine which they
teach is a deposit which must be faithfully guarded, and
which must not be confused with novelties which arc
erroneous ·. Therefore, according to the Apostles the only
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXVIII, 20.
* Acts of the Apostles, V, 32.
’ Acts of the Apostles, XV, 28.
4 Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, X, 5.
* First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, III, 15.
4 First Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy, VI, 20-2 x; Refer to First Epistle of
St. John, IV, 5-6.

116

CHAPTER II

true rule of faith is the doctrine which they deliver in their
written or spoken words1 : this doctrine is the only entire
truth, free from any mixture of error, because the Holy Spirit
is assisting them as they teach 2*.
202

3.

From Christian antiquity.

When heresies arose, the Fathers who had known the mind
of Christ and of the Apostles, did not rely on arguments
taken from reason or from Sacred Scripture alone, but they
appealed to the authority of Tradition which is manifested
through the infallible magisterium of the Bishops.
A St. Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians (letters III, IV, V,
VI, XVII), to the Trallians, to tne people of Smyrna and of
Philadelphia, that the safe rule of faith, from which it was wrong
to separate themselves, was the teaching handed down from
their Bishops. So, too. Polycarp, Papias, and Hegesippus held
that the preaching of the elders, of the Apostles and of the Bishops
was the orthodox belief. These testimonies point out directly
the Catholic rule of faith; indirectly they prove our thesis concern­
ing the infallibility of Bishops : for without the special assistance
of the Holy Spirit the preaching of Bishops could not be safe
and always true.

203 B In his Epistle to Florinus, and in his work Adversus
Hareses, St. Irenaeus very plainly taught that the rule of
faith is " The Tradition which comes from the Apostles which
is guarded in the Churches through the succession of priests,
and which reaches us through the succession of Bishops
And then he adds : “ Who have received the certain charism
of truth with the succession of the episcopacj' ” ’. In this
manner he points out that a special grace is given to the lineage
of Bishops by means of which error may be avoided with
certainty in handing down Christ’s teaching. Tertullian4
1 Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, II, 14.
1 This statement refers to matters of faith and morals, not to ordinary, everyday
affairs in which the Apostles could make mistakes without any danger to the
faith. Refer to Acts 0/ the Apostles, XX, 23.
’ Adversus Hareses, or Detection and Overthrow of the False Knowledge.
4 De Proscriptis, c. 28.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

117

agrees with this, maintaining that the Holy Spirit promised
by the Father as the teacher of truth is truly given to the
Church.

204 C At the end of the second century, the Councils of Bishops
came together in opposition to the heretics, and these Councils
were regarded as the authentic organs of truth by the Fathers
themselves and by the faithful.

Therefore our thesis stands, namely : the Corporate Body
of Bishops, as the heir and successor to the Apostolic College,
enjoys infallibility as long as it is handing down or trans­
mitting the teaching of Christ. Therefore, the rule of Christian
faith is the living and infallible magisterium of the Body
of Bishops.

This teaching, which was already an accepted one at the
time of the Church’s beginning, because it had been explicitly
given by Christ Himself, later became more explicit when
the conditions for infallibility were defined.

COROLLARIES
205 A

Cœsarism is to be rejected.

Christ bestowed the spiritual authority in the Church,
not on the secular princes, but on the Body of Bishops. Thus
judging from what has been stated previously, we must
stand contrary to the Anglicans and the Lutherans.

B Likewise to be rejected are Multitudinism
Presbyterian ism.
Here we refute the Calvinists,
Congregationalists, and many Liberals who believe
ecclesiastical authority was conferred on the multitude
arc to exercise it through delegatesx.

and
the
that
who

1 It should be noted that in the episcopal elections held in the early Church
the faithful only designated the candidate whom they wished. On this
candidate they could confer neither jurisdiction nor consecration.

118

CHAPTER II

ARTICLE III.

CHRIST ESTABLISHED THE CHURCH
AS A MONARCHICAL SOCIETY

206 State of the Question : We wish to know whether Christ
placed a director or a head over the Body of Bishops — or
whether Christ established a primate to whom both the faithful
and the bishops would be subject; in other words, whether
the Church is, by divine right, monarchical. The Protestants
and the Greeks answer “ No ”, although not in the same
way. The Catholic response is in the affirmative. This doctrine
we shall enlarge upon in a threefold thesis :
1. The Primacy of Peter;
2. Peter’s Successors ;
3. The Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.
I.

THE PRIMACY OF PETER*
*

207 Thesis : Christ conferred on Blessed Peter directly and imme­
diately a primacy not only of honor hut also of jurisdiction — or
the authority of teaching, of ruling, and of sanctifying the
Universal Church. This thesis is historically certain; it is
de fide from the definition of the Vatican Council·.

Proof
A From the Preeminence Granted to Peter.
In the Gospel Peter is shown by the Evangelists as the specia
companion and friend of Christ, indeed, as the first among them;
so, too, Christ prayed especially for him, and when Christ arose
from the dead, He appeared to Peter separately.
* Major Synopsis, n. 686-701.
* " If anyone therefore shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not
appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the risible Head of the whole
Church Militant by Christ the Lord or that the same directly and imme­
diately received from the same Our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor
only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema
(ΓαΙΰα» Council, session IV, Canon x); D. B., 1823.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

119

B Proof from the Promise of the Primacyx.
The primacy was promised to Peter; for :

1. Jesus was speaking to Peter alone, as is evident from
the text and from the context. Therefore, the rock upon
which Christ will build His Church is nothing other than the
Apostle Peter;
2. Peter cannot be the foundation on which the Church
is to be made firm and solid unless he is to be powerful with
the supreme authority of teaching and of ruling in spiritual
affairs. The same authority he is promised in the following
words : “ I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven ”
and : “ Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth...

3. This supreme jurisdiction which was promised by Christ
is true primacy : for Christ was addressing Peter only, with
the other apostles excluded, and to him alone did He promise
that same authority which He would give to the other Apostles
when, united to Peter, they form one unit. Today Modernists
and Liberals admit this interpretation of this text, but deny
its historicity.
St. Luke states that Christ prays for one, Peter, although
all are assailed by Satan. But such a prayer is sufficient
since Peter, being the head of the Apostles, will strengthen
the faith of those who will be found wanting.
208 C Proof from the Conferring of the Power to Feed the Whole
Flock.
The resurrected Christ bestowed on Peter the supreme power
previously promised to him : “Feed my lambs... Feed my
sheep
Indeed the words of Christ :
1 " And I say to thee that thou art Peter (kepha) and upon this rock (kepha)
I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And
I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou
shalt bind upon earth it shall be bound also in heaven : and whatsoever thou
shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
(St. Matthew, XVI,
X3-19. Refer to Yves De La Brière in D. A., t. Ill, x333 and fl.)

120

CHAPTER Π

1. are directed to Peter alone who is called by name " Simon
son of John
from him Christ requires a love that is
entirely personal : " Do you love me more than these ”?

2. The words of Christ confer the primacy, for the word
" pascc ” (Βοτκε, ποίμαινε) among both profane and sacred
writers, intimates and denotes authority in society. Since
this authority is given only to Peter, then Peter holds the
true primacy through which he performs the offices of the
supreme pastor of Christ's Church.
3. these words of Christ : “ Feed my lambs, feed my sheep ”,
apply to the universal Church, for they refer to all Christ’s
disciples, no matter what their dignity may be.
209 D Finally this thesis is confirmed by the fact that this
authority was exercised.
Peter understood that the true primacy was conferred on
him1*: after Christ's Ascension he exercised in the Church
the authority of the Supreme Leader thus : in the election
of Matthias *, in preaching the Gospela, in the conversion
of the Gentiles4*, in visiting the Churches6*8, in the Council
of Jerusalem ·.
Paul recognized the primacy of Peter.
that prove this point.

1.

There are instances

He named Peter of nobler position

2. He came to Jerusalem to see Peter ·. When he stood up
to Peter, face to face, he did not deny Peters’ authoritv, but
he feared that Peter’s example would induce many to observe
1 Thus in direct opposition to the Modernists : " Simon Peter never even
suspected that Christ entrusted the primacy in the Church to him ”.
Proposition 55, Decree Lamentabili ; D. 13., 2055.
* Acts of the Apostles, I, 15.
* Acts of the Apostles, II, 14; III, 6.
♦ Acts of the- Apostles, X.
• Acts of the Apostles, IX, 32.
♦ Acts of the Apostles, XV, 7, 12.
’ St. Paul, First Epistle to the Corinthians, I, 12; III, 22.
8 St. Paul, Epistle to the Galatians, II, 18-19.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

121

practices of the law, and that such a way of acting would hold
back the Gentilles from the faith «.

For the argument from Tradition refer to notes 214 and
following.

II. THE ROMAN PONTIFFS ARE PETER’S
SUCCESSORS **

210 Thesis : The -primacy of jurisdiction over the Universal
Church was bestowed by divine right not only on Peter but also
on his successors, namely, the Roman Pontiffs.
This is historically certain, it is theologically de fide from
the definition of the Vatican Council

To establish this thesis it is necessary to prove three points :
1. Christ wished the primacy of jurisdiction which had
been bestowed on Peter to pass over to his successors;
2. Peter came to Rome and there he firmly established
his seat or see or residence ;
3. Peter’s successors are the Roman Pontiffs and therefore
the primacy belongs to them.
1° CHRIST WISHED THE PRIMACY TO BE PERPETUAL AX’D TO PASS

OVER TO PETER’S SUCCESSORS

A Proof from Scripture.
From the texts quoted above, Peter was constituted the
foundation of the Church, he received the keys of the kingdom
and the power of binding and of loosing, the authority to
feed the entire flock.

211

1 St. Paul, Epistle to Ike Galatians, II.
* Major Synopsis, n. 702-741.
* " If any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Ix>rd, or
by the divine right, that Blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of successors
in the Primacy over the Universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the
successor of Blessed Peter in this primacy, let him be anathema ”, (Session IV,
can. 2; D. B., 1825).

122

CHAPTER II

But the Church, which Christ wishes to remain until the
end of the world, cannot remain standing without a foundation ;
it cannot open heaven to the faithful without the keys; it
cannot direct souls by means of suitable laws without the
authority to govern. Therefore.
B Proof from History.
Refer to note 214 and following, where texts are explained.
C Proof from Reason.
A safe and permanent authority is useful if the Church
is to be able to direct the faithful to their supernatural goal.
But this authority will more successfully gain its goal
if it is held by one person rather than by a group. Therefore.
2°

PETER CAME TO ROME, AND AT ROME HE ESTABLISHED
HIS DEFINITIVE SEAT OR SEE

Catholics are not in agreement on the subject of the duration
of Peter's Roman episcopate; however, all realize that what really
concerns us is the fact itself.

212

Peter’s Roman episcopate is clearly proved :
A from the Fathers — Cains, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian,
Irenaeus, Dionysius of Corinth are well worth citing in this
matter. Also, St. Ignatius and Pope St. Clement very plainly
establish the fact that Peter and Paul came to Rome;

B from memorials through which the remembrance of Peter
at Rome has endured.
C from the general agreement of all the oriental churches that
none of them enjoys the glory of possessing Peter’s tomb. All the
churches in their liturgies solemnize Peter's episcopate and his
martyrdom suffered at Rome;

D from the lists of the Roman Bishops, all of which go back
as far as St. Peter, and from which it is apparent that the Roman
Church immediately after St. Peter was ruled by a monarchical
bishop. St. Irenaeus, Eusebius, and St. Epiphanius make
reference to these lists.
Therefore, the Roman episcopate of Peter, attested to by many
witnesses and denied by no ancient author, is historically a fact.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

3°

123

THE ROMAN PONTIFFS ARE BY DIVINE

RIGHT PETER’S SUCCESSORS IN THE PRIMACY

213 Even if Peter had not been the bishop of the city of Rome,
(from what has been stated ostensibly this supposition is false)
nevertheless, the fact remains that the Roman Pontiffs are
Peter's successors in the -primacy; further, they are thus by
divine right.
Our thesis will be established if we prove that the universal
Church admitted the primacy of the Roman Pontiff as the
primacy of Blessed Peter’s successor; (for already we have
show that the Corporate Body of Bishops is infallible in
passing down Christ’s teaching.) This primacy is manifest
from the testimonies which declare and affirm the primacy
at first implicitly and obscurely but truly, afterwards, however,
very clearly.

214 A In the first three centuries the preeminence of the Roman
Church is acknowledged in words and in deeds.
1. At the end of the first century (93-97) the Roman Church
thought that the right and duty rested on them to recall
the Corinthians to peace; at this time the Apostle John was
still living. The letter from the Roman Church, far from
being rejected, was reverently received and was read during
divine services for many years. The letter was written by
Clement, the Bishop of Rome, who gave instructions and
orders as one having authority. At the same time he declared
that Christ was speaking through his mouth, and that those
who did not obey were guilty of a serious failing.

2. At the beginning of the second century Ignatius, the
Bishop of Antioch (107) wrote to the Romans, " to the Church
which presides over the territory of the Romans, worthily
holy, and directing the company of love

3. During the second century many came to Rome in order
to visit the Bishop and to make inquiries in matters of faith
and of discipline : for example, Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,

124

CHAPTER II

Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis; so too some heretics like
Marcion and the Montanists.
215 4. Front the end of the second century we possess the
distinguished testimony of 57. Irenaeus.
He said that
truth is found in the churches which were founded by the
Apostles and which faithfully preserve tradition through
the succession of Bishops. But since it would take a long
time to discover the traditions of all the churches, it will
be sufficient to have knowledge of those which are accepted
in the Roman Church; for this Church is the rule of faith
with which all other churches must be in accord because
of the spiritual preeminence it holds from the Apostle Peter
who founded it : "It is necessary that every church be in
harmony with this Church because of its preeminence; that
is, it is necessary' for those who are the faithful wherever
they may be ; in this Church the tradition which is the tradition
handed down from the Apostles has always been preserved
by those who arc from all parts...1

216

In the Controversy concerning Easter.

Victor I (189-198) commanded the Eastern Bishops to
hold synods in order to come to a decision in regard to the
day of Easter. Certain bishops of Asia very determinedly
held on to their own custom, even after the Roman practice
had become widespread. These Victor threatened with
excommunication; however, he changed his mind and his
orders at the intercession of St. Irenaeus. Nevertheless, very
soon the Roman custom prevailed even in Asia Minor.
217

5 In the third century, before Montanism camo into being
(202), in his work De Prœscriptione Haereticorum, Tertullian
acknowledged the primacy of Peter and a certain preeminence
of the Roman Church because it had becone illustrious through
Peter’s blood.
In the time of the Novation Schism (250), St. Cyprian wrote
his book De Unitate Ecctesiœ; in this he discusses straight for­
wardly the unity of each individual church under the rule of the

1 Adversus Mareses, 1. Ill, C. 3, P. G., VII, 848-849.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

125

bishop. In Chapter IV there are certain words about the primacy
of Peter which are not found in every copy and, for this reason
are rejected by many. But it is unjust to do so since they have
been written by Cyprian himself in the second edition of his
book. In other places he clearly asserts that the Church was
founded on Peter and that the Roman Church is the beginning
from which sacerdotal unity has originated. Also, in his Epistles
he affirms that the Roman Church is the root and the mold
(womb) of the Catholic Church. Further, he asks the Roman
Bishop to excommunicate Martianus, Bishop of Arelas (Arles).
But in the controversy concerning the Baptism of heretics
he believed that the custom of the Church of Carthage was legi­
timate and he refused to accept orders from Stephen, the Roman
Bishop. From this it does not follow that Cyprian denied the
primacy of the Roman Pontiff, but that he thought that their
custom on this practical matter could be retained.

In the same century also, many Bishops from various
provinces had recourse to the Roman Bishop cither to give
them reasons for their faith or to settle their controversies.
Heretics and schismatics likewise appealed to the Roman
Bishop.

218 B In the fourth and fifth centuries the primacy of the Roman
Church is so clearly declared in writings and in deeds that no
doubt can be had about its existence.

I. The Roman Bishops speak and act fully aware of their
primacy.
Thus :
a Sylvester, in the case of Arianism, laid down the rules for
the council of Nicaea through his legates; Julius I restored
Athanasius to the see of Alexandria; Liberius, was sent into
exile because he would not comply with the wishes of Constantius;
Damasus imposed on the disapproving Council of Sirmium a rule
of faith for the Eastern Bishops.
b In the matter of Priscillianism Siricius was consideret! the
judge by everyone.

c In regard to Pclagianism, the subject was judged by In­
nocent I and by Zosimus who sent his Epistola Tractoria to all
the Bishops.
N· 642 (I)· — 10

126

CHAPTER II

219 2. The Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries
acknowledged, without any doubts, the primacy of the Roman
Bishop.
Thus:
a St. Optatus of Milevis, writing against the Donatists, showed
that the true Church of Christ is marked and distinguished by
a unity which proceeds from the Chair of Peter established at
Rome;
b St. Ambrose taught that the Roman Church is the head of
the entire Catholic world and that the sign of true faith is com­
munion with the Roman Church;

c St. Augustine admitted that appeal might be made from
his judgment to the Holy See, and tliat provincial councils took
on their own particular authority from the approbation of the
Holy Pontiff;

d St. Jerome wrote to Pope Damasus : " I am united by
communion to your Blessedness, that is, to the Chair of Peter.
He who will consume the lamb outside this dwelling is unholy...1 "
So, too, among the Orientals — St. Athanasius had recourse to
the Roman Bishop and recognized his right to judge other bishops;
likewise, St. Chrysostom and Eusebius who, in the year 346,
submitted himself to the Roman Pontiff.

220 C From the unanimous agreement of the whole Church
clearly manifested in the councils.

I.

In the Council of Ephesus (431) :

a. St. Cyril asked for an opinion and a definition from
the Roman Pontiff;

b. The Holy Pontiff Celestine created Cyril as his vicar
in order to have him preside over the Council ;
c. He sent legates, one of whom was Philip, a priest;
in the presence of the Fathers, with no one contradicting,
he openly proclaimed the primacy of Peter and of his successors,
the Roman Pontiffs, over the universal Church
* Rouet De Journel, Enchiridion Patristicum, 1346. The above mentio­
ned texts are found in the Patristic Enchiridion and in D. B.
'D. B., 112.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

127

2. In tlie Council of Chalcedon (451) the letter of the great
Leo, in which the errors of Eutyches were condemned, was
read to the Fathers. Nearly all of them were Orientals.
They were in complete accord with læo, exclaiming : “ Peter
has spoken through Leo ", In a report which was later
sent to Leo these same Fathers openly acknowledged the
primacy of the Roman Pontiffl.
3. In the Third Council of Constantinople (680) the Fathers
acclaimed the Roman Bishop in similar fashion.

4. At the Second Council of Lyons 2 (1274) and at the Council
of Florence ’ (1438-1445) the primacy of the Roman Pontiff
was defined in very clear terms.
Therefore it is certain that the Bishops of the Universal
Church have assented to the fact that the primacy of
jurisdiction over all Christ’s faithful, the shepherds and the
sheep, belongs to the Roman Pontiff.
But, from what has been previously stated, the Body
of Bishops is infallible when it sets forth Christian doctrine.
Therefore.
To charge that the primacy of the Roman See was established
because of the ambition of the Roman Bishops is to speak untruth­
fully, for all Roman Pontilis claimed this supreme authority
as their charge and their duty. Further, this primacy was con­
ceded by the other Bishops, among whom we find men distin­
guished as much for their doctrine as well as for their zeal and
fortitude.
Nor may this primacy be ascribed to the Oolitical preeminence
of the city of Rome, for the Roman Pontius and all the other
Fathers maintain that the primacy arose from the succession
of Blessed Peter who had been made Head of the Universal
Church by the free will of Christ.

1 D. B., 149.
’ D. B., 466.
’ D. B., 694.

128

CHAPTER Π

III. THE INFALLIBILITY
OF PETER AND OF THE ROMAN PONTIFFS
*

221 Thesis : IFAe» the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, he
possesses infallibility in defining a doctrine of faith and of
morals, so that his definitions of themselves, not from the agreement
of the Church, cannot be reformed or changed.
This thesis is historically certain; it is theologically de
fide.
The Protestants and the schismatic Orientals deny the first
part of this thesis; the Gallicans deny the second part.
The Catholic teaching is laid down by the Vatican Council
in these words : “ We define that the Roman Pontiff, when he
speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of
Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme
Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals
to be held by the' Universal Church, by the divine assistance...
is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer
willed that His Church should be endowed for defining doctrine
regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions
of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not
from the consent of the Church.1 ”

A Explanation of Thesis.
1. We are concerned with infallibility in teaching (refer
to section 199), not with impeccability.

222

2. The conditions, all of which must be present at the
same time in order that the Pontiff’s judgement may be
infallible are :
a. The Roman Pontiff may not be speaking as a private
doctor, nor as the bishop of the city of Rome, nor as a prince
of state, but as the Pastor and Doctor of the universal Church
according to his supreme authority ;
b. The Roman Pontiff should be teaching a truth of faith
or of morals (refer to section 250 and following) ;
’ Major Synopsis, n. 742-763.
» D. B., 1839.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

129

c. The Roman Pontiff must be defining, that is, he must
be determining with finality which doctrine must be held
with internal faith ;
d. The definition must bind the universal Church.

3. The cause of infallibility, namely, the assistance of
the Holy Spirit, is stated.
4. The subject of infallibility is mentioned, the Roman
Pontiff, whose definitions are irreformable of themselves,
independently of the judgement of Bishops and of the consent
of the entire Church.
223 B Proof of Thesis.

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. The text previously quoted: "Thou art Peter... ” —
Peter and his successors are established by Christ as the
foundation upon which the Church would be built and from
which it would be strengthened.
But unless the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility when
he speaks ex cathedra, he is not the foundation on which
the Church is made firm. Therefore.
b. The text containing Christ’s prayer for Peter: “ I have
prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou, being
once converted, (έπιτφέψας) confirm thy brethren 1 ”. Here
Christ is speaking to Peter alone (as is evident from the context)
and he is praying for Peter alone; for him He is asking
indefectibility in faith, “ that thy faith fail not ”, in order
that he may be able to confirm or strengthen the faith of his
brethren. Christ’s prayer is effectual ; therefore, He obtained
from God the special assistance by which Peter’s faith would
remain constant and unshaken.
c. The text referring to the power of feeding the whole flock.
From these words Peter and his successors received from
Christ the duty of feeding the entire flock with the word
1 Gotpel according to St. Luke, XXII, 31-32.

130

CHAPTER II

of truth, so that all are bound to obey this teaching. But
this position cannot be admitted unless the teaching is infallible.

224 2. Proof from Tradition.

a. In the first four centuries the infallibility of the Roman
Pontiff was handed down implicitly only. Correct doctrine
was this : the Roman Church is the center of unity of faith
(refer to St. Irenaeus previously quoted likewise, the Roman
Church is the safe norm of orthodoxy for destroying heresies,
v. g., Montanism, Sabellianism, and for solving questions
that arose concerning faith and morals.
b. At the beginning of the fifth century the infallibility
of the Roman Pontiff was affirmed more clearly by the Roman
Pontiffs themselves, v. g., Innocent I, and Zosymus, who
declared that in matters of faith recourse should be had to
the Holy See because its doctrine is pure and irreformable.
Infallibility was corroborated also by the Bishops, v. g.,
St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, and others who
proclaimed that it was the judgement of the Holy Pontiff
that truly concluded controversies. The Councils, too, taught
this doctrine of infallibility, maintaining at Ephesus, at
Chalcedon, at Constantinople, (III and IV), that Peter had
spoken through the Pontiff who was ruling at that time,
and that thus the matter in hand was settled.
c. The Council of Florence defined that, " the full power
of teaching has been handed down to the Roman Pontiff
This statement implies infallibility. Finally, the infallibility
of the Roman Pontiff was explicitly defined by the Vatican
Council — de Ecclesia, chapter 4.
225 It is not right to say that Tradition held definitions of the
Supreme Pontiff as irreformable because of the agreement of
the Church, for inerrancy was attributed to the authority of the
Pontiff himself, who, as Peter’s successor, is the center of unity
and the authentic interpreter of faith. Nor can we offer in oppo­
sition the famous distinction of the Gallicans between the Chair
and Him who occupies the Chair. This distinction is entirely
1 At this point it is sufficient to call to mind texts and facts already explained.

THE CHURCH AS A SOCIETY

131

foreign to the minds of the Fathers, for they gave their obedience
to tiie ruling Pontiff himself.
Too, this distinction would take away from the Pontiff all
authority since each one could then declare that he was adhering
to the infallible Chair of Peter, but not to the Pontiff who at the
particular time was occupying it and who was guilty of error.
226 The Protestants offer the objection that certain Pontiffs de
facto made mistakes : Liberius subscribed to the formula of
Sirmium; Honorius taught monothelisra; Paul V and Urban VIII
condemned Galileo.
We leave these charges to the historians. At this point let it
be sufficient to understand that these Pontiffs, eyen if perchance
they did make mistakes as private individuals, or if they explained
doctrines obscurely and incompletely, did not teach error while
they were speaking ex cathedra. Therefore the Catholic thesis
stands.
227

Proof from Reason.

Admit the infallibility of the Body of Bishops and still the
infallibility of the Supreme Pontiff is most advantageous to the
Church, because (Ecumenical Councils cannot be assembled
easily or promptly whenever some new error arises. Further,
the consent or agreement of the universal Church cannot be looked
for often, nor can it easily bo ascertained.
It would bo foolish to claim that general councils would be
useless, (in the light of the infallibility of tho Holy Pontiff) for they
are of service in discerning ecclesiastical tradition and in judging
the opportune time for a new definition. Also, there is no merit
in the charge that this authority of the Supreme Pontiff is despotic,
that it takes away all freedom of thought, for when this authority
authentically interprets the word of God, it imposes only truth
and deprives man of no liberty except that of error.

228

Conclusion

It is historically evident that Christ established the Church
as a society properly called; as an hierarchical society which
was to be ruled by an infallible College of Bishops; as a
monarchical society which was to be nourished by means
of the supreme authority of the infallible Roman Pontiff.
Therefore, the true Church of Christ is the Church which
the Roman Pontiff rules over.

132

CHAPTER III

Corollary. Episcopalism must be rejected because it is directly
in opposition to the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.

229

General Conclusion of the Complete Chapter.

The Roman-Catholic Church and this Church alone is the
true Church of Christ.
From what has been demonstrated it is obvious that the
true Church of Christ is the Church which has retained
visibility, the episcopacy and the supreme Roman Pontificate.
But this can be asserted of the Roman-Catholic Church
only.

Thus it follows that a perfect sign of adherence to Christ
and to the true Church is communion with the Seat of Peter.
The separated Churches, in fact, cannot be the true Church
of Christ : thus the Eastern Schismatic Church and the
Protestant Churches have kept neither the primacy of the
Roman Pontiff nor visible unity.

CHAPTER III

THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PROVED BY
EXTERNAL MARKS
230 State of the Question. The Vatican Council teaches that
the Roman Church is itself a motive of credibility because
of the external marks of divine intervention which it shows;
further, the Council points out these marks. " Because
of her wonderful power to increase and to multiply, her
extraordinary sanctity, and her inexhaustible fruitfulness

EXTERNAL MARKS

133

in all good things, because of her Catholic unity, her
unconquered steadfastness, the Church is, of herself, a
great and perpetual motive of credibility and the irrefragable
(undeniable) testimony of her own divine legation *.

We pass over the subject of the great spread of Christianity
(we have discussed it previously); in a two-fold thesis we
shall make clear :
1. the universal unity and stability of the Roman Church ;
2. that her sanctity and fruitfulness can be accounted for
only by divine intervention ·.

ARTICLE I.

THE UNIVERSAL UNITY AND INDESTRUCTIBLE

STEADFASTNESS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ’

231 Thesis : Because of its universal unity and its invincible
stability the Roman Catholic Church offers irrefutable testimony
of its <nvn divine legation.
I. Explanation of Facts.

A The Roman Church is universal.
I. By right it is universal, or it possesses the aptitude to
diffuse and extend itself among all nations. Its doctrine
excludes individualism because the Roman doctrine is pro­
claimed to all without distinction; its doctrine is comprehended
and received by all ; it satisfies in a special way the legitimate
aspirations of all minds. By its nature the Roman Church
is opposed to nationalism, for it remains free of all States
and accomodates itself to any form of civil rule.
1 D. B., 1794.
* The argument can be proposed in a different manner namely, by proving
that the true Church, from its institution by Christ, should be adorned with
the four marks of unity. apostolicily, sanctity, and catholicity ; and then by
showing that these marks belong to the Roman Church alone, but not to the
other Christian societies. {In previous editions of the Major Synopsis, in the
manner of many other theologians, we have offered the argument thus).
• Major Synopsis, n. 771-786.

134

CHAPTER ΙΠ

232 2. In fact it is truly universal : for it is spread out to
all nations, and it is diffused into all territories; daily its
missionaries are sent to the pagans, to the schismatics and
the heretics, and wherever the freedom to preach flourishes,
it draws to itself and it receives into its embrace new followers ;
it penetrates all classes of society equally, it preaches the
gospel lovingly to the poor and the proletariat, it baptizes
the rich and the powerful, it is happy to have as its sons
many who arc learned and skilled in the sciences. Deservedly,
therefore, is the Roman Church called Universal or Catholic
by all.
233 B The Roman Church is one in a ■perfect unity of faith,
of rule, and of worship, in as much as it recognizes a principle
of authority, and in matters of faith and of morals it promptly
obeys the supreme authority which was established by Christ,
namely, the Roman Pontiff. The more universal the Catholic
Church, the more wonderful its unity, since men naturally
are accustomed to hold on tenaciously to their own private
opinions.
C The Roman Church enjoys invincible steadfastness in the
midst of all the changes in affairs generally. In spite of the
great persecutions which the Church has long suffered and
still is suffering, the Church remains essentially the same
and shows no indications of weakening in the future, while
it is evident from sad experience that all human institutions
are frail. The Church ejected from its bosom heresies, either
of ancient times or of the years of the Reformation, or the
more recent heresies like Modernism, and preserved its teaching
in its entirety.

234 II. The Argument. From these facts it is legitimate to
infer that God is assisting the Roman Church in a special way.

Proof of Argument.
A Proof from the nature of these marks :
I. From the Universality of the Church : since this mark
is found in the Roman Church only, this Church should be

EXTERNAL MARKS

135

considered transcendent because the natural means by which
it is spread, that is, the preaching and martyrdom of the
missionaries, are not of themselves sufficient for explaining
this extension. (We have referred to this topic in discussing
early Christianity 134 and following.)
Today Protestants send preachers to the pagans, but their
efforts are supported greatly by natural means: they are not
inspired by a similar zeal, nor do they obtain so many conversions
as do the Catholic missionaries. All of this is acknowledged
even by many non-Catholics. The results which they produce
can be explained by referring to the human aids which they
employ and to the ordinary graces which are granted to those
outside the true Church who attempt to spread the kingdom of
God in good faith.

235 2. From the Oneness of the Church :
The Unity of faith, of rule, and of worship which is preserved
in the Roman Church spread throughout the world, cannot
be elucidated by any human means, especially if we consider
the obstacles which oppose this oneness; for example, the
determination of human nature which persistently holds
on to its own opinions, the obscurity of the dogmas which
oftentimes contain mysteries, the difficulty of the moral
law which stands in opposition to all the passions. How
could the Roman Church alone have preserved this oneness
through so many ages unless it was aided by the special and
supernatural assistance of Christ and of God?

3. From the Steadfastness (Stability) of the Church.
Only the Roman Church has remained stable and unchan­
geable throughout the centuries while sects and heresies
and diverse religions have sprung up and passed through
many changes. This constancy is all the more marvellous
in the face of the fewer and weaker human helps which the
Church can rely on. How often have the enemies of the
Church predicted her ruin! And still she continues on,
invincible, wonderfully sustained, not by men, but by God
Himself who directs all issues.

136

CHAPTER III

236
B Proof from the -prophecies which announce these marks
of the Church.

Proof of divine intervention is strongly established by the
fact that this universality, oneness and stability have been
foretold by the prophets of old (refer to heading 88 and the
following) and by Christ Himself as a divine work. We
possess true prophecy and, in the intellectual order, a real
miracle inseparably joined to the Roman Church. Therefore,
by His own preternatural intervention God points out that
the Roman Church is His Church.

ARTICLE II.

THE EXTRAORDINARY SANCTITY AND THE UNEX­

HAUSTED FRUITFULNESS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 1

237 Thesis : Because of its extraordinary sanctity and its
inexhausted richness in all good things the Roman-Catholic
Church is itself a great and perpetual motive of credibility.

I.

Explanation of Facts.

A The all-surpassing holiness of the Roman Church arises :
1. from the fact that by her doctrine, by her worship, and
by her laws she offers to all the means of holiness;
2. from the fact that it gains the ejects or results of sanctity
among individual members of the Church, some of whom
have practiced virtue to an heroic degree (the Saints and
the Blessed); and among its organizations or societies, for
example, in the Catholic priesthood whose members are
devoted to perpetual celibacy, in the religious orders where
many pursue perfection either in an active or contemplative
life; also, in society to which it proclaims ceaselessly the
natural and the Christian virtues. It is true certainly that
all Catholics arc not holy ; but good Catholics are good because
they follow the Church’s orders’ the bad are bad because
they spurn her precepts.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 737-795·

EXTERNAL MARKS

137

B The fruitfulness of the Roman Church is evident in all
the works of social charity which it has begun and which it
supports : it provides many means for the education of children
and of the youth; it has a mother's interest in the needs of
the poor, in the care of the ill; and it tries to improve the
unfortunate conditions of the workers.
238

II. The Argument.

Front the fads thus far explained it is apparent that the Roman
Church has been divinely aided. This is evident :
A From the nature of holiness. Sanctity is difficult; it
is attained only by many continuous strivings. In order
that one individual may reach this state, he must have divine
help. Who can estimate what is needed for the great
multitude seeking perfection in the Roman Church? And
what should be said of the assistance given to the martyrs
and to the saints in their performance of heroic acts? It
should be concluded that the Church which produces so
many and such great fruits of holiness receives its fruitfulness
from God Himself. The miracles which have always been
performed in the Roman Church, even in our time, give
further proof to this conclusion.

B This is evident from a comparison between the Roman
Church and non-Catholic societies.
We agree that there are among the Greeks and the
Protestants some who are endowed with outstanding virtue.
But from the time at which the schism became an accomplished
fact the Greek Church has been graced with few saints.
Among the Protestants no one remains in our memory whose
sanctity was universally acknowledged. In fact, there is
no organization which shows this supernatural mark.
Therefore among these people Christianity produces few
results of virtue.
Thus we may reason : the true Church of Christ is that
which brings forth the fruits of holiness; through holiness
the action of the Holy Spirit is clearly manifested. For

138

CHAPTER ΠΙ

Christ established a Church in order that through it men
might be sanctified and might attain eternal life. But the
Roman Church stands out above other Christian societies
in its extraordinary sanctity and its inexhausted fruitfulness.
Therefore the Roman Church is the true Church of Christ.

CONCLUSION OF APOLOGETICAL THEOLOGY:

Outside the Church there is no salvation **.

239 From the tract, Christ the Divine Legate, we came to the
conclusion that for salvation it is necessary to accept Christ;
from the tract, The Church of Christ, we have learned that
the Catholic Church alone preaches the doctrine of Christ.
Logically it follows : Outside the Church there is no salvation.

240 In order to understand this conclusion correctly we must
distinguish between what is necessary according to a necessity
of means and what is necessary according to a necessity
of precept.
The necessity for belonging to the Church is not only a
necessity of precept but also a necessity of means, for Pius IX
declared : “ On the ground of Faith it is to be firmly held
that outside the Apostolic Roman Church none can achieve
salvation. This is the only ark of salvation. He who does
not enter into it, will perish in the flood *
The comparison
with the Ark, the means of salvation from death at the time
of the Flood, plainly shows the necessity as a necessity of
means.
Necessity of means, however, is not an absolute necessity,
but a hypothetical one. In certain particular circumstances,
for example, in the case of invincible ignorance or of incapa­
bility, actual membership in the Church can be supplied
by the desire for this membership. It is not necessary that
this be explicitly present; it can be included in a willingness
1 Major Synopsis, n. 802-808.
* D. B., 1647.

EXTERNAL MARKS

139

and readiness to fulfill the will of God. In this way those
who are outside the Catholic Church can achieve salvation.
That souls who, in innocent ignorance, do not know the
true Church of Christ, but who are, nevertheless, ready to
bow to the demands of the divine Will, are not to be cast
out, springs from Divine Justice and from the doctrine of
God’s general will of salvation : this is clearly proved in
Scripture >.
Therefore :

241 A Whoever culpably remains outside the Church to the
end of life cannot be saved; he is culpable who does not seek
the truth when he is in serious doubt, and, a fortiori, he is
culpable who knowingly and willingly does not enter the
Church when he recognizes it as true.

Proof :
1. From the 'words of Christ — Christ commanded all,
under the penalty of damnation, to receive His doctrine,
His laws, and His sacraments ;
2. From the teaching of Peter and of Paul ;
3. From the testimony of early Christianity : St. Ignatius,
St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine;
4. From the Roman Pontiffs and from general councils,
namely the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of
Florence.

242 B Whoever inculpably remains outside the Church can
be saved provided he belong to the Church through faith
and charity, or through perfect contrition 2.
1 I Timothy, II, 4.
* In regard to this subject Pius IX wrote : " On the grounds of Faith it
must be firmly held that outside the Apostolic Roman Church no one can
attain salvation; this is the one ark of salvation; he who does not enter into
it, will perish in the flood. In the same way, however, it must be accepted
as certain that those who labor in invincible ignorance of the true religion

140

CHAPTER III

Scripture teaches that many Gentiles, for example, Job
and the Ninivites, were saved. Besides, every adult can
elicit an act of perfect charity and so can acquire habitual
grace. This is required for salvation and this is sufficient.
At this point we reach the end of Apologetics; what follows
refers to Dogmatic Theology.

are not for this reason guilty in the eyes of the Lord ", From the allocution
Singulari quadam, December 9, 1854 ;
B-, 1647. In the Encyclical Quanto
conficiantur marorc, August 10, 1863, the same Pontiff wrote : " Since God...,
out of His overwhelming goodness and mercy, will not permit anyone to be
punished in eternal suffering who is not found guilty of voluntary crimes ".
D. B., 1677. Refer to Syllabus, propositions 16, 17, and 18; D. B., 1716,
1717, 1718. Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis.

TRACT IV

THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

243 Thus far we have proved that the Roman Church alone
is the Church which was actually founded by Christ. The
next topic for consideration is an accurate study of the essence
and authority of the Church and then of the Church’s relations
with civil society. We shall explain, therefore :
the innermost constitution of the Church;
2. the authority of the Church ;
3. the relations between Church and State.
1.

CHAPTER I

THE INNERMOST CONSTITUTION OF
THE CHURCH OR THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN CHRIST AND THE CHURCH >
Between the Church and Christ there are intimate and mystical
relations; these we shall explain briefly in order to destroy
the prejudices of Protestants and to increase the reverence
of Catholics toward their Church.
1 Summa Theologica, III, q. 8, a. 2-6; Leo XIII, Encyclical, Satis cognition
(June 29, 1896); Leo XIII, Encyclical Divinum illud munus, (May 9, 1897);
Pius XII Encyclical, Mystici corporis Christi, June 29, 1943; D. Gréa. De
ΓEglise et de sa divine constitution.
N° 642(1) — 11

142

CHAPTER I

244 A First Thesis : The Church is the mystical body 1 of
Christ which the Holy Spirit animates. This thesis is a matter
of divine faith from the teaching of St. Paul.

I. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. This doctrine
Christ Himself introduced to St. Paul at the moment of his
conversion. And Paul proclaimed it in his epistles to the
Romans, to the Corinthians, to the Ephesians, and to the
Colossians a.
The faithful are in a real and mystical manner members
of the body of which Christ is the head; they live bjf the same
spiritual life as Christ.
245 2. Christ is the head of this body. St. Paul states : “ And
he hath made him head over all the Church, which is His
body 3
Truly Christ considers Himself in relation to the
Church as the head to the body. As the head in relation
to the members of the body, so Christ :
a. joins to Himself in the closest bond all the members
of the Church ;
b. protects them likewise ;
c. infuses into them spiritual impulses and a spiritual
life.

3. The Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. The renewal
of our hearts through grace is appropriately attributed to
the Holy Spirit. This renewal is the work of the Holy Trinity
and is imparted to us through the mediation of the hierarchy
and the sacraments4. So in the Nicene Creed, the Holy
Spirit is called Vivificans, life-giving.
1 Duperray, Le Christ dans la vie chrétienne d’après S. Paul; Anger,
L'Eglise, corps mystique du Christ; A. Tanquerey, Notre incorporation an
Christ, Desclêe; Mersch, Le corps mystique du Christ; La Théologie du Corps
mystique.
* St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. XII, 4-5; St. Paul's First Epistle to the
Corinthians, XII, 12-31; St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, I, 22-23; II, 19-22;
IV, 1-16; V, 22-23; St- Paul's Epistle to the Colossians, I, 17-20.
* St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, I, 22;
* " What the soul is for the body of man, that the Holy Spirit is for the
body of Christ, that is, the Church
(St. Augustine, Sermon 267).

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

143

246 Logical Conclusions from this Doctrine.

Since the Church is the body of Christ, there is no salvation
outside the Church; the Church is supernatural, essentially
one, universal and holy. Also, the dogma of the Communion
of Saints becomes clearer in the light of this truth.
247 B Second Thesis : The Church is the spouse of Christ, and
also our Mother — in an analagous sense. This thesis is certain.
1. From the teaching of St. Paul and of St. John 1 we
learn that the Church is the spouse of Christ because Christ
loved the Church and united it to Himself in order that He
might bring forth spiritual sons and daughters from it.
St. Paul compares Christian matrimony to the union of Christ
with the Church by reason of subordination **, of love ’, and
of fruitfulness 4.

2. Hence, the Church is our mother whom wc must
love with a child’s devotion.

CHAPTER II

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH
248 Christ established the Church in order that man might
gain salvation through it. To obtain this goal the Church
must enjoy a threefold authority or power :

1. the power to teach (a teaching magisterium)
2.

the power to sanctify (holy orders)

3.

the power to rule (government)

1 Apocalypse XXI, 1-6; XXII, 17; Gospel according to St. John XIX, 34-35.
1 St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians V, 24.
’ Si. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians V, 25-27.
* St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians \r, 30.

144

CHAPTER Π

In the Tract on Orders we shall speak about the power
of Orders. At this time we consider only the teaching
magisterium and the governing -power of the Church for the
purpose of determining what its ambit or realm is, how it
employs its powers, and who its subjects are.

ARTICLE I
THE OBJECT OF THE POWER OR AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

I. THE OBJECT OF THE DOCTRINAL
MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH’
249
State of the Question : This magisterium comprises all
the rights which are necessary for teaching revelation and for
guarding and defending the deposit of faith : for example,
the power of defining infallibly, of setting up schools, of
prohibiting certain books
250 Thesis : The direct object of the infallibility of the Church
includes all the religious truths and each individual truth which
are formally contained in the sources of revelation; the indirect
object embraces all those things which are required in order
that the deposit of faith may be preserved entire. The first
part of this thesis is de fide; the second part is certain.

251 I. Explanation and proof of thesis. The Church was given
infallibility for the purpose of protecting Christ’s teaching.
And the object of this infallibility is either direct or indirect
(Refer to thesis.)
a. It is a matter of faith that the Church is infallible in
defining revealed truths (section 199). It is certain that it
is infallible also in regard to truths that are closely joined to
revealed truths. Otherwise the prerogative of infallibility
1 Major Synopsis, n. 818-826.
• Cotte of Canon Latr, can. 1322-1408.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

145

would be purposeless and ineffectual since the Church would
not be able to preserve, to defend, and to set forth the deposit
of faith.

b. There is a vast distinction between the direct object
of infallibility and the indirect object : if a truth formally
revealed is defined by an infallible authority, it is the object
of divine and of Catholic faith because this truth is believed
on the authority of God Who is revealing. When infallible
power is exercised in respect to truths connected with revelation,
truths of this kind are the object of ecclesiastical faith only.

252 2. The direct object of infallibility. This object is to
define what has been revealed, to decide on the words of
the definition, to establish the canon of Scripture, to condemn
heresy, etc.
253 3· The indirect object of infallibility. This comprises
all that is intimately united with what has been revealed.

The Church is infallible:
a. In regard to truths of the natural order connected with
dogma, which are necessary for protecting the deposit of
faith ; for example, the existence of God .*

b. The Church is infallible in regard to theological conclusions.
(This is certain.) A theological conclusion is one which is
certainly and manifestly deduced from two premises, one of
which is formally revealed and the other is known naturally. It
is necessary that the Church be infallible in regard to these
theological conclusions in order to preserve the deposit of
faith. If false theological conclusions are propagated, dogma
is endangered because of the logical connection which the
mind naturally perceives between the principles and the
conclusions deduced from these principles. Whether theolo­
gical conclusions arc the object of divine faith we shall consider
later in section 326.
‘ Syllabus, prop. Il; D. B., 1711; Vatican Council, D. B., 1798.

146

CHAPTER II

254 c. The Church is infallible when it condemns a certain
proposition with some doctrinal censure.
A doctrinal
censure is “ a qualification or restriction which indicates that
a proposition is opposed, in some way, to faith or morals
It is de fide that the Church is infallible when she specifics
that a doctrine is heretical; it is certain that the Church
is infallible when she states that a doctrine approaches heresy,
or that a doctrine errs in a matter of faith, or that it is false.
All this is apparent from the consensus of theologians, and
from the practice of the Church since its earliest days. The
Church always made judgments against false propositions
and also imposed upon the faithful the obligation of adhering
to these judgments. Many assert that in all doctrinal censures
the Church is infallible 1.

255 d. The Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts.
A dogmatic fact is one which is so much connected with a doctrine
of the Church that knowledge of it is necessary in order to
understand the doctrine and to preserve it safely.
Dogmatic facts can be threefold: historical, doctrinal and
hagiographical. Thus, dogmatic facts are the legitimacy
of the Holy Pontiff, the ecumenical (universal) nature of a.
Council.
That the Church is infallible in regard to dogmatic facts
is certain. For if the Church could make a mistake concerning
the authority of the Holy Pontiff or of a Council, then there
would always be grounds for doubting whether their decisions
were infallible and accordingly for rejecting these decisions.
So, too, for the question of whether a certain book contains
orthodox teaching or heretical doctrine.
Theologians
commonly teach that the Church can infallibly determine
what sense or meaning the words of a book convey once the
context has been considered * ; also whether this sense is
1 Quillibt, a. Censures doctrinales, in D. T.
3 When proposition? are condemned according to the meaning intended by
the author, the condemnation results not from the subjective meaning which
the author probably had in mind, but from the natural and obvious sense
or meaning, as it is taken from the book itself after everything has been duly
considered.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

147

orthodox or not. Otherwise, the Church would not be able
to prevent heretics from spreading their errors and from
avoiding condemnation. The heretics could say that the
meaning of the book has not been correctly understood.
Thus Clement XI declared “ the sense (or meaning) conveyed
by the five afore-said propositions of Jansenius’ book is
condemned; this sense, as is evident, must be rejected and
censured as heretical b}' all Christ’s faithful not only by
word of mouth but also in the heart *
*.
256 e. The Church is infallible in regard to moral precepts
since general laws for the universal Church cannot be in
opposition to the natural or positive divine law, for the Church
has received the obligation of leading souls to salvation.
Therefore, it can enjoin nothing which has not been approved
by God.
f. For a similar reason the Church is infallible in the matter
of giving definitive approbation to a religious Order.
g. The Church is infallible in regard to canonization of
saints, but not to beatification. This opinion is true and
common : truly the Church cannot make a mistake in matters
which concern a profession of faith and morals, when she
is making known a definitive judgment and is imposing
a precept on the faithful.
IT.

THE OBJECT OF THE

POWER TO RULE
*

257 Thesis : The power to rule, given by Christ to the Church,
includes legislative, judiciary, and coactive (compulsive) power.
This thesis is certain.
Legislative power is the right to put into effect decrees and
orders for the common good of the Church; these bind the faithful
in conscience; judiciary power is the right to form judgments
concerning the actions of the faithful and then to pass sentence
on these actions; the coactive (compulsive) power is the right to
employ physical force (material or spiritual) in order to urge on
the execution of the laws or of the sentences.
1 D. B., 1350.
* Major Synopsis, n. 827-838.

148

CHAPTER Π

Proof of this thesis :
1. Proof from Christ’s IM.· Christ gave to Peter and
to the Apostles the power to feed the flock, to loose and to
bind on earth ».

2. Proof from the Practice of the Apostles: The best inter­
preters of the Master’s words, they made lawss, they
pronounced judgments, and they used compulsive authority a.

3. Proof from the Practice of the Church: It is general
knowledge that the Church, that is, the Roman Pontiffs
and the Bishops (particularly when gathered together at
Councils) has issued canons or laws which bind the consciences
of the faithful, has published judicial decisions and has pro­
nounced punishments against refractory members.
This power the Council of Trent and the Roman Pontiffs,
Benedict XIV, Pius VI, Pius IX, Leo XIII and others have
claimed for the Church.
258 4. Proof from the Nature of the Church : The Church is
a real society, indeed it is judiciary and complete : it has,
therefore, in itself, the necessary means for gaining its purpose;
thus it possesses the right to impose as obligations those means
that are suitable to its end, the right to judge and to punish
the violators of laws, so that its lawgiving power may not
become useless and empty.
ARTICLE II.

THE EXERCISE OF ECCLESIASTICAL POWER

Christ conferred the threefold power in the Church on the
College of Bishops and on their Head, (he Roman Pontiff.
We shall consider, therefore :
1. the exercise of pontifical power,
2. the exercise of episcopal authority.
* Gospel according to St. Neither, XVIII, 18, XXVIII, 19.
Gospel according to St. John, XXI, 15-18.
* Acts of the Apostles XV, 29; First Epistle to Timothy, III, 2; 9-12.
* First Epistle to Timothy, I, 20; First Epistle to the Corinthians, V, 16.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

149

I. THE EXERCISE OF PONTIFICAL POWER

We are concerned here with the power to teach and to ride:
the power of sanctifying the faithful we shall pass over.
A.

The power to teach1

259 In a threefold manner the Roman Pontiff fulfills the right
and the duty to spread the doctrine of Christ among all people,
and to preserve this doctrine pure and entire.
1. By solemn definitions. These definitions are irreformable
and demand the full agreement that the mind gives to Catholic
faith. We should realize that the Vatican Council has stated
that pontifical infallibility is just as manifest as is the
infallibility of the Church.
2. By a merely ecclesiastical magisterium : by setting
forth truths without the intention of defining them, for
example, by approving of catechisms and other books for
the instruction of the faithful, by answering various questions
through decretal letters, etc.
260 3. By the Roman Congregations *. The Holy Sec exercises
its magisterium through certain Congregations, in particular,
through the Holy Office.
The decrees of the Congregations have more or less value
and power according as they are approved by the Holy
Pontiff :

a. in solemn manner — thence they become acts of the
Holy Pontiff and may become infallible’; however, most
decrees of this kind arc not infallible because very often
the intention of defining the matter in question is lacking,
or one of the necessary conditions (explained previously in
section 222) is lacking.
* Refer to Choupin, Valeur des décisions doctrinales et disciplinaires du
St. Siège. — Major Synopsis, n. 840-848.
* Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 4; D. D., 1839.
’ Code of Common Law, can. 242-264.

CHAPTER Π

150

b. or in common ordinary manner — then the decrees
remain acts of the Congregation and cannot be infallible.
The assent which is due to infallible decrees is at least of
ecclesiastical faith because it has as its formal motive the
authority of the infallible magisterium. In regard to decrees
that are not infallible an internal and religious assent is
demanded which although not absolutely certain is prudential
and morally certainx. Both obedience and prudence demands
this agreement.
B.
1°

The Holy Pontiff's power to rule 3
NATURE AND QUALITIES OF THIS POWER

261 Errors : Some Gallicans, the Synod of Pistoia and, in our
times, those Anglicans who call themselves Catholics, have
affirmed that the Roman Pontiff has the ditty and office of
examination or of direction only, but that he has power to
do nothing in the regular occurrences of any diocese outside
the diocese of Rome — unless the Bishops are a mediating
party. The Modernists give only the power of direction to
the Roman Pontiff.
Thesis : The Roman Pontiff has the full and supreme power
of jurisdiction throughout the universal Church, even in disci­
plinary manners; and, in truth, a power that is also ordinary
1 Such were the decrees of Pius V, Ex omnibus afflictionibus, in opposition
to Baius, and of Innocent X, Cum occasione, against Janscnius.
a Pius IX made this declaration to the Archbishop of Munich : “ when
we arc treating of that submissiveness which binds ail Catholics in conscience
it is necessary that they submit themselves... to the decisions which arc brought
forth by the Pontifical Congregations as pertaining to doctrine Dcnzingcr·
Banmrart, 1684. — Likewise Pius X in Motu proprio Prostantia
All univer­
sally are duty bound in conscience to submit to the judgments of the Pontifical
Council de Re Riblica, whether to those judgments which thus far have been
sent out or to those which hereafter will be published, and, in like manner,
to the decrees of Sacred Congregations which pertain to doctrine and which
have hern approved by the Pontiff; further, they cannot avoid the mark of
disobedience or of rashness nor can they be freed, therefore, from serious fault,
they who in any way, by words or by writings, oppose these judgments; such
ones, in addition, are guilty of scandal ”.
* Major Synopsis, n. 849-859.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

151

and immediate. This thesis is de fide from the Vatican Council :
“ If anyone shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office
merely of inspection or direction but not full and supreme
power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only
in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those
which relate to the discipline and government of the Church
spread throughout the world; or assert that he (the Roman
Pontiff) possesses merely the principal parts and not all the
fullness of this supreme power, or that this power which
he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each
and all the Churches and over each and all the pastors and
the faithful; let him be anathema *. ”
This jurisdiction is universal, that is, it reaches throughout
the entire Church, because such jurisdiction was given to
Blessed Peter, and the Roman Pontiff is the legitimate successor
of Peter.
This jurisdiction is full and supreme. This fact is deduced
from the bestowal of the keys and from the power of feeding
the lambs and the sheep.
This jurisdiction is ordinary, that is, it is bound to the
office (it goes with the office); it is immediate, or it can be
exercised everywhere by the Roman Pontiff himself.
2°

262 a.

THE EXERCISE OF THIS POWER

Object of this power. The Roman Pontiffs can :

1. Make laws for the entire Church and for particular
Churches without the agreement of the Bishops; they can
explain their own laws, those of their predecessors and of
ecumenical Councils; they can change them, they can repeal
them; they can dispense from them; they can abrogate
episcopal laws and dispense from them ;
2. The Roman Pontiffs can summon ecclesiastical causes
to their tribunal, they can reserve more important cases
for themselves, they can acknowledge appeals from the entire
1 Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 4; D. B., 1831.

152

CHAPTER II

world and make definitive judgments from which one may
not appeal ;
3. The Roman Pontiffs can appoint Bishops or even
depose them ;
4. They can send their legates into all parts of the Catholic
world.
b. Manner of exercising this power
The Roman Pontiff cannot by himself carry on effectually
his ordinary· and immediate jurisdiction throughout the Universal
Church : he employs, therefore, the help of Cardinals and of
Prelates living at Rome; to these united in various Congregations
he entrusts the exercising of his jurisdiction. The Roman Curia,
as it is described in the Code of Canon Law, includes :

1. Eleven Congregations, namely, the Congregation of the
Holy Office, the Congregation of the Consistory-, the Congregation
of the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation of the
Council, the Congregation for the Affairs of Religious, the Congre­
gation for the Propagation of the Faith, the Congregation of
Sacred Rites, the Congregation of the Ceremonies, the Congrega­
tion for Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, the Congregation
of Seminaries and Universities, the Congregation for the Oriental
Church.

2. Three Tribunals, the Sacred Penitentiary, the Holy Roman
Rota, and the Apostolic Signatura.
3. Five Offices, the Apostolic Chancery, the Apostolic Dataria,
the Apostolic Camera, the Secretariate of State, the Secretariate
of Briefs to Princes and of Latin Letters.

263

Corollaries :

1. The power over the universal Church is given immediately
by God to the Roman Pontiff once he is elected and accepts
the office ; this power comes to an end at the time of his death
or of his resignation.
2. The civil dominion or rule of the Roman Pontiff is entirelyproper in order that as Supreme Shepherd he may be and may
be seen to be free and independent from all other civil societies
in governing the Church. From the seventh century until
the year 1871 the Supreme Pontiffs carried on a civil rule.
And once again, during the reign of Pius XI this civil

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

153

sovereignity of the Holy See was recognized by the government of
Italy at the time of the Lateran agreement, which was begun
on February n, 1929 and ratified on June 7.
II. THE EXERCISE OF EPISCOPAL POWER

264

A.

The Power of Bishops considered singly1

1. General principles. — At this point we are speaking
only of the power of jurisdiction which embraces the right
to teach and the right to rule. Bishops rule their own diocese
only; the Vatican Council ** states : “ Bishops, as true pastors,
feed and govern each his own flock that has been assigned
to him”. Every bishop, nevertheless, has ordinary power
over all, both the faithful and the priests, abiding within
the limits of his diocese.
2. The power to teach. — Bishops feed their flocks by teaching,
by watching out for their protection and for their instruction
in Christian doctrine; by condemning errors, by forbidding
evil books or journals ’. Individual bishops are not infallible,
but they must be regarded as authoritative teachers and
judges of the faith, and it must be presumed that they are
delivering true doctrine until it is proved otherwise. If
doubts should arise about their faith, they are to be judged
by the Holy Pontiff.
3. The power to rule. — Bishops govern the faithful and
the priests of their own territory in the internal forum and
in the external forum : they make laws relating to matters
of faith, of worship, and of discipline; they pass judgment
in the first instance and punish the transgressors by means of
canonical penalties. In all circumstances they must observe
the general laws of the Church and must act in dependence
on the Holy Pontiff.
1 Code oj Canon Law, can. 329-349; Major Synopsis, n. 861-872.
* Vatican Council, session IV, chap. 3; D. B., 1828.
* On the subject of doctrinal power of the Bishop read Pius X’s Encyclical,
Pascendi, September 8, 1907, from section 50 to the end, A da Sancta Sedis,
XL 639-650.

154

CHAPTER II

B.

The power of the bishops considered as a body,
but spread through the world

265 Thesis : The Bishops, dispersed throughout the world, but
with the Roman Pontiff forming a moral body, are infallible
when they propose Catholic doctrine.

Proof of this thesis :
1. Proof from Scripture, (Gospel according to St. Matthew
XXVIII, 18-20). Divine assistance was promised to the
College of the Apostles and to their successors, namely, the
Body of Bishops, when, spread through the universe, they
are teaching all nations.
2. Proof from Tradition. Among the Fathers the sign
of error was separation from the teaching which was handed
down in the universal Church through the succession of
Bishops; in the Councils that faith which was held by the
pastors spread through the world was regarded as the
foundation for definitions.

3. Proof from reason. If the corporate Body of Bishops
dispersed throughout the universe could spread harmful
errors, then the faithful would be grievously injured; for,
far removed from the Center of unity, they would easily
be led into mistakes and deceptions.
C

The power of the bishops united in Councill.

266 Introductory observations. A council is the legitimate
assemblage of the Pastors of the Church for the purpose of making
judgments or handing down decisions in regard to ecclesiastical
doctrine or discipline 2. A council is :
I. provincial, when the Bishops of one province gather
together ;
* Major Synopsis, n. 873-881.
• Forget, îq D. T., a. Conciles.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

155

2. plenary 1 when the Ordinaries (Bishops or Archbishops)
of many ecclesiastical provinces assemble, with permission
having been obtained from the Holy Pontiff, who appoints
his own Legate for the purpose of calling the Council together
and of presiding over it ;

3. general or ecumenical, when the universal Church is
represented at it, with the approval of the Holy Pontiffa.
267 A Conditions Required for an Ecumenical Council. In
order that a Council may be ecumenical in all ways, it is
required :

I. in the matter of the assembling, that the Bishops come
together by order of the Roman Pontiff, who alone has power
over all other Bishops, and who alone, consequently, can
command them to gather together.
Those who must be called to the Council because they have
the right of decisive vote are :

a. Cardinals, even though they arc not Bishops;

b. Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in residence,
even though they have not been consecrated;

c. Abbots or Prelates nullius:
d. An Abbot Primate, Abbots Superiors of the Monastic
Congregations, and Supreme Moderators of Exempted Reli­
gious, but not of other religious, unless the decree of
assembling permits or requires it.
Titular Bishops called to the Council possess a deliberative
vote unless it be expressly decreed otherwise in the convocation.
Theologians and those skilled in a knowledge of the sacred
canons who have been invited to the Council have no vote
unless a consultative vote a.
1 Code of Canon Law, can. 281-292.
* Code of Canon Law, can. 222-229.
* Code of Canon Law, can. 223.

156

CHAPTER II

2. In the matter of the assembling it is required that
the Roman Pontiff himself, or through delegates, -preside
over the sessions, because it is his responsibility to determine
and to regulate the matters that are to be discussed and the
order that is to be observed, because it is his privilege to
transfer the Council, to suspend it, to dissolve it. It is not
required that all the Bishops of the Catholic world be present
at the same time, it is sufficient that the entire Church (in a
moral sense) be represented. It is not necessary that all
the Bishops be in unanimous agreement : if they are not
in accord, that group of the Bishops, even if it be smaller,
will be infallible which adheres to the Holy Pontiff, since
he cannot err.
3. In regard to confirmation, it is required that the Holy
Pontiff approve of the decrees of the Council because they
do not possess the definitive force of binding unless they have
been confirmed by the Pope and promulgated by his order.
This confirmation the Pope may give in various ways : either
by accepting and promulgating the decrees given to him
(this is an instance of subsequent confirmation), or by stating
his opinion in the Council when he personally is presiding
over it (this is concomitant or concurrent confirmation); on
the other hand, it may be given by sending legates to whom
instructions are given concerning matters which should be
defined : then, if the legates conform to the instructions they
have received and the council is carried on accordingly,
the decisions of the council are estimated as confirmed (this
is antecedent confirmation; some think that it is sufficient).
Some of these conditions, for example, the regular (according
to rule) convocation and the number of bishops, can be supplied
sometimes through the subsequent approbation of the
Pontiff.

268

B The Power of an Ecumenical Council.

I. An ecumenical council is infallible in defining a doctrine
concerning faith or morals. This thesis is de fide because

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

157

jt is proposed by the universal and ordinary magisterium
{teaching authority) of the Churchl.

2. The question arises — is such a Council above the Pope?
The Council without the Supreme Pontiff is certainly inferior
since it does not enjoy infallibility. The Council with the
Pontiff is not superior to the Pope since the Pope by himself
possesses the same jurisdiction as the Council with the Pope.
Thus, the Supreme Pontiff can modify the disciplinary decrees
of the Council just as he can modify his own decrees; an
appeal from a decision of the Supreme Pontiff to a general
Council has been deservedly condemned on many occasions.

C The Usefulness of an Ecumenical Council.
General councils are not absolutely necessary, but are,
nevertheless, of great benefit.
1. They offer and they show a greater human power, being
a gathering of holy and learned men whose testimony can
more effectually convince minds than can the judgment
of the Supreme Pontiff alone.
2. They offer a means through which the Roman Pontiff
may investigate revealed doctrine and may seek out the
opinions of the Bishops concerning the best ways of correcting
abuses or of furthering virtue. From this we must not conclude
that the Bishops united in Council are only counsellors to
the Pope; they are true judges who, by the power of juris­
diction given to them both in cases of faith and in matters
of ecclesiastical discipline, in establishing laws and in passing
judgments and inflicting penalties, have a decisive vote and,
therefore, as they sign the decrees of the councils, are defining
Catholic doctrine.
ARTICLE III.

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH ’

After this statement concerning ecclesiastical power
the logical question is : who are subject to this power,
1 Code of Canon Law, can. 227-229.
’ Major Synopsis, n. 883-901.
N® 642 (I) — 12

158

CHAPTER ÏI

or who are members of this Church. A subsequent question
is : what are the duties and rights of these members?
I.

WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

269 Thesis : In order to be a member of the Church baptism is
required and is sufficient, together with the bond of unity of
faith and of Catholic communion. This thesis is de fide.
In canon 87 the conditions of membership in the Church
are prescribed thus : “ By Baptism man is established in the
Church of Christ as a person with all the rights and duties
of Christians, unless some impediment which obstructs the
bond of communion with the Church or a censure which
has been imposed by the Church is presenting an obstacle
to the rights which the person possesses

A In order that one may actually be a member of the Church,
he must be marked with the valid baptism of -water. It is
obvious from Scripture and from an unanimous Tradition
that through baptism men become citizens of the Church,
worthy of receiving the other sacraments, and become
partakers of the other benefits of the Catholic society.
Therefore, he who does not have the character of baptism
remains outside the Church, but he who has been validly
baptized is in the bosom of the Church unless he has been
separated from it by some external act — in such a case,
however, he remains subject to the Church in the matter
of duties.

B In order that an adult may be in the full membership
of the Church, he must, after receiving baptism, profess
in an exterior manner the Catholic faith under the rule of the
ecclesiastical magisterium which Christ established as the
> In the Encyclical My.Oici Corporis, Pius XII stated : “ Only those arr to be
accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the
waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves oft
from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed
therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority. ” D. B., 2286.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

159

foundation of Catholic society; so, all will be excluded from
the Church who have lost their way in the matter of
the faith.
C Likewise, in order that an adult be in the full membership
of the Church, he must be subject exteriorly to the rule of legitimate
Pastors and, in a particular way, to the rule of the Roman
Pontiff who has been constituted the Head of the Body
of the Church; thus, those who refuse to accept his authority
are to be regarded as heathens and publicans. Also the
full member must preserve exteriorly a canonical communion
with the visible society which Christ instituted : for those
are classified as outside the Body Social whom the coercive
power of the Church cuts off as guilty of grave offense l*
.

270 It is false to state that all the just and only the just or predestined
arc members of the Church.
That such a claim is false is evident :
1. from the words relating to the hierarchical constitution
of the Church;
2. from the words of Christ who compares the Church
to a threshing floor which will be cleansed ’, to a net, gathering
together every kind of fishes3, to a field in which was
sown cockle *, to a marriage feast into which a certain man
entered, not having on a wedding garment ·, to ten virgins,
five of whom being foolish arc excluded from the kingdom ·.
From these parables we infer that not the just alone are
members of the Church; and we conclude this also from the
words of St. Matthew XVIII, 15, that : “ If thy brother
1 This is apparent from what has previously been stated in regard to the
institution of the Church, and from the invariable manner of acting on the
part of the Fathers towards heretics, schismatics, and those excommunicated.
The adult who lacks one or another of the conditions mentioned above can l>e
called imperfectly only a member of the Church, although he has been baptized.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, III, 12.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XIII, 47-50.
‘ Gospel according to St. Matthew, XIII, 24.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXII, 2-14.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXV, x-13.

160

CHAPTER II

shall offend against thee... ”, from the words of St. Paul
to the Corinthians : "It is absolutely heard that there is
fornication among you...1 The Fathers have unanimously
taught likewise.
The following propositions are condemned :

“ One only is the holy universal Church which is the entire
gathering of the predestined2 ”. *
*' What is the Church but
the assemblage of God’s sons dwelling in His bosom
271

Applications of the thesis (269)

I. Infidels are not actually members of the Church since they
are joined to it by no external bond; but potentially they are,
since they can receive the faith and be baptized.

2 Catechumens not yet baptized are not actually members of
the Church, but in voto and inchoalively they are, since they are
being united to it by true faith.
3. Heretics, at least as far as the obligations of the Church are
concerned, arc members.
All theologians teach that publicly known heretics, that is,
those who belong to a heterodox sect through public profession,
or those who refuse the infallible teaching authority of the Church,
are excluded from the body of the Church, even if their heresy is
only material heresy. Are occult heretics also excluded, who
by an internal act only are separated from the Catholic faith,
or who by external acts manifest their heresy, but not by a public
profession? The more common opinion holds that occult heretics
are always in the Church’s bosom because they preserve an exter­
nal union with the body social through a profession of faith and
through obedience to their legitimate Pastors. All agree that
infants who arc validly baptized among heretics are truly and
perfectly members of the Church until they become notorious
*
heretics
by public adherence to hereby.

4. Almost the same is to be stated in regard to schismatics,
well known or occult, as has been said concerning heretics.
5. The same holds true for apostates.
1 St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, V, 1.
• D. B., 627.
* D. B., 1423.

THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

161

6. In regard to the excommunicated, some are vitandi (to be
avoided) ; others are tolerati (tolerated). No one is vitandus unless
by name he has been excommunicated by the Holy See, unless the
excommunication has been publicly announced and unless in
the decree or judgement it is expressly stated that this one must
be shunned. The vitandi are certainly excluded from the Church,
because they are separated from the participation in Christian
society until, after doing penance, they are brought back into
the bosom of the Church. According to the more common opinion
the lolerati are not expelled from the fold of the Church, but
they are deprived of the benefit and the use of certain common
goods without entirely losing the bond of communion.

7. Sinners who have lost the state of grace by mortal sin remain
truly members of the Church, for they arc nevertheless united to
the Church, because of their baptism, by the three-fold external
bond of faith, of obedience and of canonical communion.
II.

DUTIES AND PREROGATIVES OF MEMBERS
OF THE CHURCH

272 I. Duties. Four duties in particular proceed from what
has been said about membership in the Church : reverence,
obedience, love, and active cooperation with the Church’s
ministers. This “ participation of the laity in the hierarchical
apostolate of the Church ”, under the name, Catholic Action,
Pope Pius XI, promoted with great successx.
2. The prerogatives. The laity, through Baptism members
of Christ and of the Church, through Confirmation witnesses
to and soldiers of Christ and of the Church, are called to
Catholic Action; through this they work along with the
hierarchy for raising up the Body of Christ in the world,
carrying on their own proper apostolic work 2 under their
own responsibility, at no time, however, independent of the
hierarchy.
* Refer to P. Dabin, Essai de synthèse sur ΓAction Catholique; Guerry,
Action Catholique; Mgr. Petit De Julleville, Lettre pastorale sur Faction
des laies, 1930; Tibbrghien, L’action Catholique.
* Refer to sections 1029, 1030, 1032. — In the first years of Christianity,
the Christians gave collective testimony of Christ.

CHAPTER III

RELATIONS BETWEEN
THE CHURCH AND THE STATE1
273

Erroneous Ideas and Opinions

1. Some contend that the Church is subject to the State, and
that, therefore, it may not exercise its rights without the agreement
of the secular Prince. Many political figures of today are of this
opinion, holding that the State is the source of all rights. The
Gallicans and Josephists, while admitting the independence
of the Church in spiritual matters alone, attributed to the civil
power the right of supreme dominion over ecclesiastical goods,
the right of examination over matters of ecclesiastical discipline,
etc...
2. On the contrary, some theologians and canonists have
taught that the State is to be directly subordinated to the Church
in temporal affairs, and that civil magistrates are only the vicars
of the Supreme Pontiff.

3. Others wish that the Church were separated from the State,
according to the dictum : A Free Church in a Free Stale. Very
closely allied to this error is the Liberal Catholic who maintains
that the Church can only ask for liberty from the State, and that
all forms of worship of themselves ought to enjoy equal rights
in a State.
I.

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE RELATIONS
BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

274 A All authority, civil as well as ecclesiastical, comes
from God, and therefore each one is sacred and must be
reverenced by all.
* Gregory XVI, Encyclical, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; Pius IX, Quanta
Cura, Dec. 8, 1864; Leo XIII, Diuturnum, June 20, 1881; Immortale Dei,
Nov. i, 1885; Libertas, June 20, 1888. — Major Synopsis, n. 902-922.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

163

B Nevertheless, civil power and ecclesiastical power are
to be distinguished, because they are ordained for different
ends. The civil power directly promotes the common temporal
good; it determines and protects the political, social, and
private rights of the citizens. Indirectly it fosters good
morals and religion since without these temporal happiness
cannot be attained. The ecclesiastical power pursues the
salvation of souls. " Whatever among human affairs is
sacred in any way, whatever pertains to the salvation of souls
and to the worship of God, whether by its nature it is thus,
or whether, on the other hand, it is understood thus on
account of the cause to which it is related, all rests in the
power and in the judgment of the Church *.

C Each is supreme of its kind.

I) Neither the Church should be separated from the State,
nor should the State be separated from the Church, but each
society must be united to the other in a friendly covenant,
because the end of each is the perfection of the same men;
this perfection the State directly promotes in temporal affairs,
and the Church directly promotes in spiritual matters. In
order to preserve this concord a manner of acting is called
for and demanded by which the rights of each society may
remain unviolated.
TI. THE UNION OF CHURCH
AND OF STATE IN CATHOLIC TERRITORIES

275 We call a region Catholic when most of its inhabitants
are Catholic and when its government is carried on according
to Catholic principles.
A

The Rights of the State.

I. The State has the right to be free and unimpeded to
carry on its own affairs, to choose its form of government.
1 Leo XIII, Encyclical, Immortal
*
Dei.

164

CHAPTER HI

to make laws, provided that these things do not oppose
divine law or the good of the Church.
B

The Duties of the Catholic State.

1. The State may not detach itself front religion, but must
promote it because social worship is due to God and must
be given to Him by the State. Furthermore, the State must
foster morality, but morality cannot be gained without
religion.

2. The State is bound to acknowledge revealed religion
to defend it and to support it. For actually there does exist
a revealed religion and this alone God orders all men to accept.
3. The State must defend true Christianity or Catholicism.
De facto, only the Catholic Church has been established
by God for teaching and for sanctifying men.
From a union between the State and the Church, Eccle­
siastical freedoms or immunities, privileges granted to divine
worship or to the churches, possess a civil force : for civil
laws by their authorization confirm ecclesiastical laws. The
legitimacy of this will be evident provided one believes that
the Catholic Church is the only true Church.
276

C

The Rights of the Church.

The Church exercises its authority in entirely spiritual
affairs, and in those matters which, of themselves temporal,
are nevertheless bound to a spiritual good or are necessary
for a spiritual end.

D

Duties of the Church.

The Church must help the civil society in those things
which are necessary for its (the civil society’s) end by fostering
public probit}', by promoting peace and serenity; by offering
it help on special occasions, for example, at the time of war.
Ecclesiastical history shows that the Church has always
fulfilled these duties, even by giving up her own possessions.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

III.

165

RELATIONS OF THE CHURCH WITH
A NON-CATHOLIC STATE

277 A Relations with a Christian State which is non-Catholic. —
Per sc a Christian State has the same duties towards the
Church as a Catholic State has; but de facto the Church cannot
obtain from an heretical State all that it has a right to. Still
it can demand that Catholics, living in an heretical or schismatic
State, be free in professing their religion so that the judiciary
personality of the ecclesiastical Society may be recognized.
B Relations with the indifferent State. When a State is
no more solicitous for one religion than for another, it should,
according to its own principles, consider the Church as a
legitimate society, it should undertake nothing in opposition
to the Church, but it should protect, defend, and support
the Church.

C Relations with the infidel State. — If this State were
to impede the preaching and propagation of the Catholic
religion, it would be acting contrary' to reason and to the
rights of nature.
TV. MANNER OF ACTING AS FAR AS MODERN

FREEDOMS ARE CONCERNED
*
1°

FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

278 I. Freedom of thought is legitimately given to us. We
have the right of embracing all truth, of admitting nothing
except that which in some way is clear to us, either intrinsically
or extrinsically, of choosing among free beliefs the belief
which we desire.

2. But absolute freedom of thought in moral matters cannot
be granted to us because we have no right to error. Indeed
1 Major Synopsis, □. 923-931.

166

CHAPTER III

we can make errors, and, because of our good faith, we can
be excused, but the right to choose error at our whim and
to maintain error, to speak objectively, is repugnant to reason.
Likewise, we have no right to reject truth which is apparent
to us, intrinsically or extrinsically; on the contrary, we
must be devoted to the truth whether we know it in a natural
or in a supernatural way.

3. The civil or the ecclesiastical authority makes no judgment
concerning the exercise of freedom of thinking, provided opinions
are not outwardly expressed. As long as our internal
thoughts remain in the internal forum, we are bound to render
an account of them to no one but to God.

2°

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

279 I. Freedom of speech also is given to us as long as we
speak things that are true and are harmful to no one.
2. But absolute freedom to make all thoughts public cannot
be given, for there is no right to teach error.

3. When errors are expressed publicly, the social power,
either civil or ecclesiastical, has the right and the obligation
to repress these errors in as much as the social good demands.

30

280

I.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND OF WORSHIP

Principles.

a. True freedom of conscience is given to us, namely, the
right to embrace and to profess the true religion according to
the laws laid upon us by God or by an authority set up by
God.

b. But absolute freedom of conscience must be rejected, that
is, the right to choose a religion which is more pleasing, or
the right to decide on a religion according to the sole light of
the individual’s reason.

RELATIONS BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE STATE

167

c. When a religion is concerned with internal acts only,
God alone is the judge in this matter.

d. When religion is manifested by external acts and, in
a special manner, by a cult or a rite, the ecclesiastical and
civil authorities have the right and duty to prohibit those
acts which are harmful to the social good.
281 2. Corollaries.
From these foregoing principles we can deduce what manner
of acting should exist between the Church and the State
in regard to freedom of conscience and of worship :
a. Manner of the Church's Acting.
1) The Church teaches that no one can be forced to profess
a religion which he does not acknowledge to be true.

2) The Church has the right and duty of leading her
children to their supernatural end and so she has the right
and duty to use the means by which hindrances or impediments
may be removed. Therefore, in order to protect the faithful
she may repel those in her own midst who would spread
corruption or error, in whatever way she judges expedient,
even to calling upon the civil power for help. Consequently
the error of Catholic Liberals is deservedly condemned,
because they contend that full liberty is to be given to everyone
and that error is to be repressed only by an exposition of
truth.
b. Manner of the State’s Acting.

1) In thesis form we must admit :
a) That the State can recognize the divinity of the Christian
religion and can adopt it as the fundamental law of its
constitution.
b) That the State is not bound to suppress every error,
for the State is not qualified in matters of religion, but it
should curb whatever can injure the good of society.

168

CHAPTER HI

2. Hypothetically, that is, if wc posit the fact that the
good of society demands that the various kinds of divine
worship enjoy the same serenity as the true religion, then
what today is called freedom of conscience and of worship
can be tolerated.
Therefore, the Roman Pontiffs do not absolutely condemn
these freedoms; but they do forbid that these liberties be
considered as rights which must be granted to error or to
false religion.
CONCLUSION OF THE ENTIRE TRACT

The Nature and Superiority of the Church

282

A

Nature of the Church.

From what has been stated the Church can be described
thus : the society of way-faring men under the teaching authority
and government of legitimate pastors, and of the Roman Pontiff
in particular, united by a profession of the same Christian
faith and by communion in the same sacraments, for the purpose
of attaining eternal salvation.

B Superiority of the Church.
Its superiority is deduced for these reasons :
1. Its origin is celestial and divine.
2. Its continuance is permanent even unto the end of the
world;
3. Its breadth is extended to all nations;
4. It possesses an admirable hierarchical constitution,
in which unity and variety, authority and liberty are manifest.
5. Its fruits or effects, justice and sanctity, are abundant.
Therefore, we must say : I believe in the one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic Church.

TRACT V

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

283 Thus far we have proved that the Church has been instituted
by Christ as a living, authentic, and infallible interpreter of
revealed truth. Thence it follows that the proximate rule of
faith is the infallible authority of the Church. The question
to be asked now is this : from what sources is the deposit of
Revelation drawn which the Church proposes? According
to the Councils of Trent and of the Vatican *, Revelation is
contained :

1. in written books,
2.

in tradition not written.

Therefore we have a twofold source of revelation : Scripture
and Tradition. Tradition is first in time and in extent.
We shall, accordingly discuss it first.
ARTICLE I.

TRADITION ’

284 Tradition (from the words trans, across or over, and do,
give) is the handing down or the handing over of something;
in this instance we are concerned with the handing down
1 We shall speak more appropriately of the sources which arc especially
theological in sections 398 and following where the topic under discussion
is theology as a science.
2 Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, D. B., 1787; refer to 783.
* Refer to Franzeun, De Traditione et Scriptura; Bainvel, De Magisterio
vivo et Traditione; Bossuet, Défense de la Tradition et des SS. Pires. Major
Synopsis, n. 936-952·

170

TRACT V

of some doctrine. Tradition can be either human or divine;
our discussion now centers about the divine tradition of revealed
doctrine.
In a strict sense Tradition is a revealed doctrine pertaining
to faith or morals, which is not referred to in the Sacred Scriptures,
but which through legitimate Pastors of the Church has been
infallibly transmitted from age to age.
The object of Tradition is solely the teaching which
has been made known supematurally by God to the
human race; the means or organ of Tradition is the infallible
teaching authority of the legitimate Pastors of the Church.
This tradition, consequently, we must distinguish from
traditions which arc human only, even though they be
ecclesiastical or apostolic.
Division.
1. By reason of the author tradition is divine :
a. dominical, that is, set forth by Christ Himself;

b.divine-apostolic, that is, made known by the Apostles,
with the Holy Spirit revealing. This is to be distinguished
from tradition which is entirely apostolic or from ecclesiastical
tradition.
2. In relation to Scripture tradition can be :
a. inherent, when the revealed teaching handed down
by the ecclesiastical teaching authority is already clearly
contained in Scripture;

b. explanatory, when the doctrine handed down by the
teaching authority more clearly explains matters which arc
presented somewhat obscurely in Scripture ;
c. entirely oral, when the doctrine handed down by the
teaching authority is not at all found in the inspired books.

We pass now to the topics, existence of Tradition and the
organs of Tradition.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

171

I. EXISTENCE OF DIVINE TRADITION
285 Thesis : Divine Tradition, preserved· and explained by the
authentic teaching authority of the Church, is a source of revelation,
distinct from Scripture and infallible. This thesis is de fide
from the Councils of Trent and of the Vatican.

It is in opposition to the Protestants, who teach that the
one rule of faith is Sacred Scripture, and contrary to the
Modernists, who affirm that Tradition is the collective
knowledge and consciousness of the faithful which the Church
teaching is bound to confirm and ratify *.
The meaning of the thesis is this : revealed teaching is to
be sought after not only in Scripture, but also in those things
which the infallible magisterium of the Church’s legitimate
Pastors have taught. This thesis proceeds logically from
what was stated regarding the infallible magisterium of the
Church {sections 199, 221 and following).

A Proof from Scripture.
1. Christ wrote no book but He taught orally;
He did not command the Apostles to write, but He
did order them to teach by word of mouth. Not all of
the Apostles produced writings, but all of them preached
because they were persuaded that Christian teaching would
be preserved and spread through the oral teaching authority
of the properly constituted Pastors — or through Tradition.
Also, from the promises of Christ that medium of preserving
doctrine was infallible. (Refer to Section 199 and following).

2. Even with all the inspired books, the oral magisterium
of the Apostles and of their successors remains as a source
of Revelation; for in his Epistles, and particularly in his
Pastoral Epistles, Paul often spoke of those matters which
he taught by the spoken word and these he ordered to be
1 Decree Lamentabili, D. B., 2006.

172

TRACT V

preserved as a depositum, and to be instructed faithfully
to others who would be capable of teaching still others.
This fact is confirmed from the nature of Scripture {refer
to section 175); Scripture is not a complete rule of faith;
it is not easily attainable by all ; nor is it suitable for settling
controversies.

Christ, therefore, had to provide another source of Revelation
— divine Tradition.
B

Proof from Early Christianity.

The Apostolic Fathers, for example, St. Ignatius and
St. Polycarp, ceaselessly exhorted complete devotion to the
tradition of the Apostles; while at first this was handed
down by word of mouth, they deemed it necessary to record
this tradition of the Apostles in writing also, in order to
transmit it more safely to posterity. Writing in opposition
to heresies, St. Irenaeus set up the ancient teaching against
new notions; this ancient teaching was preserved by the
legitimately constituted pastors in the churches which were
in agreement with the Church of Rome. St. Stephen of Rome,
in his controvery about baptism, reproved the newness of
the African practice, and ordered that there should be no
innovation, nothing but what had been handed down.
In the Councils the chief argument which the Fathers used
against the heresiarchs was the novelty of their doctrine
which was opposed to the ancient tradition. Thus it was
at the Council of Nicea, against the Arians; at the Council
of Ephesus, against the Nestorians; at the Council of Chalcedon,
against the Eutychians. Therefore, the Council of Trent,
rightly defined : “ Perceiving that this tmth and doctrine
are contained in the written books and in the unwritten
traditions..., the Synod accepts and venerates with equal
piety and reverence both all the books of the Old Testament
and of the New Testament, since one God is the author of both,
and also the traditions themselves, having to do with faith and
1 Council of Trent, session IV, [). U., 783.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

173

morals, as dictated orally by Christ, or by the Holy Spirit, and
conscreed in the Catholic Church with uninterrupted continuity
So, too, decreed the Vatican Council (Session III, Chap. 2).

286 Conclusion : The Church teaches and has always taught
that there is a divineTradition.that it is the sum of truthswhich,
having been divinely revealed to the Apostles, have been
handed down without error through the genuine magisterium
of Pastors.
Indeed, Tradition is more extensive than Scripture, an
cm braces truths which are not at all contained in Scripture
or are contained there only obscurely; also Tradition is more
essential to the Church than is Sacred Scripture, for revealed
truth at first was handed down orally by the Apostles, it
was always proclaimed orally, always and everywhere it is
to be proclaimed thus since the Church is primarily the guardian
and herald of revealed truth and is therefore through her
tradition the interpreter of Scripture itself.

Consequently, the principal source of Revelation is Tradition

II.

THE ORGANS OF TRADITION*
*

The organs (instruments) of Tradition are the various voices
which express and describe the Catholic belief, namely, the
Supreme Pontiff, the bishops, and the faithful. According to
the Vatican Council, the teaching authority of the Church is
carried on in a twofold manner : “ All those things are to be
believed with divine and Catholic faith, which are contained
in the word of God, written or handed down, and which the
Church, cither by a solemn judgment, or by her ordinary and
universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been
divinely revealed * ”.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 953-981.
* Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, D. B., 1792.
N° 642 (I) — 13

174

TRACT V

A

THE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

287 Magisterium is called solemn (it is seldom exercised) when
certain forms arc employed which make a stronger impression
and awaken more attention.
Solemn Magisterium includes :

1. dogmatic definitions of Roman Pontiffs, of Ecumenical
Councils, or even of particular councils which have been
approved in solemn form by the Supreme Pontiffs, or
have been accepted by the universal Church ;

2. symbols or professions of faith, issued by the Church
or genuinely approved by the Church ;
3. theological censures, contrary to heretical propositions
or anti-faith propositions. Of these we shall speak at some
length in the tract on Faith (section 331).

I. Dogmatic Definitions
288 Principle. All those things must be held de fide which directly
and immediately are proposed as matters which have to be believed.
The reason is : these definitions are infallible. But, in these
definitions, what is proposed that must be held as a matter
of faith?
a. Not to be held de fide are those matters which do not
pertain to faith or morals, nor assertions made in previous
assemblages or sessions of the council, nor the motives or
reasons for the definition, nor the philosophical, theological,
or biblical arguments.
But, if the Pontiff or the Council authoritatively declares
the sense or meaning of some text of Scripture, then this
declaration is infallible and all must accept it >.
1 In the Decree Lamentabili, proposition 41 was condemned : " Even by
dogmatic definitions the Church’s magisterium cannot determine the genuine
sense of the Sacred Scriptures
D. B., 3004.

THE SOURCES OE REVELATION

175

b. Although definitions are very often found in canons,
nevertheless sometimes the Synods have handed down
the dogmatic definition in the chapters which precede the
canons (for example, the Council of Trent in the decree
concerning justification).

c. No fixed formula is required in proclaiming a definition.
It is sufficient that the words used should convey the meaning
that a doctrine is revealed, is to be considered de fide... or that
its contrary is heretical. Further, it is necessary that the
defined truth be set forth clearly and certainly.
d. In order that we may correctly understand the definition,
we should learn :
1. tvhat the condemned heretics taught and what error of
theirs has been rejected;
2. what the Fathers wished to define. This will be evident
from the definition itself and from the acts of the Council ;
3. in what sense the words used in the definition are to be
understood. This can be made clear from the ordinary use
of the words at the time of the council, from the previous
discussions, from the interpretation prevailing among theo­
logians, and especially from the authoritative interpretation
of the Church, if one has been given.
2.

Symbols and Professions of Faith

289 a. A symbol (creed) may be defined as a simple and brief
summa of the truths of faith, which the Church proposes to the
faithful as a sign (mark) of Christian profession. There are
three principal Symbols or Creeds :
I. The Symbol of the Apostles or the Apostles' Creed; its
doctrine1 is certainly apostolic. A revision or summary
of tliis was made at Rome it seems at a later date ; and then
1 In the Decree Lamentabili, proposition 62· is condemned : " The chief
articles of the Apostles' Creed did not have the same sense for the Christians
of the first ages as they have for the Christians of our times
D. B., 2062.

176

TRACT V

various additions1 were approved by the authority of the
universal Church.
2. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed or Symbol — This
was brought forth first by the Council of Nicaea in 325 in
opposition to Arius; afterwards it was made complete by the
Council of Constantinople in 3S1 against Macedonius; it was
accepted by the Councils of Ephesus and of Chalcedon. The
insertion of the word Filiaque was made in the ninth century'.
3. The Athanasian Creed or Symbol — The author of this
is unknown. It was approved by the Church as a formula
of faith; it was proposed to the faithful and was given a place
in the Breviary.
b. A profession of faith is a fuller explanation of certain
articles of faith in opposition to more recent errors. A particularly
distinguished one is the Tridentine or Pianine2 Profession
prescribed by Pius IV in 1564. Similar to this is the oath
assigned by St Pius X in 1910, Motu proprio Sacrorum
Antistitum 3.
For distinguishing what is to be accepted as a matter of
faith in Symbols and in Professions, we must follow the rules,
previously explained, relating to dogmatic definitions.
B THE
CHURCH *.

ORDINARY

AND

UNIVERSAL

MAGISTERIUM

OF

THE

The ordinary and universal magisterium is that which is
carried on daily through the continuous preaching of the
Church among all peoples. It includes :
I. The preaching and proclamations of the Corporate
Body of Bishops,
1 D. B., I-4O’ D. B., 994. From the decree of the Congrégation of the Council, January 20,
1877, there must be added to this profession these words : ” and handed down,
defined, and proclaimed by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, especially
in regard to the primacy and the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff.
D. B., 1000.
• D. B., 2145-2147* Vacant, Lc magistire ordinaire de ΓEglise cl ses organes.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

177

2. universal custom or practice associated with dogma,
3. the consensus or agreement of the Fathers and of the
Theologians,
4. the common or general understanding of the faithful .*
I. The Morally Unan imous Preaching(Teaching) of the Bishops

290 Bishops teach the flock entrusted and subject to them by
means of catechisms, by synodal directives, mandates, and
in public sermons. If it is evident from these documents
that some doctrine is being set forth universally as an object
of faith, then nothing else is required for this doctrine to
be accepted de fide. Bishops spread throughout the world,
but with the Roman Pontiff forming one Corporate Body,
are infallible when declaring a teaching on faith or morals.

2.

Practice of the Church Associated with Dogma

291 Among the customs and practices which have been closely
joined to dogma we mention especially the public rites used
in the solemn celebration of the sacrifice, or in the adminis­
tration of the sacraments; also the formulas of prayers and
various feasts or offices instituted by the Church; or sacred
practices which have been associated with doctrine.
For a practice of the Church to become a criterion of faith
there are two requirements :

a. that the practice be necessarily connected with the dogmatic
truth; for in imposing a practice or custom, the Church by
that very fact orders that dogmas connected with this practice
must be adhered to;
b. that a custom of this kind be universal or approved
at least tacitly by infallible authority; for only the universal
Church enjoys infallibility. Therefore, a custom or practice
1 We should note that the words : Fathers, theologians, and the faithful
refer to the Church Hearing, not to the Church Teaching.

178

TRACT V

of one particular Church produces only a probable argument
for revealed truth. The Roman Liturgy, approved in a special
manner by the Supreme Pontiffs, cannot contain errors
in dogma. Historical mistakes can creep in, and, as a matter
of fact, they have slipped into the legends in the Breviary,
as the best critics admit. But this fact is easily understood
because the special lessons of the Second Nocturns were
written at a time when apocryphal works were being spread
abroad. Nevertheless, these lessons should not be despised
because many points contained in them are true and are
suitable for fostering piety and goodness.
3.

The Agreement of the Fathers and of the Theologians
a.

The Authority of the Fathers

292 i. Who are the Fathers? The Fathers are those men,
distinguished for their sanctity and their doctrine, who in
the first centuries made the Church renowned by their writings,
and who received full approbation from the Church, at least
in an implicit manner. In order to recognize these men,
we should look for four marks or signs : renowned and orthodox
teaching, holiness of life, antiquity, and the approbation
of the Church. Among the ecclesiastical writers some have
been adorned with the title. Doctor of the Church, because
they have surpassed others with their superior knowledge.
Of these eight are the major Doctors of the Church, the others
are called the minor Doctors.
293 2.

Rules concerning the Authority of the Fathers.

a. Introductory notes. In order to make a study of the
teaching of the Fathers, we must pay attention to the laws
of historical criticism. We may consider the Fathers either
as private doctors or as witnesses to the Church or to the faith.

1) They are regarded as private doctors when they reason
and present their arguments in the manner of the philosophers,
when they make use of analogies or comparisons, or propose

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

179

their own opinion in such a way that they do not exclude
the contrary opinion.

2) They speak as witnesses to the Church when they teach
that a doctrine has been revealed, or has been accepted by
the universal Church, or that a doctrine must be so held
that it cannot be denied without the loss of faith or cannot
be called into doubt. Similarly they speak as witnesses
to the faith when they assert that a contrary opinion is
heretical or opposed to the word of God.
If they speak as private doctors, their authority is only
as great as is their knowledge or as is the force of their
arguments; but if they speak as witnesses for the Church,
they manifest not their own mind, but the faith of the infallible
Church.

b. Rules to be followed· :
1) The morally unanimous agreement of the Fathers dedaring
that a doctrine is de fide is a certain argument of divine Tradition.
Three conditions are necessary that an argument be considered
certain : that it relate to a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals ;
that the testimony be free of doubt, that it be firm and that
the Fathers declare positively that the doctrine is a doctrine
of the Church; that the agreement of the Fathers be not
mathematically but morally unanimous. For in this way
the faith or belief of the universal Church can be certainly
known. With these conditions posited, it can be said that
the Fathers record the teaching of the universal Church.
But the Church is infallible in teaching Christ’s doctrine.
Further, in order that an argument may be regarded as
completely certain, the moral unanimity of the Fathers of one
age is required and is sufficientl. The Church at all times
is indefectible and so in no age can it be guilty of error.
1 In this case the argument has force only for Catholics who admit the
infallibility of the Church; but when the Fathers of different times and from
different places agree on some dogma, then we have an apologetical argument
for non-Catholics since it is evident from this argument that our faith is the
same as the faith of the Apostles.

180

TRACT V

2) The testimony of one Father or of many Fathers in matters
of faith and of morals is a probable argument, the force of
which increases as the number and authority of the Fathers
increase.
3) When the Fathers disagree, then their authority offers
no firm argument; rather it proves that the matter on hand
has not been explicitly defined; for if a matter had been
clearly defined, then the Fathers could not have defended
the contrary opinion without being condemned by the Church
as heretics. If the disagreement is manifest, we must confess
that certain Fathers have erred : for as individuals they are
fallible. But if their words are doubtful, they must be
explained by referring to subject matter which is clearer.
In every case their words must be treated with respect;
we must not attribute error to them because they have had
no knowledge of the more explicit definitions of a following
age.

The Authority of Theologians
294 After the Patristic age Theologians arranged in logical
order the doctrines contained in Scripture and in Tradition
and they explained these doctrines with the help of
philosophical reasoning. These theologians can be considered
as witnesses to the faith or as private doctors. They should
not be esteemed lightly no matter what the Protestants,
Modernists or other adversaries alleged against them.
b.

Tn regard to their authority the following rules should
be admitted :
1. When theologians unanimously teach that something is
not only true but also that it must be accepted in Catholic faith,
such consensus on their part presents a certain argument:
2. If all proclaim some doctrine in regard to faith and morals
as true or certain, it is rash to reject this doctrine;
3. If there is a division of opinion among the different
schools, even if the theologians of one school hold their opinion
as certain or as very close to faith, no obligation exists of
accepting such an opinion.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

4.

181

The Common Understanding of the Faithfid

295 Revealed doctrine can be discovered not only among the
Pastors and other leaders who teach with the Pastors, but
also among the faithful who with a common or general under­
standing profess a unanimous faith.
In order that this common understanding be a criterion
of revelation, it must be :
a. certain and clear,
b. unanimous,
c. concerned with important matters of faith and of
morals.

The fact that the general agreement of the faithful
is then a criterion of revelation is proved :
a. From the indefedibility of the Church. We have already
stated that the Church cannot fail. But the Church would
be failing in essentials if she were a society of erring souls.
Therefore.
b. From the Fathers. For example, St. Augustine, in
refuting the Pelagians, proved the existence of original sin
in little children and the need, therefore, of baptism for
these, from the common understanding of the faithful. This
he regarded as a very strong argument of faith.
296 Other pertinent notes on this subject are these :
a. This infallibility in believing is often-times called passive
infallibility; it depends on active infallibility (in teaching)
which should always direct it.
b. We should avoid the error of those who think that the
Church teaching merely confirms the opinions of the Church
learning1. For the Church teaching must pass judgment
* In the decree Lamentabili proposition 6» is condemned : " The Church
learning and the Church teaching collaborate in such a way in defining truths
that it remains for the Church teaching only to sanction the opinions of the
Church learning ”. D. B., 2006.

182

TRACT V

on these opinions, approve them or condemn them, and
in this way direct the faith of her subjects and turn them
from error.
c. Therefore, the faithful in the Church are in no way the
teachers, they do not define authoritatively, but they give
their belief. The Teachers impart and define the truth which
all believe. But God is able to employ the faithful to promote
some devotion, for example, the devotion to the Sacred Heart
of Jesus; but even in such an instance all proceeds under
the authority of the Bishops — they alone are the authoritative
judges and proclaimers of the faith.
ARTICLE II.

SACRED SCRIPTURE

297 Sacred Scripture is the written word of God, or a collection
of books which, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
have God as an author ; and as such these books have been handed
down to the Church. All Christians admit that the Sacred
Scriptures are a source of Revelation. In order that the force
of arguments taken from Scripture may be better understood,
we shall consider two matters :
1. In what sense these books are inspired;
2. In what way we may use inspired books to explain
the truths of faith. In other words we are interested in
the two topics : inspiration and interpretation of the Scriptures.
I.

INSPIRATION OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

298 State of the Question. All the canonical books are inspired.
The question arises : what are the nature and extent of
inspiration? This is a question not of right, but of fact;
it must be answered not by reason alone, but by the authority
of Scripture and of the Church.

299 Erroneous Opinions.
I. Through overstatement the Protestants of old fell into
error, declaring that God mechanically dictated all the ideas
and all the words.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

183

2. But through defect :
a. The Liberal Protestants have erred who admit only
a vague inspiration such as is attributed to poets;
b. Certain Catholics have been mistaken who say that
inspiration is nothing more than the assistance of the Holy
Spirit for the purpose of guarding against errors — or merely
the subsequent approbation of a book written with human
diligence wherefore God or the Church pronounces it free
from error.

A.

The Nature of Inspiration

300 Catholic Doctrine.
1. The Councils of Florence and of Trent assert that God
is the author of both Testaments; and the Vatican Council
states the matter identically : " These the Church holds
to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully
composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards
approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain
revelation, with no admixture of error, but because, having
been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have
God for their author and have been delivered as such to the
Church herself1
2. For true inspiration, therefore, simple divine assistance

is not sufficient, nor is subsequent approbation given by God or

by the Church ; so, too, merely personal inspiration which resembles
poetic inspiration does not suffice. On the other hand, revelation
properly so called or the manifestation of an unknown truth to
the writer is not required; but everything contained in the sacred
book, although not revealed as far as the author himself is con­
cerned, is truly revealed as far as we are concerned, provided that
God as the principal author of the book makes those things his
own which the sacred writer is relating under divine influence.
A fortiori, it is not required that the sacred author write in the
1 D. B., 1787, Refer to Leo XIII, Encyclical Providentissimus Deus, Nov. x8.
1893; Benedict XV, Encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus, September 15, 1920;
Pius XII, Encyclical Divino Afflante, September 30, 1943. A. Durand,
Inerrance, Inspiration, in D. A., vol. II, 752, 894; Supplement Die. Bibl.
Courtadr, a. Inspiration el inerrance, col. 482-559.

184

TRACT V

state of ecstasy. Also, it is not necessary that the inspired
book was written by the author whose name it bears or to whom
it is generally attributed.
301 3. According to the Vatican Council it is required and it
suffices that these books, composed under the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, have God as their author. Therefore, there
is a two-fold author of an inspired book :

a. the sacred writer who is the instrumental cause, not
the mechanical cause; an intelligent and free cause.
Inspiration does not exclude the particular or proper work
of the writer — this fact is apparent from these references :
Second Rook of Machabees, II, 27; Gospel according to St. Luke,
I, 3; Gospel according to St. John, XIX, 35 First Epistle
of St. John, I.

b. God who is the principal efficient cause\
God and man come together for the composition of a sacred
book. First of all, God excites and moves the writer to
write and he gives assistance to the writer. Secondly, God
bestows on the one writing a supernatural light by means
of which he correctly forms in his mind a concept of what
God wishes to be written — with the result that his judgments
are not just human judgments but are principally the
judgments of God who is illuminating liis mind. Thirdly,
God gives assistance lest the writer omit something which
God wishes to be recorded, lest he add something or fall
into error.
Therefore the words are not necessarily dictated to the
writer, but rather, under the influence of divine light words
are selected by the writer, which correctly express the mind
of God. The sacred books are entirely from God and entirely
from man, in such a way, however, that man is the instrument
of God, the principal author
1 Decree, Lamentabili, proposition
" They display excessive simplicity
or ignorance who believe that God is really the author of the Sacred Scriptures
D. B., 2009.
* Summa theologica, a», a·, q. 174, a. 2, ad 3; De Veritate, q. 12, a. 12.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

B.

185

Inspiration and the Extension of Inerrancy

302 I. General Principle. Everything which was asserted in
the original books has been inspired and is, therefore, formally
true. This statement is de fide from the Vatican Council.
Inspiration, and hence inerrancy, do not extend only to
matters of faith and of morals, but to everything that was
affirmed in the original books, that is, to everything that
the sacred author explicitly or implicitly reports as the word
of God or makes his own. In the authentic places of Scripture
there is no error, nor can error be foundx. These propositions
proceed from the supreme truthfulness of God who is the
author of the sacred book.
303

2.

Corollaries.

a. If the inspired author reports the sayings of others and rejects
them or disapproves of them, it is evident that these are not true.
If he praises them, they are true but only in the sense in which

they are approved. If he relates words without approving or
disapproving, then the Holy Spirit is only testifying that these
words have been stated by others.
b. The Sacred Writers can even recount the words of docu­
ments without explicitly saying so; in such a case we have implicit
citations. But. as the Biblical Commission observed on
February 13, 1905, implicit citations may not be permitted
unless, " due regard being given to the mind and judgment
of the Church, it can be proved by substantial arguments :

1. that the hagiographer is quoting the words of another
or quoting documents;
2. that he does not approve these or make them his own so
that rightfully it is not thought that he speaks in his own name ”.
Therefore, they are mistaken who, in order to explain the obstacles
that arc set up in opposition to the truthfulness of Scripture,
admit implicit citations so frequent that thereafter the historical
truth of the sacred books seems to be wavering.
1 In the decree Lamentabili, proposition nB is condemned: " Divine inspi­
ration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts,
each and every one, free from every error ”. D. B., 2011.

186

TRACT V

Among the inspired books some are historical », others prophetical,
others didactic or poetical. There is error in none of them. But
the poetical books should be understood according to the proper
rules for poetry; the historical books, according to the laws of
history, and simularly the other books. Among these there are

various literary classifications **.
In the historical books scientific matters are sometimes descri­
bed in a popular manner as these are apparent to the senses.
Leo XIII explained this. Sometimes even allegories and parables
and similar methods are used to explain some moral truth. These
cannot be admitted unless they are supported by solid arguments
and arc approved by the mind of the Church ·. But Benedict X l·'
(previously quoted) solicitously advises against letting a rule
aoout scientific matters be transferred to historical affairs : for
history narrates things as they have taken place.

Even in the midst of these difficulties this principle should
always remain unchanged : there is absolutely no error in
whatever the inspired author brings forth in his own name,
since God can never inspire error.
II. THE USE OF SCRIPTURE
AS A SOURCE OF REVELATION

From what has been said we may infer that only those
things in Scripture are a source of Revelation which are
produced by the sacred author in his own name, in the sense
intended by himself and by God. That this sense may be
disclosed, it is necessary to consider how Scripture should
be interpreted.
1 The Church has not defined what books are historical, but Catholic critics
who search into this matter should bear in mind the traditional meaning of
the Church. Refer to the Biblical Commission, June 30, 1909, The Historical
Character of chap. 1-3, Genesis.
* Pius XII, Encyclical, Divino afflante, η. 35-38.
* This can be allowed only in a case " in which, the Church’s meaning not
being contradicted and its judgment being approved, it is proved by solid
arguments that the hagiographer has wished to transmit not true and properly
called history, but under the appearance and form of history, has wished
to offer a parable, an allegory or some other meaning separated from the
proper literal or historical meaning of the words ", Biblical Commission,
June 23, 1905.
4 Major Synopsis, n. 1002-10x7.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

A.

187

The Senses of Scripture

304 >· The Various Senses. In general the sense of Scripture
is (hat truth which the Holy Spirit immediately or mediately
^ristied to be made manifest through the writer.

It is two-fold :

a. literal — the sense which the words immediately express.
Ήκ? literal sense is either proper when it arises from the words
taken in their own natural signification; or the literal sense
is metaphorical when it arises from the words taken figu­
ratively — thus this is often called the figurative sense.
b. Spiritual or typical or mystical sense, which is not
supplied immediately^ by the letter, but by the persons or
things which are so arranged by divine Providence that they
indicate other things or persons.
This spiritual sense is three-fold :
X, allegorical, when it concerns those things which must
be l^elieved about Christ and the Church Militant :

2.

iropological, when it considers morals;
anagogic, when it symbolizes heaven or things to be hoped

for.
This sense (spiritual) is found in Scripture alono; it is not to be
admitted unless first of all its existence is apparent from some other
place Ln Scripture or from Tradition.

The accomodated or adapted sense is not a true sense of
Scripture, for it consists in this, that the words of Scripture
art used to express something other than what the sacred
author expressed or represented.
2.,

What sense may be a source of Revelation?

305 In order that the sense be regarded as a certain source
of Revelation it must be :
\ the literal sense, positis ponendis;

--

188

TRACT V

b. fi? spiritual sense when that is certainly apparent.
Since H spiritual sense is a true sense of Scripture intended
by Ge] it can be employed in Theology·; however, in contro­
versy t should not t>e proposed unless the adversary admits
and ajnowledges it. It is obvious that the accomodated
or adan l sense is in no way a source of Revelation.
B.

The Laws of Interpretation

Seri]fire is a human book and at the same time a divine
book, herefore it must be understood according to the
gramnaxal-historical rules which are common to all books,
and acceding to the Catholic rules which are special and
partial; r to an inspired book.

306 i. Tie grammatical-historical rules. For a correct understandiie of the author’s mind a critically recognized text
and at examination of and commentaries on the context
of parajil places are most useful.
a. /: rimigenial or primary text should be diligently sought
for, in K'far as that is possible.

A th«£bgian can safely make use of the Vulgate version as a
genuine- ource of revelation 1 and can acquire the dogmas of
faith îf.h all the texts about the universal dogmatic application
of whici :t is clear. But if a text is found in the Vulgate which
is not preent in a primary text or in other editions, or if it has
a meann; entirely different from that in the original, the argu­
ment d<diced from this will indeed be legitimate, but traditional,
not bib.icd. In places that are ambiguous or less accurate, the
Vulgate an be made clear or can be improved by referring to a
primige-.i’.l text or to the ancient versions.
b. Coi;xt must be carefully examined. In particular three
points Rnt be taken into consideration :
1 " Th» ;>.ost holy Synod... states and declares that this old and Vulgate
edition
has been approved in the Church through continuing use of
so many ■> turies, in public readings, disputations, proclamations, and expo­
sitions, it <.· be considered authoritative ”. Council of Trent, session IV,
D. 13., 7*.

THE SOURCES OF REVELATION

189

1. the occasion on which the author of the book, or the author
of the discourse reported in the book, wrote or spoke, and the
intention which he proposed for himself;
2. the general argument winch the author intended to discuss;
3. the nexus, not only logical and grammatical but also psy­
chological, of ideas and ot words among themselves and with those
which precede or follow.

c. Parallel places are those texts which found in other
chapters of the same book or in another book, transmit the same
doctrine either in the same words or in diderent words, and so
mutually illustrate and explain one another.
d. Commentaries, professional explanations of the text.

307 2. Catholic rules of interpretation.
a. Because Sacred Scripture is a divine book, it is intrusted
to the infallible magisterium of the Church for explanation.
Therefore, “ in matters of faith and of morals appertaining
to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held
as the true sense of Sacred. Scriptures which Holy Mother Church
has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true
sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore
it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture
contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers1 ”.
Consequently :
1. as often as the Church has defined the sense of a text,
that sense must be accepted as true ;
2. as often as the Fathers unanimously explain in the same
way some biblical declaration as pertaining to a doctrine of faith
or of morals, their interpretation must be followed :
3. outside of these cases, the opinion of the Fathers is to be
regarded very seriously since in these matters they perform, as it
were privately, the duty of doctors; but the Fathers' opinion does
not obligate, especially in a matter which is entirely scientific;
in such an instance they speak as private doctors, according to
theories which were flourishing in their time;
1 Vatican Council, session III, D. B., 1788.
session IV, D. B., 786.
N* 642 (I) — 14

Refer to Council of Trent,

190

TRACT V

4. in the interpretation of Scripture an analogy to faith is to
be pursued; and the sense which causes inspired authors to
disagree among themselves or which is opposed to the Church's
doctrine should be rejected.

b. In his Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, Leo XIII gave
a two-fold rule :
1. the literal sense is to be retained unless necessity or a serious
reason presents an obstacle ;
2. the allegorical sense is not to be discarded when it depends
on the literal sense and is supported by the authority of many.
CONCLUSION OF THE TRACT

308
I. If we establish a comparison between Scripture and
Tradition, we see that :
a. Each is the word of God; each is infallible; each is to
be received with equal piety and respect.
b. In as much as Scripture is a book which comes
immediately from God through inspiration, and since through
inspiration God becomes the principal author of the book,
Scripture surpasses Tradition, the texts of which have man
as an author, helped by divine assistance.
c. Under other aspects Tradition far surpasses Scripture
both in antiquity, and in amplitude, in usefulness and in
necessity.
2. But if we establish a comparison between the living
Magisterium on the one side, and Scripture and Tradition
on the other side, the living Magisterium or the Episcopal
Body now existing under the Roman Pontiff is the proximate
rule of faith ; this teaches us authoritatively the word of God.
Scripture and Tradition, or the proclaiming of the Church
in the ancient centuries, are the remote rule of faith, or tire
sources through which the word of God has been preserved
and from which has been gathered all that the Church must
propose to all.
Therefore, directed by the Church and possessed of the
motives of credibility (refer to Tracts on the Christian Religion
and on the Church of Christ), we are now in a position to
approach the act of faith.

PART THE SECOND

SPECIAL THEOLOGY

TRACT VI

FAITH
First Section : Faith itself

Through faith we give our assent to the truths which have
been revealed by God, and which are contained in Scripture
and in Tradition.

309 A Among secular and sacred authors faith in general
signifies acts of the intellect and of the will. As we view
it at this time, it is the firm assent of the intellect because
of the testimony of another. If the testimony is human,
faith is called human; if the testimony is divine, the faith
is called divine faith. Tliis we shall now consider.
Divine faith can be viewed as an act, or as a habit or virtue.

a. The act of faith is the supernatural assent by which the
intellect, under the command of the will and the influence of

192

TRACT VI — FAITH

grace, firmly accepts revealed truths because of the authority
of God who is revealingx.
The act of faith, therefore differs :

1. from religious sense, which relies in a special way on
imagination and sensibility;
2. from historical certitude, which is founded on human
testimony;
3. from the beatific vision, wherein clearly and immediately
we perceive the divine.

But since the intellect, through faith, assents to divine
truths not because of intrinsic evidence, it is necessary that
the intellect be favorably disposed through the command
of the will which respectfully accepts the authority of God.
For such a supernatural act the flawing in of grace is entirely
required, that is, the influx of the illumination and inspiration
of the Holy Spirit interiorly moving the intellect and the
will.
b. Faith as a habit is a supernatural and a theological virtue
which disposes the mind to assent firmly to all that God has
revealed, because of divine authority.
310 B

Faith is divided into :

a. faith simply or plainly divine, when that which is believed
has been revealed only by God ;
1 This definition 1$ in accord with that which St. Thomas, in 2», 2
, q. 2,
*
a. 9, has left us; with that which the Vatican Council laid down in session HI,
chap. 3; and with that of Pius X in the formula of the oath against Modernism
wherein it is declared : " faith is not a blind sense of religion which comes forth
from the secret places of the subconscious, morally formed under an impulse of
the heart and of a changing of the will; but it is the true assent of the
intellect to a truth which has been extrinsically received from hearing, by
which we believe that those things which have been said, have been testified
to, have been revealed by a personal God, our Creator and our Lord, arc
true, on account of the authority of God, the greatest truth. Refer to D. B.,
1789-2145. — St. Paul declares : “ Faith is the substance of things to be hoped
for, the evidence of things that appear not ”. Epistle to the Hebrews, XI, x. —
Major Synopsis, vol. II, n. 122-144.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

193

b. faith simply Catholic, when what is believed has been
revealed by God and has also been defined by the Church;
c. faith formed or living, which is united to charity, the
form or model of the virtues and the life of the soul;
d. faith formless or dead, which exists without merit in
sinnersx.
A false idea of faith proposed by the early Protestants
is : faith is confidence in divine mercy. A false notion of
the Rationalists is this : faith is any rational knowledge which
is naturali}· know (possessed) regarding God and divine
things. The Semi-Rationalists (Günther) state : faith is an
assent which is produced by arguments that are simply
natural. The Modernists hold that faith is a blind sense
of religion which had its origin in the need for the divine.

CHAPTER I

THE OBJECT OF FAITH
There is a two-fold object : the material object, namely
that which is believed; the formal object, or that by reason
of which it is believed. We shall discuss the formal object
at this point because the mind may attain to the material
object only through the formal object.
ARTICLE I.

THE FORMAL OBJECT

OF FAITH OR THE MOTIVE OF FAITH

The intellectual assent of faith is not a blind motion of
the mind; rather, it depends on rational motives, namely,
the motive of faith and the motives of credibility.
1 Swnma theologica, 2», 2®, q. i-?; Suarez, Faith, disput. r, section x;
Billot, The Infused Virtues, 1905, p. 198-386; Harent, in D. T. C., a. Croyance
et Foi.

194

CHAPTER I

A

The formal object or motive of faith

1. Erroneous opinions. The Semi-Rationalists teach that
the motive for believing is the intrinsic evidence of things
which is known from reason; according to the Modernists
it is the evidence which arises from the conformity of things
with the religious sense.
2. Catholic Thesis : the motive or the formal object of faith
is the authority of God Who reveals (or infallibility in knowing
and truthfulness in speaking). This thesis is de fide from
the Vatican Council1 : “ If anyone shall say that divine faith
is not distinguished from natural knowledge of God and of
moral truths, and therefore that it is not requisite for divine
faith that revealed truth be believed because of the authority
of God, Who reveals it, let him be anathema

Proofs of Thesis.
a. Proof from Scripture. From Christ’s and the Apostle’s
manner of acting : they always set forth the teaching which
they were proclaiming as one which all had to believe because
of the authority of God. Thus Christ spoke : " My doctrine
is not Mine, but His that sent me 1 ". In the conversation
with Nicodemus Christ confessed that He was handing down
truths which were difficult to understand, which were, actually,
apparently impossible to understand, but which had to be
believed on the authority of a knowing and truthful witness,
namely, Himself. “ Amen, amen I say to you, that we speak
what we know, and we testify what we have seen1 ”. But
it is evident throughout the entire Gospel of St. John that
the testimony of Christ is the testimony of God. Therefore,
the Christian faith consists of this that we give assent to
a truth because of the authority of God Who is bearing witness
through Christ.
1 Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3; D. B., 1811; Major Synopsis,
n. 143-160.
* Gospel according to St. John, VIT, 16.
* Gospel according to St. John, III, xi; refer to VIII, 26.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

195

In his Epistle to the Romans St. Paul praises the faith of
Abraham who believed as God spoke to him, in spite of the
apparent impossibility of the situation x. St. Paul demands
faith in his own preaching because of the authority of God.

312 b. Proof from Tradition.
1. Apologists have not set up a scientific proof of every
Catholic truth; but they do show that the Christian religion
has been revealed by God, and by reason of the authority
of God it must be accepted.
2. In opposition to the Manicheans, who tried to prove
all of their dogmas through rational demonstration,
St. Augustine pointed out that in the matter of religion it is not
improper to believe before one understands since faith rests on
the testimony of God.
3. In the Middle Ages the theory of Abelard was rejected :
he strove to construct a faith “ which the evidence of human
reason produced and made compulsive ”.
4. Finally, in the nineteenth century, the Vatican Council,
contrary to the scmi-Rationalists who were asserting that
the motive of assent of faith was the scientific proof of
Christian dogmas, defined that the motive of faith is the
authority of God Who reveals.
313 3. Disputed Questions.
a. Is the fact of revelation, together with the authority
of God, a partial motive of faith? The Thomiste answer
affirmatively because the one believing is moved to believe
both by the authority of God and by the fact of revelation.
The Scotisfs answer negatively, saying that the authority
of God is the one formal object of faith, but that the fact
of revelation is only a condition sine qua non of adherence.
314 b. Is the Church’s proposal of a revealed truth a partial
motive of divine faith More commonly this is denied. For
‘ St PauVs Epistle to the Romans, IV, 18-26.

196

CHAPTER I

such a proposal indicates only a revealed truth which the
Church teaches not in her own name, but in the name of
God; and therefore it indicates what must be believed because
of the authority· of God Who reveals.
Hence, an act of divine faith can be elicited without
a proposition (proposal) of the Church. For, although the
Church is the ordinary medium by which revealed truths are
set forth, nevertheless, there are other means by which man
can learn about the revelation of some truth. Further,
from the contrary opinion it would follow that non-Catholics,
remaining in good faith outside the Catholic Church, are
deprived of all hope of salvation : this was condemned by
Pius IX. (Refer to section 242, footnote.)
315 c. Under what consideration must the authority of God
be recognized as the formal object of faith, whether by the
light of reason or by the light of faith? The difficulty lies
in this, that the act of faith is at the same time rational
or reasonable and therefore knowable by reason, and super­
natural and accordingly perceivable by the light of faith.
1) J. de Lugo 1 thinks that the motive of faith is indeed
known by reason, but that this knowledge is supernatural
because God by means of supernatural grace concurs in this.
It follows from this, however, that knowledge of this motive
is not essentially supernatural : for example, I believe in the
Incarnation because I know that God is truthful and has
revealed the Incarnation.
2) According to Billot =, Bainvel, and others, the motive
of faith is known by the light of reason; but the intellect
offers assent to the revealed truth, not because of its clearness
but because of the greatness and authority of Him Who reveals.
This assent is supernatural, not by reason of the material
or formal object, but solely and singularly from the principle
of grace which elevates the intellect to the supernatural
order.
1 De fide, disp. VII.
* The infused virtues, p. 73, 287 and following, ed. 1905.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

197

3) According to the Thomisls1, the motive of faith is
known by the light of faith, for it is nothing other than the
authority of God Who reveals and He is the author of the
supernatural order. Thus faith is truly supernatural quoad
substantiam, since it makes us sharers in the divine light.
But faith is reasonable because the motives of credibility,
through which it is certainly evident that God is truthful
and has revealed, arc known by reason. I believe, therefore,
because I sec in the light of the authority of God revealing
that God has revealed that such a doctrine is true. So the
motive of faith is at the same time that by which some revealed
truths are believed, and it is also that which is believed, since
at one and the same moment we believe the authority of
God Who reveals, and a particular truth which He has revealed.
This opinion we accept as the more probable opinion;
it is more in accord with the doctrine of the Vatican Council
and is more adapted to explaining how the assent of faith
can be stronger than the knowledge of the motives of
credibility.

316

B

The signs or motives of credibility 8

The motives of credibility are the reasons upon which rests
the judgment of credibility ; by means of this judgment it is
established that the Catholic doctrine is credible and must
be believed because of the authority of God Who is revealing.
These motives are certain signs, chiefly miracles and prophecies,
wliich prove the divine origin of the Christian religion, without
excluding, however, the internal helps of grace or the agreement
of dogmas with reason. This agreement is helpful in the
matter of giving assent. These motives differ from the motive
of faith, previously explained, which is the intrinsic clement
in the act of faith; the signs of credibility pertain to the
preamble or preface to faith and are extrinsic to faith.
In order that the assent of faith may be in agreement with
reason, “ God willed that to the interior help of the Holy
* Garrigou-Lagraxce, Theologia fundamentalis, vol. x, p. 458-5x4.
* Major Synopsis, n. xôx-xyj.

198

CHAPTER I

Spirit, there should be joined exterior -proofs of His revelation,
namely, divine facts and especially miracles and prophecies,
which, as they manifestly display the omnipotence and
infinite knowledge of God, are most certain proofs of His
divine revelation and are adapted to the intelligence of all
men 1 ",

We shall now consider :
i° the credibility of revelation ;

2° the certitude of credibility required for faith.
1°

THE CREDIBILITY OF REVELATION

317 Thesis : Christian Revelation is surely credible from the
external signs, especially the miracles and prophecies, which
arc most certain proofs of its divine origin and are adapted
to the intelligence of all. This thesis is de fide from the Vatican
Council in opposition to the liberal Protestants and Modernists :
" If anyone shall say that divine revelation cannot be made
credible by outward signs, and therefore that men ought to
be moved to faith solely by the internal experience of each,
or by private inspiration, let him be anathema * ".
This, however, does not deny that at certain times some
men are moved to faith by an internal illumination.
Proof of thesis.

a. Proof from Scripture.
I. To John’s messengers asking, “ Art thou he who is to
come or look we for another? ” Jesus replied, “ Going report
to John what you have heard and seen : the blind see, the
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead
rise, etc. ” From this we gather that the miracles of Christ
are proofs of His divine mission.
‘ Vatican Council, De Fide, chap. 3; D. B., 1790.
’ Vatican Council, session III, can. 3, de Fide; D. B., 181a.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

199

2. In His disputation with the Pharisees Christ again
brought forward the testimony of Moses and of the other
prophets and the testimony of His Father, manifested through
the works which He was accomplishing, as signs and proofs
of His mission.
3. Of the Apostles it was said, “ But they going forth
preached everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming
the word with signs that followed ”, that is, through signs
which accompanied their preaching. In order to prove that
Christ was truly the Messiah and the Son of God, the Apostles
themselves appealed to His miracles and prophecies. Therefore
there are given motives of credibility not exclusively internal
but also external, sufficient for believing.
318 b. Proof from Tradition.
1. The Apologists and the Fathers, both Greek and Latin,
made use of the testimony of prophecy and of miracles in
order to prove the divinity of the Christian religion.
2. Theologians declare that faith is in accord with reason
because of the clearness of the signs which have been produced
in favor of faith : “ The faithful would not believe unless
he saw that these things must be believed either because
of the clearness of the proofs or because of a similar reason 1 ”.
3. The Church confirmed this doctrine through her own
magisterium.

a. This fact is evident from the canons of the Vatican
Council wherein the following are condemned :

1) Liberal Protestants who say “ divine revelation cannot
be made credible by outward signs, and, therefore, men ought
to be moved to faith solely by the internal experience of each
or by private inspiration ” (canon 3).
2) Rationalists who assert “ miracles can never be known
with certainty, and the divine origin of Christianity cannot
be proved by them ” (canon 4).
1 St. Thomas, 2», a·, q. 2, a. 4, ad a.

200

CHAPTER I

At the same Council it was stated that God willed that
to the interior help of the Holy Spirit there should be joined
exterior proofs of His revelation, namely, divine facts and
especially miracles and prophecies...1*",

b. The fact is evadent also from the formula of the oath
prescribed by Pius X in which divine facts and especially
miracles and prophecies arc declared to be " most certain
proofs that the Christian religion has had a divine origin... and
is most especially adapted to the intelligence of all men even
of our time 4 ”.

2°

THE CERTITUDE WHICH IS REQUIRED

IN THE JUDGEMENT OF CREDIBILITY

319 A This certitude should be true, that is, it should exclude
all prudent doubt.

This following proposition was condemned in 1679 by
Innocent XI : " The assent of faith which is supernatural
and useful for salvation can be based on only a probable
knowledge of the fact of revelation, and even on a fear that
God might not have spoken 3 ”. Likewise, the decree Lamen­
tabili rejected the following : “ The assent of faith ultimately
rests on a mass of probabilities ”. (Proposition 25) 4.
B

This certitude can be absolute or relative.

I. Absolute certitude depends on motives so valid that
they are sufficient for and satisfying to the intellect of everyone.
This certitude is called scientific when the motives of credibility
are critically examined; it is called ordinary or common
(vulgar) when the motives are scanned less thoughtfully.
1 D. B., 1812, 1830, 1790; refer to Vacant, Constiiut. du C. du Vatican,
vol. II, p. 87.
• D. B., 2145.
» D. B., 1171.
4 D. B., 2025.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

201

2. Relative certitude rests on motives sufficient for excluding
a doubt that is prudent for a special kind of intellect : for
example, the authority of parents and of pastors.
320 Is the relative certitude of the motives of credibility sufficient?
Many modem scholars answer affirmatively. For in the
Old Testament and in the New Testament (Malachias, II, 7;
Deuteronomy, XXXII, 7; Gospel according to St. Matthew,
XXIII, 2-3), revealed truths such as are handed down by
parents and by the priests arc accepted and have to be accepted.
Furthermore, the authority of parents and of priests offer
only relative certitude. Besides, for believing with reason
in the judgment of credibility, that certitude suffices which
actually excludes prudent doubt. But relative certitude
excludes such doubt, and further, it can be made so much
stronger by good will and by grace that it will prevent doubts
in the future *.
If relative certitude were not sufficient, the greater number
of men could not elicit an act of faith, and so could not attain
salvation.
But actually and practically, priests, in explaining the
catechism to children, will do their best to set forth those
motives of credibility which can give absolute certainty,
such as the miracle of Christ’s resurrection and that of the
spread and stability of the invincible Church. At the same
time they will advise their parishoners and pupils to have
recourse to proper authorities when difficulties arise.
ARTICLE II.

THE MATERIAL OBJECT OF FAITH 3

321 Prefatory Notes. From the fact that the motive of faith
is the authority of God Who reveals, it follows that the material
object of faith, that which is to be believed, is all those things
1 " He who believes has sufficient motive for believing : for he is persuaded
by the authority of divine doctrine which has been confirmed by miracles,
and, more than that, by the interior impulse of God inviting and urging him;
wherefore not lightly does he believe ". Summa theologica, 2·, 2®, q. 2, a. 9,
ad 3.
1 Summa theologica, 2», 2®, q. 1, a. 1-2; Major Synopsis, n. 174-209.

202

CHAPTER I

and those things alone which have been divinely revealed;
further, the material object includes whatever has been
revealed, or whatever is properly called divine, or whatever
contributes to a better knowledge and love of God. These
clearly show the divine life in God, one and three, in Christ
and in men.
In the material object of faith we distinguish :

1.

the primary object, God as the supernatural end;

2. the secondary object, the truths concerning faith and
morals, which truths direct us to this end ;

3. the accidental object which is revealed only concomitantly.

I.

WHAT IS THE MATERIAL OBJECT OF FAITH

In order that a truth may be the object of faith, it must
be made known through revelation properly called. Inter­
mediate revelation is sufficient, for the Church infallible points
out revealed truths. But since some revealed truths are
formally revealed, and others are virtually revealed, and
others are proposed by the Church to be believed, we shall now
consider :

1. formally revealed truths,

2.

virtually revealed truths,

3.

the object of divine-Catholic faith,

4.

private revelations.
1°

TRUTHS FORMALLY REVEALED

323 A A truth formally revealed or revealed in se is one which
God has made clear directly in its own proper concept and
terms — either explicitly or implicitly :
explicitly, in direct or equivalent terms. For example, the
divinity of the Word is revealed in this text : “ In the beginning

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

203

was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God1
implicitly when the truth is included in what has been explicitly
revealed. (A part is included in the whole, the particular
is contained in the universal.) To demonstrate — when it is
revealed that “ The Word was made flesh ”, it is implicitly
or inclusively revealed that Christ had a body and a soul.

B General Principle — Everything to which assent is given
only because of the authority of God revealing is the material
object of faith.
324 C Applications of Principle.

1. Tt is certain that all truths formally - explicitly revealed
are the object of divine faith. Most obviously they are contained
in the testimony of God revealing and consequently arc
believed because of His authority.
2. Likewise it is certain that truths formally - implicitly
(inclusively) revealed are the object of faith. For these truths
fall within the testimony of God revealing Who discloses
them as far as the sense or meaning is concerned since they
are contained in others which are actually revealed. The following
are examples of a truth implicitly revealed :
a. If two terms are correlatives and one is revealed, then,
by that very fact the other is revealed.
b. If one of two contradictory statements has been revealed,
by that fact the other is condemned, and vice versa.
c. If we posit the explicit revelation of the actual whole,
then its essential parts are implicitly revealed.
d. If the potential whole has been explicitly revealed, then
the parts which are essentially included in it are implicitly
revealed.
e. From the fact that God explicitly reveals two
propositions, for example, that the Apostles received the
1 Gospel according to St. John I, 1.

204

CHAPTER I

Holy Spirit and that Peter is one of the Apostles, He reveals
implicitly this conclusion, that Peter received the Holy Spirit.
f. Today theologians commonly admit that a particular
proposition contained in a universal is the object of faith
provided some other contingent fact serves an an intermediate
and provided this contingent fact is absolutely certain.

For example, as soon as the fact of the canonical election of
Pius XII became certain, it was then de tide that Pius XII is
infallible, because it is a revealed dogma that every Supreme
Pontiff rightly elected possesses infallibility.
2°

TRUTHS VIRTUALLY REVEALED

325 A A virtually revealed truth or a theological conclusion,
strictly taken, is a proposition certainly and manifestly deduced
through a true process from two premises, one of which is formally
revealed and the other is naturally known and not otherwise
formally revealed. Examples of theological conclusions are
these propositions : Christ at no time was without efficacious
grace; Christ was impeccable.

326 B Are theological conclusions the object of faith? This is
controverted. Along with several Thomists and many
theologians of all schools we admit as more probable that
conclusions properly and certainly theological are not the object
of faith. For the object of divine faith is that which is certainly
revealed by God and which is accepted and admitted only
because of the authority of God Who reveals. Hut theological
conclusions :
1. are logically united to what has been revealed, however,
at the same time they are really distinct from what has been
revealed; otherwise it is in no way evident from the fact
that God reveals a principle that He wishes to reveal
also a conclusion.
2. theological conclusions are not believed only because
of the authority of God but they are believed solely because
of the natural clearness of one of the premises and of the
consequence of the syllogism.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

205

C. Hence less probable seems :

1. the opinion of Melchior Cano, of Vega, and of others who
hold that a theological conclusion is the object of faith. For
whatever they say, such a proposition has not been properly
and sufficiently revealed and, as a result, cannot be accepted
solely on the authority of God;
2. Also, less probable is the opinion of Snares and of De Lugo,
according to whom theological conclusions are the object of
faith when they are proposed and defined by the Church ».
a. God confirms with His authority' whatever the Church
defines; this he docs through the privilege of assistance, but not

of inspiration ;

b. what the Church defines is infallibly true but not, for
that reason, revealed; indeed the Church possesses infallibility’
even in defining truths connected with the faith, and these
truths are only the object of ecclesiastical faith ;
c. the Church would be establishing new dogmas if through
a definition she were to make de fide what was not previously
the object of divine faith.

328

Conclusions

a. There is no strict obligation to believe as the object
of divine faith theological conclusions which have not been
defined by the Church.
b. Occasionally a truth which at first had been regarded
as virtually revealed is later declared by' the Church to be
formally-implicitly revealed ; in such a case this truth becomes
the object of divine faith, and must be believed as de fide.
329

30

THE MATERIAL OBJECT OF DIVINE - CATHOLIC FAITH

A Two conditions are necessary and sufficient in order
that a truth be the object of divine - Catholic faith, or, simply,
of Catholic faith :
1 It appears that Suarez and DeLugo have not accurately distinguished
between a theological conclusion properly called and a truth which has been
implicitly but formally defined. Actually such a distinction is very difficult
to make before the definition of the Church.

N» 642 (I). — 15

I
206

CHAPTER I

1. that this truth be formally contained in the written
or transmitted word of God,

2. that it be set forth by the Church as revealed, cither
in solemn form or through the ordinary magisterium. These
are the words of the Vatican Council1 : " Further, all those
things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which
are contained in the word of God, written or handed down,
and which the Church, cither by a solemn judgment, or by
her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief
as having been divinely revealed ”.
We have already explained in section 287 and following
what is to be understood by the terms solemn judgment and
ordinary magisterium.
330 B Propositions contrary to Catholic Faith and Theological
Censures.
1. A theological censure, which is directly attached to
doctrines, is a judgment or a decision by which the mark of
perverseness and of maliciousness is indelibly stamped on
a certain doctrine, showing the doctrine to be heretical or
in some way harmful to faith.

2. A theological censure can be doctrinal or judicial. A
doctrinal censure was once employed frequently and most
advantageously by the sacred faculties of Universities2
under the direction of the ecclesiastical magisterium; but
it had the force of a judgment only such as was brought
forward by experts. A judicial censure must be advanced
by the legitimate authority : either by the Bishops in their
own dioceses, or by the Roman Pontiff or by an (Ecumenical
Council for the Universal Chruch. But the Roman Pontiff
can impose censures either ex cathedra or not ex cathedra,
by himself or through the Roman Congregations. (Refer
to section 260, on The Church.}
1 D. B., 1792.
* It is forbidden, however, for private theologians to impose or impress any
censure on opinions which are freely defended in the Schools.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

207

331 C Particular Censures.
Some censures are concerned with the doctrine itself; others
regard the manner in which the propositions are expressed;
others consider the effects which they can produce.

1. In regard to the doctrine itself they are classified
thus :
a. A heretical proposition ; resembling this is the proposition
-proximate to heresy and the proposition savoring of heresy ;
b. An erroneous proposition; similar to this is the
proposition proximate to error and the proposition savoring
of error;
c. A temerarious proposition, positively or negatively.
2. As regards the manner in which the propositions are
expressed they are considered equivocal, ambiguous, pre­
sumptuous, captious, suspect, etc; but in particular, a
proposition badly expressed or offensive to pious ears, that
is, offensive to religious feeling.
3. In the matter of evil effects, they are listed as scandalous,
schismatic which can be heretical-schismatic, seditious, and
not safex.
4°

PRIVATE REVELATIONS

332 Private revelations are directed to private persons for their
benefit or for the benefit of others; they may be for the good of
the whole Church.

A Private revelations can be the object of divine faith. This
is commonly taught in opposition to the opinions of the Salmanticcnses. For these revelations can be believed because of the
authority of God revealing; speaking to one man He is equally
all-know'ing and truthful as He is when He reveals to all.

B Private revelations should be believed by those to whom they
occur, or by those for whom they take place, provided they are
certainly established; they can be believed by those to whom they
are directed, provided they are set forth by satisfactory arguments.
D. B., 1501 if.

208

CHAPTER I

C In order to make prudent judgements about particular
private revelations, we should pay attention to the rules regard­
ing the discerning of spirits, especially :
1. on the part of the object — do the revelations conform
to the doctrine of the Church or do they transmit something
erroneous and trifling?
2. on the part of the person — is the person well or ill, is he
inclined to hysteria, has he good judgment, does he possess
humility and obedience?
3. on the part of the effects — do the revelations disturb
the soul, or do they foster peace of soul and Christian virtues?1

D The assent of Catholic faith should not be given, and cannot
be given to private revelations which have been approved by
the Church, but only the assent of human faith should be offered
in accordance with the rules of prudence. The Church’s appro­
bation of these revelations signifies only that they may be promul­
gated. for the instruction of the faithful, as piously credible
according to the laws of prudence and according to the'authority
of the evidence which supports them. Preachers should be
careful not to propose these revelations as the object of Catholic
faith *.

II.

THE NATURE OR FORCE OF DOGMAS ·

333 A Introductory Notes.
1. The idea of dogma. The word dogma has many meanings,
in particular : a firm opinion, a decree or a law, all Christian
tniths, all truths formally revealed; and, in a strict sense,
the truths of divine - Catholic faith. Dogmatic formulas
are the expression of revealed doctrine through scientific
terms.
2. Errors concerning the nature and evolution of dogmas.
All Modernists are in agreement on this point : professing
agnosticism and immanentism, they deny the intellectual
force of dogmas and, at the same time, they maintain an
indefinite evolution of dogmas. They differ, however, in
that some are symbolists and others are pragmatists.
’ Refer to A. Poulain, S. J., Des grâces d’oraison, chap. XXIII.
* Refer to Benedict XIV', De canon sanet., L. II, c. 3», n. ir; Pius X,
Encyclical Pascendi.
3 Major Synopsis, n. 210-225.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

209

334 a. According to the Symbolists (Loisy, Tyrrel), dogma is
nothing more than a human idea about divine things, containing
a three-fold element : religious, intellectual, and authoritative.
Dogma represents divine things only in a symbolic manner.
Consequently, dogmatic formulas arc’ not unchangeable, they
must always follow the evolution in religious life. As a matter
of fact, it is apparent from the history of dogmas that they have
been substantially changed.

b. According to the Pragmatists (E. LeRoy), under dogmatic
formulas objective realities lie hidden which, because of the
possibility of becoming involved in anthropomorphism, should
not be defined, but should rather be understood in the order of
action. Thus, there is a double sense to be distinguished in every
dogma : a negative sense by which errors are condemned and
false methods of explaining Catholic doctrine are precluded;
and a positive sense which is not to be perceived in the order of
knowledge, but is to be understood in the order of action, since
it imposes on us a manner of feeling, of thinking, and of acting.
So, tne dogma of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist
denies that this presence, is merely symbolical or figurative,
and, more than that, it affirms that the faithful should conduct
themselves in relation to a consecrated Host as they would to
Christ Himself made visible.

335 B Catholic Thesis. Catholic dogmas are truths which
must be believed, by which divine things are expressed as they
are in themselves, at least analogically, but not symbolically
or practically only : they are, therefore, the extrinsic norm of
believing.
I. Explanation of thesis. — Among the truths to l>e believed

some are historical facts which are accepted univocally, for example
the fact that Christ died; others are to be understood in a meta­
phorical sense, for example, the statement that Christ sits at the
right hand of the Father; others arc divine mysteries : The Incar­
nation — and must be comprehended analogically, but not
symbolically or practically only. The Vatican Council states :1
" Reason, indeed, enlightened by faith... attains by a gift from
God some, and that a very fruitful, understanding of mysteries;
partly from the analogy of those things which it naturally knows...
and thus the Catholic doctrine stands in the middle between the
two extremes of anthropomorphism and agnosticism ».
1 Session III, chap. 4; 1). B., 1796.
» Read meditatively Summa theologica, 1 p., q. 13.

210

336

CHAPTER I

2. Proof of Thesis.

a. Proof from Scripture.
1) Christ says : " No man hath seen God at any time :
the only begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father,
He hath declared him
“ Going in to the whole world ”,
says Christ to the Apostles, “ preach the Gospel to ever}'
creature. He that bclieveth and is baptized, shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be condemned 1
Therefore,
Christ has revealed the truths which are to be believed, which
express divine things and to which we must give intellectual
assent.
2) The same thought is expressed in the preaching of the
Apostles and especially in the preaching of Si. Paulz. They
liand down certain historical facts (for instance, the Resur­
rection) and certain doctrines both speculative and practical,
as objects of faith which are necessary for salvation.

b. Proof from Tradition.
1) From the teaching of the Fathers. They taught that
the faithful are bound sub gravi to adhere firmly to the dogmas
of Christ and of the Apostles.
2. From the condemnation of heretics. These were cast
out from the Church, many times not because they acted
contrariwise but because they contradicted the traditional
sense by denying the divinity of the Word, the divine maternity
of Mary, etc.
3. From the way dogmatic formulas are prepared and
proclaimed : thus, for expressing the perfect equality between
the Son and the Father, the Church sought a word and then
finally selected a word, namely, όαοούσως; to this word
so great a positive sense and meaning have been attributed
that thereafter it is the norm not only of acting, but also
it is primarily the norm of thinking and of believing.
’ Gospel according to St. John, I, 18; Gospel according to St. Mark, XVI,
15-16.
* Epistle to the Ronans, VI, 17; First Epistle to the Corinthians, II, 6; III, 2;
XIII, 12; Second Epistle to the Corinthians, X, 5; Epistle to the Ephesians, II, 2;
Epistle to the Colossians, I, 10; II, 4; III, 16; etc.

TUE OBJECT OF FAITH

211

337 C Refutation of Symbolism and of Pragmatism The
proof of the preceding thesis indirectly repudiates both
systems. They are directly disproved by authority and by
reason.
I. By the Authority of the Holy See. In the decree, Lamen­
tabili, the Holy Office condemned Symbolism : “ The dogmas
which the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which
have fallen from heaven. They are a kind of interpretation
of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by
laborious effort1 ” ; the pragmatic interpretation of dogmas
is declared reprobate in these words : " The dogmas of the
Faith arc to be held only according to their practical sense,
that is, as preceptive norms of conduct but not as norms
of believing ’ ”. In addition, both opinions were condemned
in the encyclical Pascendi and in the profession of faith which
must be made by order of Pius X .*
*
338 2. By Theological Reason. The symbolic and practical
interpretation of dogmas rests on a false philosophical
foundation of agnosticism and of immanentism, of relative
truth and of the origin of religious truths from a certain
intuitive sense ; such an interpretation cannot be in agreement
with the teaching of the Church : it is repugnant to the ideas
and the concepts of Catholic faith, of revelation, of the power
of the Church to teach infallibly. Also, Symbolism very
illogically preserves the Christian ethic while rejecting its
foundation, objective revealed truths. Pragmatism is no
more successful in solving the modern-day difficulties which
oppose dogma.
III.

THE INCREASE OF DOGMAS1

339 A Introductory notes. We must distinguish two epochs :
the first, from the time of Adam to the age of Christ and of
the Apostles inclusively; the second, from the time of the
1D. B., 3022. — * D. B., 2026.
* D. B., 2087 and following, 2145.
4 Major Synopsis, n. 226-252.

212

CHAPTER I

Apostles, that is, from the death of St. John the last of the
Apostles, to our days.
i. In the first epoch the articles of faith increased simply, or,
new truths were successively revealed; in addition to this quanti­
tative increase, there was 'also taking place a qualitative increase
relating to the truths already revealed — these were being
manifested more clearly and more explicitly. Thus —

a. From the beginning the existence of God, the author of
the supernatural order, and His special Providence in relation
to man's salvation were revealed to Adam in his state of innocence
and of guiltlessness.
b. During the centuries from Adam to Moses the promise of
a Redeemer was somewhat obscurely repeated over and over
to the Patriarchs while precepts and rites were imposed upon
them for the purpose of preserving monotheism and of prefiguring
some of the mysteries which were to be revealed later.
c. Through Moses and the prophets clearer ideas about God
and His attributes, about the Redemption and the kingdom of
the promised Messiah prevailed.
d. Finally, the Christian revelation completed the Mosaic
revelation in a wonderful manner by showing God as the Father
redeeming us from the slavery of sin through the Incarnate
and unceasingly sanctifying us through the Holy Spirit.
For all this it can be said that all the dogmas arc contained
in the two truths revealed from the beginning : divine being truly
epitomizes, as it were, and implicitly states all the mysteries of
divine essence and of divine life; and in divine and supernatural
Providence all is included that God dispenses for the salvation
of man.

2. In the second epoch, namely, from the end of the Apostolic
Age, dogmas in one respect immutable, remain unchangeable,
in another respect the}' take on a growth or progress.

340 B

The Stability of Dogmas.

Thesis : The public revelation of God was so completed in
the Apostolic Age that neither a new economy nor a new public
revelation is to be looked for. This thesis is de fide from the
universal preaching of the Church. It stands opposed to
Montanists, the Manicheans, the Fraticelli and the Preachers

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

213

of the eternal gospel in the Middle Ages; it contradicts the
Anabaptists and the Irvingites among Protestants.

Proof of Thesis.
I. Proof from Scripture :
a. No new economy is to be established, for in the Epistle
to the Hebrews, the New Testament is compared to the Old
Testament as a perfect and completed testament to an
imperfect and incomplete one;’ the kingdom is called firm,
immoveable, faultless . 2 Further, the priesthood of the New
Law is not to be revoked ·, nor the form of the religion in which
it has been established.

b. New public revelations are not to be looked for.
1. All that was to be revealed was made known to the
Apostles. “The Spirit of truth will teach you all truth...
He will teach you all things4.
2. The Apostles are the guardians and expounders only
of the dogmas which have already been revealed. " Teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you... O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust 6 ”.
341

2. Proof from Tradition.

a. In the first centuries of the Church it was distinctly
believed that nothing could be added to the doctrine which
had been handed down by the Apostles. This is evident
from the testimony of St. Clement of Rome, of SL Ignatius,
of St. Polycarfi, and especially of St. Irenaeus. He states:
" It is not necessary thus far to search among others for the
truth which it is so easy to accept from the Church, since
* St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, VIII, 7, 13.
* St. PauPs Epistle to the Hebreirs, XII, 27-28.
* St. PauPs EpiUte io the Hebrews, VII, 11 and following.
4 Gospel according to St. John, XVI, 12-13; XIV, 26.
* Gospel according io St. Matthew, XXVIII, 20. St. Paul's First Epistle to
Timothy, VI, 20. St. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy, I, 13.

214

CHAPTER I

the Apostles, like a rich man in a storehouse, have most
abundantly gathered together in the Church all those things
which belong to the truth 1 ”,
b. It was always the practice of the Church never to appeal
to new revelations in order to condemn a heresy or to define
a dogma, but rather to examine what was contained in Scripture
or in Apostolic Tradition on the matter in question.

c. The Vatican Council very clearly and expressly stated :
“ For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors
of Peter that by His revelation they might make known
new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably
keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith
delivered through the Apostles *
*

C The Progress of Dogma.
Errors. — Many of tho early Protestants denied all progress,
even any accidental progress, of dogmas. On the other hand,
the Semi-Rationalists, under the leadership of Günther, admit
such progress that, through the help of the sciences and of philo­
sophy, another sense of dogmas can be understood, different
from that which the ancient Church defined. The Modernists
go further with their theory of the continuous evolution of dogmas.

1°

THE NATURE OF DOGMATIC PROGRESS

343 Thesis I : Progress of dogmas does not consist in this, that
some other sense of meaning is to be attributed to them which
is different from the sense understood by the Church. This
thesis is de fide from the Vatican Council : " If any one shall
assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the
progress of science, a sense is to be given to doctrines
propounded by the Church different from that which the
Church has understood and understands, let him be
anathema * ”,
‘ Adversus Heereses, Book III, chap. 2-4; Book IV, chap. 26.
• D. B., 1836.
* D. B., 1818.

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

215

344 Very justly has the Vatican Council solemnly condemned the
Gfintherian theory which :

1. conceives the divine depositum as a philosophical doctrine
which is to be completed and perfected by human ingenuity;
2. transfers ecclesiastical magisterium from Bishops to philo­
sophers and, in this way, overthrows the hierarchical order
which Christ instituted;
3.

subjects faith to reason;

4. destroys the infallible authority of the Church and the
substantial immutability of dogma.
Those Rationalists and Modernists should be particularly
careful who, under the pretext of progress and of criticism, wish
to understand dogmas according to a sense which is loftier and
more profound than that which the Church has thus far under­
stood.

345 Thesis II : Genuine progress of dogmas consists in this only,
that a clearer and richer explanation of revealed doctrine is
given. This thesis is certain from the Vatican Council : “ Let
the intelligence, science, and wisdom of each and all, of
individuals and of the whole Church, in all ages and all times,
increase and flourish in abundance and vigor; but simply
in its own proper kind, that is to say, in one and the same
doctrine, one and the same sense, one and the same judgment1
To be sure, divine revelation, handed down in its totality by
the Apostles, was not so entirely and explicity made clear that
no new definitions can be expected in order to explain this reve­
lation; for :

i In the sources of revelation certain truths are contained
oliscurely only and implicitly. This God most wisely ordained
so that men might be induced to devoting their minds more
intensively to revelation with the hope of discovering new aspects
hidden in the depths of the Christian depositum.
2. But the Church has the right to define clearly and explicitly
those things which are obscure and implicit; this duty she has
exercised from the first century. (Tract on The Church, notes 251
and ff.)
1 D. B., 1800.

216

CHAPTER I

Thus :

a. In the course of time she enlarged the rule of faith imposed
upon the catechumens;

b. In councils, especially in (Ecumenical councils, she defined
more clearly, in new formulas, the consubstantiality of the Word,
the divinity of the Holy Spirit, etc. Actually, if in important
dogmas there has been some increase, should not even a greater
increase be expected in those truths of faiths which are the
conclusions and inferences of the fundamental dogmas, for
example, in the subject of the cult of Christ, of the Blessed
Virgin and of the Saints, etc.?

34θ

2°

THE MANNER IN WHICH DOGMATIC
PROGRESS COMES ABOUT

According to all, dogmas increase at least :

a. Through a lucid and scientific setting forth of dogmas
which formerly were indeed believed explicitly, but in an
obscure and popular or common manner. Thus, the mystery
of the Most Holy Trinity was at first indistinctly handed
down under this general formula : “ I believe in God the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit
then the Church
successively defined that the Son is consubstantial with the
Father, that the Holy Spirit is to be adored together with
the Father and the Son, that the Son proceeds from the
Father through the way of generation, that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from both the Father and the Son, etc.

b. Dogmas increase through the explicit setting forth of
those which are contained only implicitly in the sources
of revelation : this is obviously a major progress, namely,
progress from implicit faith to explicit faith in regard to
truths which arc not explicit!}' to be believed from the necessity
of salvation. So, from the fact that in Christ there is a twofold
nature, divine and human, the conclusion follows that there
is likewise in Him a twofold will.

c. Dogmas increase through the skillful and doctrinal
setting forth of those which have been taught in passing or

THE OBJECT OF FAITH

217

practically only : this progress, very similar to the preceding,
applies only to secondary truths which it is not necessary
to believe explicitly. Thus, the validity of baptism admi­
nistered by heretics was not expressly handed down from
the beginning, but, when the controversy over this matter
arose between St. Cyprian and St. Stephen, the subject was
then explicitly defined.
There is some dispute as to whether or not progress can take
place by defining truths which have been only virtually revealed, so
that these truths can be believed and must be believed from
divine faith. This controversy has already been considered in
section 326 and ff.

3°

THE CAUSES AND THE OCCASION

OF THIS PROGRESS OR INCREASE

347 This progress occurs through the cooperation of God
and of men.
a. The primary efficient cause is the Holy Spirit by means
of the assistance He gives; the secondary efficient cause is
the Church teaching through her magisterium, ordinary
or solemn.
b. The disposing causes, offering cooperation which is
only ministerial and preparatory', are the Fathers, the
theologians, and the faithful.

c. The instrumental cause is reason enlightened by faith.
d. The occasional causes are the heresies which, by their
rise, (according to St. Augustine) bring it about that the
truths of faith “ are examined more diligently, and are
understood more clearly, and are preached more earnestly1 ”.

e. The final causes are the glory of God and the sancti­
fication of souls.
1 The City of God, L. XVI, C. II, n. 1; P. L., XLI, 477; refer to The Gift
of Perseverance, C. XX, n. 53, F. L., XLV, 1026.

CHAPTER II

THE ACT OF FAITH

After a brief analysis of faith we shall state the three
principles which produce the act of faith and the ultimate
resolution of the act of faith.

348 An analysis of faith. Various elements arc necessary for
the preparation and production of faith :
1. Five elements are required for its preparation : three
for the judgment of credibility ■— the revelation of truth,
the setting forth of revelation, and the motives of credibility;
two for the judgment of credentity — moral dispositions and
the help of God.

2. Five elements are required in the production of the act
of faith : on the one hand, the formal object and the material
object; on the other hand, grace, the will and the intellect.
ARTICLE I.

THE CAUSES WHICH PROXIMATELY

OR DIRECTLY PRODUCE THE ACT OF FAITH 1

St. Thomas described the act of faith in these words:
To believe is an act of the intellect giving assent to a divine
truth because of the command of the will moved by God through
grace 2 . Ί hus, the immediate and simultaneous cause of
the act of faith is threefold : grace, the will and the intellect.

349

1 Major Synopsis, n. 259-300.
* Summa theologica, 2“, 2», q. 2, a. 9.

THE ACT OF FAITH

219

I. TO WHAT EXTENT
DOES GRACE CONCUR WITH FAITH

350 State of the Question. According to the Pelagians man
without grace can elicit salutary acts of faith; according
to the Semi-Pelagians, man can effect at least the beginning
of faith; according to the Semi-Rationalists, man can give
the assent of faith just as he offers the other assents of science.
But the Church teaches that grace is required for the beginning
of faith and for faith itself.
351 A Thesis : For the act of faith, indeed for the beginning
of faith and for the desire or disposition to believe, the grace
of illumination and of inspiration is required. This thesis
is de fide from the Council of Trent and from the Vatican
Council. The Council of Trent decreed *. “ If anyone should
say that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy
Ghost and without His help, man can believe... as he ought,
so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon
him, let him be anathema ”. The Vatican Council1
2*affirmed
that even when it does not work through charity faith is
a supernatural virtue and is therefore a gift of God.
I.

Proof of Thesis.

a. Proof from Scripture. Christ asserted that divine aid
was required for faith : "No man can come to me (believe
in me) except the Father, who hath sent me draw him * ”,
Likewise St. Paul has spoken : " For by grace you arc saved
through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift
of God 4 ”. He further declares that man is incapable of
eliciting a salutary thought.
1 Council of Trent, session VI, can. 3, D. B., 813.
* Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, can. 5, D. B., 1791 and 1814.
’ Gospel according to St. John, VI, 44.
4 St. Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians, II, 8.

220

352

CHAPTER Π

b. Proof from Tradition.

1. Opposing the Pelagians, St. Augustine 1 wrote, unfolding
St. Paul’s teaching: " Just as no one of himself is sufficient
for beginning or accomplishing any good work... so no one
of himself is sufficient either to begin or to perfect faith

2. Contrary to the Semi-Pelagians, who declared that
at least the beginning of faith and the pious disposition to
believe were naturally within us, the Second Synod of Orange
defined that this beginning of faith is a gift of God, Who
first of all inspires in us faith and love for Himself
This
decree The Council of Trent and The Vatican Council3
reaffirmed.
3.

Proof from Theological Reasoning.

Grace is necessary for every supernatural act, and especially
for one that is difficult. But the act of faith is supernatural
and, apart from its supernatural nature, it is difficult because
it opposes our passions.

353 B The Manner in Which Grace Concurs in the Act of
Faith.

I. Internal grace is not absolutely and per se required for
the certain and speculative judgment of credibility and of
credentity. Grace properly supernatural is necessarj- either
in order that a practical judgment of credentity be elicited
and in order that the will command assent (these constitute
the pious desire to believe), or in order that the act of saving
faith come into being.
354 2. This necessary grace is not only medicinal, but it is also
elevans (internal supernatural), making us capable of a
supernatural act. Since the act of faith is the beginning
of divine life in us, it is properly and peculiari}· supernatural.
« The Gift of Perseverance, n. 49.50, P. I.., XLV, 1024-1025.
« D. B., 178.
» Refer to D. B., 8x3, 1791.

THR ACT OF FAITH

221

3. After the act of faith God gives His help through grace
so that faith may be preserved, increased, and united to
charity.
II. TO WHAT DEGREE DOES
THE WILL CONCUR IN THE MATTER OF FAITH

355 A Thesis : Although the Act of faith is elicited by the intellect,
it comes into being through the command of the free and welldisposed will. This thesis opposes the opinion of the Fideisis
who over-exalt the function of the will in the act of faith;
it contradicts the opinion of the Semi-Rationalists who deny
the work of the will altogether.
It is de fide, according to the Councils of Trent and of the
Vatican and in opposition to the Protestants and the followers
of Hermes, that the act of faith is free.

356 i.

Proof of Thesis.

a. Proof from Scripture. Scripture shows that good will
and free consent arc required for faith. In his Gospel St. John
impresses this truth upon us, accusing the Jews of not believing
liecause they do not seek God’s glory, because they are not
of God but of the devil, their father, because they have not
charity within them — in short, because they lack the good
will which is necessary for faith *.
So, too, in the Gospel according to St. Mark and in the writings
of St. Paul the act of faith is of precept, it is praised, it receives
a reward : infidelity merits punishment. But all this supposes
that the act of faith is free.

357 b. Proof from Tradition.
I. Proof from the Testimony of the Fathers.
St. Irenaeus8 states, " Force does not come from God.
Not only in works, but also in faith has the Lord preserved
* Gospel according to St. John, V, 31-44. VII. χ6-ι8; VIII, 42-47, etc.
* Contra hares., 1. IV, C 37, n. 1, 5; P. G., 1099, xioa.

N· 642 (I). — 16

fat. Angel Abbey Library
Banedict, Oregon 97 ·.:

222

CHAPTER II

man’s choice, and judgment as free and within man’s own
power, for the Lord has said : According U) thy faith be it
done unto thee ”, St. Augustine1 has enunciated the same
idea more briefly : " One cannot believe unless he wills to
believe
Consequently the proposition of de Mirandula
was condemned because it maintained that it was not within
the power of man as he pleases to believe that an article
of faith is true 2 ”,

2. The Councils have defined in the matter of the freedom
of faith The Council of Trent ’, in opposing the teaching
of the Protestants, declared : “ They (the adults) are disposed
to that justice when, aroused and aided by divine grace,
receiving faith by hearing, they are moved freely toward God
The Vatican Council **, contrary to Hermes, claimed that
faith is “ a work appertaining to salvation, by which man
yields voluntary obedience to God Himself, by assenting
to and cooperating with His grace, which he is able to resist
and defined : “ If anyone shall say that the assent of Christian
faith is not a free act, but is inevitably produced by the
argument of human reason... let him be anathema

358 3. Proof from Reason. By reason we demonstrate how
the freedom of faith is conciliated with the evidence of credibility.
The Act of Faith is free not only in regard to the exercise of it,
since we can turn our mind away from tlie object which is to be
believed, but also in regard to specification (being specific), since
we possess the ability to posit a contrary act, to doubt or to deny :
this fact theologians’ explain in different ways.
a. According to de Lugo, the act of faith is free in as much
as divine revelation, even though morally certain, is not apparent :
it does not remove all doubt.
b. According to L. Billot, the act of faith is free because
we assent to revealed truths not because of the clearness of the
testimony, but because of the very authority of God to which
we are submitted freely.
* On St. John tr. XXVI, C VI, n. i.
'D.B., 797.
* Session VI, chap. 6; D. B., 798.
4 Session III, chap. 3, can. 5, On Faith; D, B., 1791, 1814.

THE ACT OF FAITH

223

c. According to the Thomists, the act of faith is free because
revealed truth to which we assent is not intrinsically evident,
and thus in the act of faith the understanding " is not satisfied,
in so far as it depends on itself alone, ” wherefore “ in the one
believing an impulse can arise contraxy to what he most firmly
holds1 ",

359 B The Manner in Which The Will Cooperates in the Act
of Faith.
The Will cooperates not only in the first act of faith, but also :
1. in the remote preparation for faith, since a right will, by
subduing pride, pleasure and temporal cares, disposes the mind
to loving, seeking, and embracing truth.
2. in the preambles to faith in as much as it directs the intellect
to consider the reasons by which God's existence and authority,
and also the fact of revelation may be known for certain ; in as
much as it then moves the intellect to assent to these truths :
3. in progress to faith since it turns the mind away from reasons
for doubting, and leads it into a captivity and a reasonable
service of faith «;
4. in the very act of faith, it moves the intellect to believe because
of the moral dignity of God revealing, Who has every right to
be trusted;
5. After the act of faith, the will concurs in preserving and
increasing faith, and turns the mind away from reasons for
doubting.
At this point we shall explain :
1. Why many do not believe even though the motives of
credibility arc sufficiently proposed to them. The reason, is
that their will, caught in the snares of pride and of the passions,
neglects, rejects, and stands in fear of divine things.
2. Why even-one docs not possess an equal or similar faith.
Sometimes the faith becomes dulled and listless in considering
and studying the motives of credibility and the mysteries of
faith .*

360

1 Sr. Thomas, De Veritate, q. 14. a. 1.
• St. Paul's Second Epistle to the Corinthians, X, 5 ; St. PauPs Epistle to the
Romans, XII, 1.
* In 2“, 2®, q. 6, a. 4, St. Thomas rightly observes : " A man’s faith may
be described as being greater, in one way, on the part of his intellect, on account
of its greater certitude and firmness, and, in another way, on the part of his
will, on account of his greater promptitude, devotion, or confidence ”.

224

CHAPTER II

HI. THE DEGREE TO WHICH
THE INTELLECT ELICITS THE ACT OF FAITH
*

361 A Thesis : Since faith is an assent to revealed truths, it is
properly elicited by the intellecl. This thesis is certain and is
proximate to faith; according to many it is de fide from the
Vatican Council and from the profession of faith prescribed
by Pius X.
362

I.

Proofs of Thesis.

a. Proof from Scripture.
From Scripture by faith we believe and we know, we see
and we understand. Thus the word " to believe ” is equivalent
to the words "to know” and “to see”; very often these
three words are used interchangeably.

363 b. Proof from Tradition. 1. The Fathers speak of faith
as if it were an act of intellectual cognition; so also do the
Theologians, who agree with St. Thomas that : “ To believe...
is immediately an act of the intellect because the object
of this act is truth which properly pertains to the intellect ”.
{Refer to section 349.)
2. The Vatican Council takes it for granted that this
teaching has been universally accepted : it distinguishes
a two-fold order of cognition, natural order and a supernatural
order, that is, faith and reason ; it declares that to God revealing
the full service of the intellecl and of the will is to be given
by faith ; it defines that faith is a supernatural virtue by which
" we believe that what has been revealed is true ”.
In the Profession of Faith prescribed by Pius X it is explicitly
stated, in opposition to the Modernists, that " faith is not
a blind sense of religion breaking forth from the hidden places
1 By stating that faith is an act of the intellect elicited under the command
of the will, we abstract from the philosophical question of whether the different
faculties arc distinguished from one another and from the essence of the soul,
and of how they arc distinct; but we assert that faith is truly an act of cognition.

THE ACT OF FAITH

225

oi the subconscious..., but it is the true assent of the intellect
to the truth which has been extrinsically received from
hearing ”. This declaration is put forth as something which
must be held as most certain and which has been defined
by the unerring magisterium of the Church *.

364 B The Manner in Which the Intellect Cooperates with
Faith.
With grace preceding and with the will commanding,

1. the intellect verj' carefully considers the signs of
credibility, the fact of revelation, and the authority of God
and then forms a judgment of credibility and of credentity;
2. the intellect gives a firm assent to revealed truths;
3. later the intellect seeks a greater understanding of
revealed matters.
IV. THE PRACTICAL PROGRESSION TO F/UTH

365 A This practical progression to faith is different according
to the different kinds of education and of personality; also,
according to the varying graces of God. At this time we note
the usual or ordinary progression to faith, and the unusual
or extraordinary.

I. In the usual or ordinary progression we distinguish
the scientific way and the way of children or of the uneducated.
In the scientific progression he who is being instructed is
first of all properly disposed; then he must acknowledge
the existence and authority of God, the fact of revelation,
and next the speculative and practical judgment of credibility
and of credentity; and finally he believes revealed truths,
in particular, the infallible authority of the Church. Children
and the uneducated very often come to the faith through
the way of authority.
1 D. B., 2X45
*

226

CHAPTER Π

2. Some are led to the faith in an extraordinary way, in
fact, at times even a miraculous way x.

366 B The Way to Attract Unbelievers to the Faith.
1. Before any conversation about the faith one should
pray fervently, act gently and patiently, learn what the
unbeliever admits and what he denies;

2. During the actual discussions we should try to eliminate
the origins of unbelief, that is, the passions, the emotions;
we must prepare the way for demonstration by impressing
on the unbeliever general principles regarding the insufficiency
of reason by showing him how many truths arc accepted from
authority'; we must set forth the motives of credibility which
are better adapted to the unbeliever;
3. After the discussion we should point out the need of
prayer and examine carefully the sincerity of his belief.

ARTICLE (I.

CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE FINAL ANALYSIS

OR RESOLUTION OF FAITH

367 State of the Question. The resolution of the act of faith
into its tinal motive is called the ultimate resolution of faith.
All agree that the proper motive of faith is the authority
of God Who reveals. But there has been some question as
to whether this motive is the ultimate motive, or whether
there may be another motive through which in the act of
faith we can reach the very authority of God revealing. To
anyone who asks me why I believe that Christ is God, I reply :
I believe because of the authority of God Who has revealed this
truth. But if, in addition, I am asked whence I know that
God is worthy of faith and that He has revealed the divinity
of Christ, I respond : this I know from the arguments or
1 Refer to Bavnard, La Foi et ses victoires. A. Crosnier, Les convertie
Paris, 19x0; Lôwencard, La splendeur catholique, Paris, 1910; A. Vox Rv·
vtxxe, Retour à la Sainte Eglise, 1911.

THE ACT OF FAITH

227

the motives of credibility. Is faith, therefore, ultimately
to be resolved into human arguments, as, for instance, into
intrinsic supports to the very act of believing? If this is so,
the act of faith does not appear to be objectively supernatural,
nor docs it offer greater certitude than the human arguments
of credibility.
To this difficulty we can reply that the motives of credibility
are only the preamble to faith and the condition or situation
that leads the way to faith, but that they are not the
constitutive element of faith. However, it remains to be
explained more fully how faith, which depends on motives
of credibility known by reason, can be supernatural and also
more firm than the motives themselves. Theologians respond
in different ways :
A Suarez says that the believer, in the very act of faith :
1. docs not direct his attention to the arguments of credibility’
which he has previously weighed carefully;
2. but together with the material object, he apprehends through
faith both the authority of God and the fact of revelation : for
example I believe that Christ is God because I believe that God
has revealed this truth, and I believe that God has revealed this
truth because of this trusted revelation of God. For by explicitly
revealing a certain mystery·, God implicitly reveals that He is
speaking truly and that He is revealing;
3. Otherwise, Suarez states, the virtue of faith would not rest
on a supernatural motive, nor would it be supernatural.

368

B Lugo rejects the theory of Suarez as one that is laboring
in a vicious circle ; he proposes this way. In the act of faith we

369

recognize both the authority of God and the fact of revelation,
not through faith nor through discursive discussion and exami­
nation, but immediately and through grace : in this way we can
explain how the act of faith is at the same time supernatural
and apart from a vicious circle. For example, I believe the
divinity of Christ because God has revealed it and because God’s
revelation is infallible. However, it can hardly be claimed that
Lugo protects the supernatural quality of faith; in Ills theory
it is not objectively supernatural. Furthermore, he gratuitously
posits, that divine truthfulness and the fact of revelation are
known immediately. So, too, the assent of faith appears to be
an act of knowledge, for it is based on the conclusion of a syllo­
gism, formal or virtual.

228

CHAPTER H

370 C According to Pesch, Bainvel, and L. Billot the ultimate
motive of the act of faith is the authority of God who reveals,
but in no way is it the knowledge of this authority. Wherefore
the manner in which the authority of God has previously become
known has no bearing in this matter. However, the authority
of God revealing offers greater certitude than any other medium
of knowing and further the act of faith is supernatural since it
proceeds from faculties which have been supernatural!}' elevated.
If, therefore, you ask why I believe in the Trinity, I answer :
I believe because God, Who has revealed the Trinity, is completely
worthy of belief. Such an answer is adequate. For if you then
ask whence I have known that God has revealed the Trinity
and is worthy of ix-lief, I reply that it is no longer the motive
of faith which is in question but only the motives of credibility
which are the preamble to faith.
371 D According to many Thomists the final formal and intrinsic
resolution of the act of faith rests on the authority of God revealing
in as much as it is that by which other revealed truths are believed
and that which is believed, since at the same instant we assent to
the authority of God revealing and to a particular truth which
He reveals. Thus the motive of faith is entirely supernatural.
Nevertheless, in order that assent of faith may be prudently
given, we must possess as an antecedent condition the judgment
of credibility by means of which we declare that this or that truth
can be believed, in as much as it has been revealed. And thus
our faith is reasonable.

ARTICLE III.

THE PROPERTIES OF THE ACT OF FAITH 1

372 From what has been said about the object and the
production of the act of faith we can infer its properties:
the properties of being certain, of being not evident, of being
free, and of being supernatural. Because we have already
discussed the last two qualities in sections 335, 367 and
following, we shall speak of the first two properties only.
I.

THE CERTITUDE OF FAITH

373 A Our faith is certain, or our faith excludes all doubt
concerning the truth of the object believed. This is so because
Major Synopsis, n. 301-3x2,

THE ACT OF FAITH

229

it rests entirely on the authority of God and His infallible
testimony.
374 B The question arises : Is faith more certain than natural
science? In answer we must show that there are four points
to be distinguished in the matter of certitude.

1. clearness or the excellence of evidence proportionate
to the mind,
2.

exclusion of doubt,

3. infallibility — security or sureness of continuous union
with objective truth,
4.

firmness or constancy of adherence.

375 In enlarging on these four considerations :

I. Under the aspect of clearness and of evidence, faith
is an inferior knowledge in relation to ns, although revealed
matters shine out with the greatest intelligibility and truth
in regard to themselves. Certain principles of natural science
arc intrinsically evident to all.
376 2. In regard to the matter of the exclusion of doubt, faith
is not more certain than all natural knowledge : for there
are certain natural truths which are so certain that we cannot
have doubt concerning them, for example, the fact that
good is to be loved ; on the other hand, truths of faith, although
most certain quoad se, do not exclude the possibility of doubt,
because of their obscurity.
377 3. Under the aspect of infallibility, faith is more certain
than all natural knowledge : natural knowledge is subject
to error while :
a. what is false can never be near or subject to faith.
I. because faith is an intellectual virtue and thus is
incompatible with error. All virtue inclines to good, but the
good of intellectual virtue is the true ;

230

CHAPTER H

2. because the formal object of faith is divine truthfulness
which cannot move us to accept error ;
b. what has not been revealed can never be a part of faith,
even though it is, in other respects, true :
1. because faith cannot not be related or referred back
to its own proper object;
2. because divine revelation is the partial formal object
of faith which can move only to accepting what has been
revealed. Wherefore he who believes what is erroneous or
what is not revealed believes thus by reason of a faith which
is human only and not theological ».

378 4. In this matter of adherence, faith is more firm and
more certain than all natural knowledge. “ We are bound
to yield to God revealing the full obedience of our intelligence
and of our will ”, according to the Vatican Council, which
adds the reason :
“ the faith which they (Catholics) profess rests on the
most firm foundation *
*
Indeed our faith rests on the
testimony of God Himself; but “ if we receive the testimony
of men, the testimony of God is greater * ”, wherefore we should
believe “ with all our heart4 ”, In other words faith ought
to be estimatively or appreciatively the greatest assent since
we place a higher value on the authority of God than on
every other motive of assent. Therefore no certitude can
truly withstand the certitude of faith ; there can be no conflict
between faith and reason unless it be some false appearance
of conflict due principal!}' " cither to the dogmas of faith not
having been understood and expounded according to the
mind of the Church, or to the inventions of opinion having
been taken for the verdicts of reason * ”.
1 But he who denies a proposition which he thinks has been revealed, although
it may not be revealed, is " affective " heretical, because he Is striving against
the authority of God, or the formal object of faith.
* Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, D. B., 1789, 1794.
* First Epistle of St. John, V, g.
* Ads of the Apostles, VIII, 37.
* Vatican Council, session III, chap. 4, D. B., 1797.

THE ACT OF FAITH

379

II.

231

THE OBSCURITY OF FAITH

A Theologians are in agreement in stating that :
1. faith is obscure (not evident) by reason of motive — the
authority of God revealing does not explain the intrinsic
reason of the matter revealed ;
2. faith cannot exist with the beatific vision — for the
blessed most clearly behold God and divine things;
3. the obscurity of faith is compatible with the perfect
evidence and clearness concerning the fact of revelation,
such as it was with the Blessed Virgin — for evidence of
this kind does not manifest the internal truth of the thing
revealed ;
4. faith is generally obscure by reason of its object because
the principal revealed truths are mysteries which are entirely
beyond the grasp of reason.

380 B Theologians are al variance, however, as to whether
the (material) object of faith is necessarily obscure, or, in other
words, whether truths, which are known by natural intrinsic
and perfect evidence as the existence of God, for example,
can at the same time be the object of faith. There are two
opinions.
I. St. Thomas1 and his school, and some of the principal
Scotists teach that one cannot make an act of faith at the same
time as one makes an act of manifest knowledge concerning
one and the same object under the same aspect. They maintain
this because :
a. according to St. Paul faith is " the argument (or certain
knowledge) of things that are not apparent ”
b. the act of faith is free (section 355) where as we are forced
to give assent to a truth that is evident.
381 We should note, however : first, that what one knows through
natural evidence can be believed by another who is less informed,
1 .Sww>«a theologica, 21, 2®, q. I, a. 4.
* St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, XI, t.

232

CHAPTER III

or could have been previously believed by the first person when
he was uninformed; secondly, that what one is aware of obscurely
rather than manifestly through knowledge, one can at the same
time believe through divine faith; and thirdly, that what is known
with persuasive evidence is confirmed, nevertheless, by divine
authority, upon which authority the mind in this particular
case doe’s not depend because of faith properly so called.
382 2. But Suarez, along with many theologians, especially those
of modem times, teaches that one can make an act of faith,
at the same time as he makes an act of knowledge, about the
same object. For :
a. St. Paul says : " he that cometh to God must believe that
he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him ”, these truths
are evident naturally;
b. in the Symbols and in the decrees of the Vatican Council
truths of this kind which are to be believed are set forth in the
same manner as those which are above and beyond reason .*
c. no repugnance is apparent in the fact that man assents to
an evident truth both because of its intrinsic clearness and because
of the authority of God.

CHAPTER III

THE HABIT OF FAITH
Under this heading we shall discuss the Infusion of Faith
and the Subject of Faith.
ARTICLE I.

THE INFUSION OF THE HABIT OF FAITH *

383 A The actual infusion of the habit of faith. The virtue
of faith is infused in justification at the same time with habitual
grace and the other virtues. This is certain from the Council
1 St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, XI, 6.
• The Roman Church believes and confesses that the true God is one...
Vatican Council, session III, chap, x, D. B., 1782.
* Summa theologica *2, 2» <]. 4 and 6.

THE HABIT OF FAITH

233

of Trent. “ Man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted,
receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins
all these infused at the same time, namely faith, hope and
charity1
In regard to adults, this has been evident, since
the twelfth century, from the unanimous consensus of theologians;
in regard to children, it has been evident since the explicit
declaration of the Council of Vienne (1311). Further, reason
argues for it. In the natural order God gives to man, in
addition to his nature, faculties which dispose him imme­
diately to act. Likewise, in the supernatural order, it is
appropriate that God, in addition to habitual grace, infuse
virtues, the proximate principles of salutary acts; among these
faith is eminent.

384 B The Nature of Faith.
1. Faith is the first beginning of the supernatural life
in the soul.

2.

Lifeless faith :

a. differs from formed or living faith, for it is not joined
to charity which is the extrinsic and accidental form of living
faith ;
b. it is a true virtue ;
c. it is not a perfect virtue since it does not produce
meritorious acts;
d. it is a virtue of the same species as formed faith.
385 3.

In comparison to the other virtues, faith :

a. is per se first in the order of generation because the
knowledge of a supernatural end through faith is prior to
the intention and election of the same end through other
virtues;

b. in the order of dignity faith is inferior to charity.
1 Session VI, chap. 7, D. B., 800.

234

CHAPTER ΙΠ

ARTICLE II.

THE SUBJECT OF FAITH 1

The question to be answered at this point is: In whom
does faith abide, among the living or among the dead.

386 A In regard to men who arc still wayfarers. No one
doubts that the habit of faith is present in the just and that
these can elicit acts of faith, since " without faith it is impossible
to please God 2*
Likewise it is not be controverted that
the infidels lack the habit of faith. A question quite naturally
arises which revolves about sinners and about heretics.
387 I. The habit of faith can remain in sinners, or, in other
words, faith is not lost by the loss of charity and of sanctifying
grace.
a. It is de fide from the Council of Trent, " If anyone says
that with the loss of grace through sin faith is also lost with
it, or that the faith which remains is not a tme faith, though
it is not a living one, let him be anathema * ”.
388 b. St. Paul and St. Janies clearly suppose this : “ If I
should have all faith so that I could remove mountains, and
have not charity, I am nothing4 " ; “ What shall it profit,
my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not
works * ”?
To be sure, Charity is not the intrinsic form of faith, but
onfy the extrinsic form, so that faith can really exist without
being united to charity and without working through charity.
c. Besides, habits are not weakened or destroyed except
through contrary acts which do away with their formal
object. But sin (unless it be the sin of heresy) is indeed of
itself contrary to charity, but it is not contrary to faith since
it does not oppose God's truthfulness.
1 Summa theologica, 2*, 2”, q. 5 and 6. Major Synopsis, n. 320-330.
* St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, XI 6.
* Council of Trent, session VI, can. 2$, D. B., 838.
4 St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, XIII, 2.
* Epistle of St. James, II, 14.

THE HABIT OF FAITH

235

389 2. The habit of faith is destroyed by the formal sin of heresy,
but not by the material sin of heresy.
a.

The first part of this statement is obvious :

1) from Scripture — Hymeneus and Alexander, because
of their denial of one article of faith, namely the resurrection
of the body, " have made shipwreck concerning the faith 1 ”,
or they have lost the faith,

2) from the Council of Trent which states that the faith
is lost through infidelity »,
3) from reason: whoever knowingly denies one revealed
truth, by that very fact rejects the authority of God revealing,
and so is able to believe nothing from this authority.

390 b. The second part of this statement (389) is evident :

1) from the unanimous agreement of theologians, for
example, of Suarez ’ who declares that our statement is
certain and beyond controversy;
2) from theological reasoning: it is not fitting that faith
be destroyed unless through a deliberate and obstinate
fault, which is opposed to the actual motive of faith; but
material heresy is not a mortal sin since it is incurred
unknowingly and not deliberately; nor does it in any way
deny the authority of God revealing.
3. Corollaries :
a. The omission alone, even if culpable, of the act of faith does
not take away faith, because it is not directly opposed to the
formal object "or motive of faith ;

391

b. no one can separate himself from the true faith once
received and from the Church without some fault, at least
1 St. Paul’s First Epistle to Timothy, I, 19; refer to St. Paul's Second Epistle
to Timothy, II, 17; IV, 14.
* Council 0/ Trent, session VI, chap. 15, D. B., 80S. Under the name of
infidelity is signified ever)· sin against faith.
* De Gratia, 1. XI, c. 7, n. 3-4.

236

CHAPTER III

the fault of imprudence »; but this fault is not always a mortal
sin, and it is not always against faith ; therefore it does not neces­
sarily expel the habit of faith. The Vatican Council has declared «
that those " who have received the faith under the magisterium
of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or
doubting that faith
But from the exposition of the theory
of some authors which was proposed to the Fathers of the Council,
it is clear that this opinion of some older theologians was not
condemned, namely : " per accidens and in certain definite cir­
cumstances, the conscience of an uneducated Catholic can be
so much drawn into invincible error that he may embrace some
heterodox sect without a formal sin against faith; in this hypo­
thesis he would not lose the faith ·.

392 B In regard to those who are in termino.
I. The Angels and the Blessed do not evoke an act of faith
properly called, not at least in regard to those things which
are clearly beheld in the Word. This is certain :
a. from the text of St. Paid4 in which it is shown that
faith, as something not perfect, is to be done away through
the beatific vision : " For we know in part, and we prophesy
in part; but when that which is perfect is come, that which
is in part shall be done away... we see now through a glass
in a dark manner; but then face to face ”,
b. front theological reasoning : The Angels and the Blessed
in heaven do not need anything further to believe because
of the authority of God which they see most clearly in the
divine essence.

393 2. The Souls detained in Purgatory retain the habit of
faith and they can make use of acts of faith, although not
meritorious acts of faith : they do not as yet enjoy the beatific
1 So, he is guilty of imprudence :
Who, instructed only slightly in religion, does not hesitate to mingle
frequently with non-Catholics and to listen to them;
2. Who reads magazines and books which attack the faith, and does not
have recourse to a well-informed priest when doubts arise contrary to faith.
* Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, D. B., 1794.
* Refer to Vacant, Etudes thM. sur les Constit. du C. du Vatican, t. II,
n. 731-737* St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, XIII, 9, 10, 12.

THE HABIT OF FAITH

237

vision and hence they continue to possess the habit of faith.
However, the acts of faith which they elicit are not meritorious
because the time of meriting is confined within the limits
of living in the world.
3. Devils and the damned cannot evoke an act of faith properly
called or supernatural because they are incapable of actual grace

394

and of devout desires and inclinations. They believe, never­
theless, and tremble, as St. Janies declares *, compelled by the
clear evidence of the credibility of God’s mysteries.

Second Section : Theology or the science of faith
395 After a few introductory notes concerning the relationship
between theology and faith, we shall inquire into the sources
of theology and the method of theology.

The relationship between theology and faith
396 Theology is a supernatural science which, by means of
revelation and of reason, treats of God and of creatures in
so far as they are related to God.

a. It is a true science, possessing :
1. certain principles, that is, revealed truths;
2. a scientific method, which is at the same time analytical
and synthetical ;
3. conclusions deduced and reduced to perfect unity by
reason of a material object, of a formal object, and of an end.
b. The character of this science is per se natural : for theologi­
is learned by means of man's efforts; by reason of its object,
of its enlightening excellence, and of adherence to it, theology
is also virtually supernatural.

397 c· Theology differs from faith: in the matter of origin,
of excellence, of object, of motive and of the manner in which
the object is attained.
1 Epistle of St. James, II, 19.
N° 642 (I) — 17

CHAPTER I

THE SOURCES

WHICH THEOLOGY EMPLOYS
*

398 Theology makes use of two sources of Revelation in a very
particular way (section 283 and following), namely, Tradition
and Scripture: for therein we find the dogmas which the
theologians must explain and prove. But since it deduces
conclusions from revealed truths, and by various analogies
illustrates these conclusions, with the help of philosophy,
of history, and of the natural sciences, there are three subsidiary
sources of theology : philosophy, history and certain natural
sciences.
I.

THE USE OF PHILOSOPHY IN THEOLOGY

399 Philosophy is distinguished from theology by reason of
its object and principle.
a. Philosophy is of great value to the theologians; this is
evident from the authority of St. Paul and of the Fathers
who made use of philosophy in explaining dogma.

b. In a four-fold way it is of service to theology :
I. It demonstrates the fundamentals of faith: faith supposes
three things, namety, the existence and truthfulness of God,
the necessity of some religion, and the truth of the Christian
* Major Synopsis, n. 339-359·

THE SOURCES WHICH THEOLOGY EMPLOYS

239

religion, consequently, the truth of the Catholic Church;
philosophy contributes considerably to a demonstration
of these points.

400 2. Philosophy offers some understanding of mysteries.
a. by setting forth more distinctly revealed truths with the
help of the laws of criticism and of hermeneutics, for example,
the mysteries of the Holy Trinity and of Transubstantiation ;
b. by illustrating the mysteries through analogies taken
from natural things ;
c. by comparing and integrating the mysteries in relation
to one another, for example, the mystery of the Trinity and
the mystery of the Incarnation.
3. Philosophy defends divinely handed down truths against
adversaries : this it can do very well by showing that opposing
theories are false or, at any rate, not essential.

401 4. Philosophy gives theology the nature and genius of true
science ; actually :
a. Under the direction of philosophy we prove dogmas
by arguments of authority explained in their own full force;
b.With the help of Logic we can deduce many conclusions
not only from revealed principles but also from natural
principles ;
c. By means of Logic and of Ontology, we coordinate
these conclusions and we collect them into one body, as it
were ;
d. Aided by the light of faith, reason discovers the
agreement between revealed dogmas and the principles of sound
philosophy; as a result our faith has been better explained.
402 The Rules Governing the Use of Philosophy in the Study of
Theology .

I. In order that philosophy may be in a position to produce
these effects, it must be employed :
a. prudently, in order to avoid examining matters greater
than itself and judging by itself truths of the supernatural order.

240

CHAPTER I

in order to avoid regarding unknown matters as known, and
uncertainties as certain tics, to avoid ascribing too much importance
to obscure, difficult, and unnecessary matters;
b. rightly, or according to the rule of faith and the rule of
continuing principles of common sense and of traditional meta­
physics, according to the rules of logic.
Under these conditions there will be no real dissension between
faith and reason. It at times there seems to be a contradiction,
this arises either from the fault of theologians who regard some­
thing as a matter of faith when it is not so, as in the well known
case of Galileo, or from the fault of philosophers or scientists who
present mere hypotheses as indubitable facts and inductions.
403 This manner of philosophizing wisely is acquired :
a. by reading over the works of St. Thomas Aquinas who
" by his accurate discussions and by the appropriateness of his
language is so outstanding that it would seem that he has left
to posterity a quality to imitate, that he has deprived posterity
of the power to surpass him ” ;**
b. by carefully accepting " whatever has been wisely stated,
whatever has been profitably discovered and thought out1 ”;
c. at the same time by avoiding ever}' philosophical system
which defends agnosticism, phenomenism or subjectivism : for
these systems destroy the foundations of faith as well as of reason.

II. THE USE OF HISTORY
IN THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

404 History is the scientific explanation of past events. It
benefits the theologian by bringing forward facts pertaining
to religion, or facts that are profane but which are associated
with religion, all of which facts contribute to proving or more
clearly explaining the Catholic religion.
A Profane History is useful :
1. for proving the need of religion (section 18 and following);
2. for showing the credibility of the Christian religion :
a. by confirming and making clear the facts related by the
sacred authors;

1 Leo XIII, Apostolic Letters on St. Thomas Aquinas Patron of Studies
August 4, 1880.
* Encyclical, Ætcmi Patris, éd. Desclée, p. xi2.

THE SOURCES WHICH THEOLOGY EMPLOYS

241

b. by the addition oi the new historical arguments;
c. by comparing the Christian religion with other religions
which flourished in the world or which are living even in our
day;
a. for confirming certain Christian dogmas, for example, the
fall of our first parents, the necessity of sacrifice and of the Re­
demption.

405 B Church History is of much greater benefit in as much
as it shows us what the Church was like in various times
and describes the origin of the Christian religion, its diffusion,
its power in restoring civil society, its indefectibility in
overcoming persecution, the progress of its dogmas, the causes,
the increase and the destruction of heresies, the customs
and practices of the faithful — from these, certain or, at
least probable, arguments can be deduced concerning particular
dogmas of faith. However, the rules of the art of criticism
must be carefully obeyed in order that genuine documents
may be distinguished from apocryphal ones, and in order
that the various testimonies of historians may be compared
and their authority be considered.

At this point we shall speak of a few documents in particular.
406 i. In treating of the Acts of the Martyrs, which should be
read in a critical edition *, the Martyrs are to be rightfully regarded
as witnesses to the faith in giving their responses to their judges.
407 2. On the subject of Sacred Archaeology or the science of
ancient things or of old memorials (records) with reference to
sacred things », we should bear in mind that all these records
or memorials (buildings, sculptured or painted images, mobilia
and materials (utensils), coins and inscriptions) often make a more
vivid impression on souls than do the written books because they
bring before their eyes the religious life of the ancient Christians,
and thus the faith of these Christians. Nevertheless, it is neces­
sary, for a better understanding of these memorials, to examine
1 Refer to Vacant, Did. de thiol.. Actes des Martyrs; H. Leclercq, in
Did. d'ArcMol. chrit. t. I, p. 373 and following.
• Refer to H. Leclercq, iWanwr/ d’archéologie chrétienne; Dow Cabrol,
Did. d'archéologie chrétienne.

242

CHAPTER 1

most of them and, also, to read what the Fathers have written
about them '.

408 3. The History of dogmas— The History of dogmas contributes
much to an understanding of theology. For there is a certain
progress in the explanation of the truths of faith (sections 384)
since truths which at first were set forth implicitly and obscurely
are manifested more explicitly and eloquently in the passing
of time, on the occasion of heresies or through the application
of philosophy to theology. Thus, it is most advantageous to
know this historical progress in order to understand better the
explanation of a dogma, and in order to refute more convincingly
the Rationalists, who maintain that Catholic dogmas, in the
manner of human systems, have come forth naturally and increas­
ed; to refute also the Protestants who assert that many of our
dogmas are rashly enlarged corruptions of apostolic doctrine.
409 4. Concerning the History of heresies — Heretics can be wit­
nesses to a belief in the Church in two ways : first, in regard to
the dogmas which they attacked—if they have been expelled
from the bosom of the Church because of some doctrine, by that
very fact we possess the irrefutable argument of the faith which
at "that time was commonly accepted; secondly, in regard
to the dogmas which the heretics retained — if, after their sepa­
ration from the Church we find heretics believing articles of faith
which are accepted by Catholics, then we possess a certain argu­
ment for that ancient faith and belief which were flourishing
in the Church before the heretics were expelled from it.

ITT.

THE USE OF THE NATURAL·

SCIENCES IN THEOLOGY

410 Three of the natural sciences are especially useful to the
theologian : geology, which is concerned with the origin and
antiquity of the world; biology, in as much as it describes
the origin, the evolution, and the nature of life; anthropology,
which treats, in a very special way, of those matters which
are related to man.
’ For example, the inscriptions which arc found in the Catacombs, after
having been gathered and considered and corroborated by the testimony of
the Fathers, clearly show that from the first centuries the Saints were invoked
by the faithful, that prayers were offered for the dead, and that, consequently,
a belief in the existence of Purgatory already existed.

THE SOURCES WHICH THEOLOGY EMPLOYS

243

Truly, not only are our cognoscitive powers sharpened and
improved by the study and employment of these sciences, but
also certain'dogmas of faith can be demonstrated by means of
these sciences, for example, the creation of matter, the unity
of the human race; in these sciences, also, we find comparisons
and analogies which can illustrate dogmas : for example, the
doctrine of the life of grace receives some clarification from those
matters which Biology propounds concerning natural life; too,
the attacks of natural philosophers against Catholic doctrine these
natural sciences help to check.
411 But that theology’ may correctly and forcefully make use of
these natural sciences, these rules should be observed :
1. In matters entirely scientific the sciences may employ
their own proper principles and their own proper method.

2. But in matters which are essentially connected with some
dogma, for example, if the unity of the human species is being
considered, which the Catholic doctrine about original sin neces­
sarily posits, then the theologian has the right of adducing argu­
ments from Scripture and from Tradition because the Church
is infallible in matters of this nature.
Nor should a scientific hypothesis which is purely probable be
preferred to a truth of the Catholic faith. In the matter of scien­
tific difficulties which are put forward by the opposition, it is expe­
dient, indeed, to solve these in a scientific manner, provided there
arc at hand truly solid arguments. But if these are wanting and
because of this the problem can not be properly decided at the
moment, it is better, indeed, to advance no reason than to put
forward a poor or worthless reason, or a false one.

3. While the theologian adapts scientific theories to the inter­
pretation of the Scriptures, he must be careful lest he associate
dogmas of faith so closely with these theories that the dogmas
become jeopardized if the scientific theories are rejected.

CHAPTER II

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD «

412 The method to be followed in theology is that which we
have called the positive-scholastic (section 2); in this method
the positive and historical explanation of dogmas is harmo­
niously united to the scholastic discussion of these dogmas.
To understand this method better, we must have some
knowledge of the following :
1. The explanation and demonstration of Catholic dogmas;
2. Theological conclusions which have been deduced from
revealed truths;
3. The systems devised by theologians for solving the
more difficult questions.

413 i. The Manner of Explaining and of Proving Catholic
Dogmas.
A A truth of the Catholic faith must be explained according
to the most recent definitions of the Church: for since there
is some progress in understanding dogmas, naturally the
clearer and fuller explanation is to be found in the most
recent definitions.
In order to understand these definitions correctly, it is important
to know the errors which stand in opposition/and to consult
the words of the adversaries and the acts of the Councils; it is
necessary, too, that the sense of the words be determined according
* Major Synopsis, n. 360-374.

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD

245

to the accepted meaning at the time of the definition and according
to the discussions and decisions of the Council Fathers and of
the later theologians.

B To prove dogma the authority of the Church is required,
proposing the dogma as divinely revealed by means of her
solemn or ordinary magisterium. But since the Church
does not set before us matters which must be believed unless
they are contained in the written word of God or in Tradition,
these must be brought forward and considered as evidences
and proofs from Scripture or from Tradition *.
414 i. In regard to biblical arguments — as many texts as pos­
sible should be brought forward, in chronological order, so that
the progress of revelation may be apparent; texts should be pro­
duced which contain the thesis in its literal sense ! or in a typical

sense which has been corroborated elsewhere.

415 2 In regard to arguments front Tradition — Here we must
carefully distinguish between documents which individually are
irreforntable, such as the Symbols of faith and the definitions of
Ecumenical Councils or 01 the Pontiffs, and those documents
which, taken singly, are subject to error, such as the decress of
particular Councils or the testimony of the Fathers. In the case
of the first documents, one clear testimony or evidence is sufficient
for the thesis to be de fide; however, in the case of the second
documents, those of the Fathers or of theologians, the evidences
must be so many and of such a nature that it becomes certainly
apparent that this matter in hand is a truth which has been
universally believed in the Church.
An argument from Tradition can be set forth in a two fold
manner, namely, by the descending way, that is, by showing the
evidences or testimony from the first centuries up until the time
at which the subject was defined by the Church; and the way of
regression or of going back, also called the way of prescription,
that is, by going back from the definition to former ages.
a. It is profitable to use the descending way as often as the
testimony of the first centuries is sufficient for establishing the
thesis in opposition to the adversaries. Thus it is obvious how,
on the occasion of heresies, the Fathers and the Councils gave
* Nevertheless it can happen that a certain revealed truth may be contained
only in the practice or in the mind of the Church.
1 Thus Summa theologica, x‘, 2*, q. 84, a. x, 2.

246

CHAPTER II

more explicit explanations of the Catholic faith, and in this way
a growth in doctrine is delineated. Similarly, confirmations from
the geographical order should be offered so that they may be mani­
fest as the professions of faith of the many Churches, African,
Syrian, Alexandrian, Roman, etc., or of the various schools —
and thus the professions of faith of the Universal Church. It
should lie noted that a theologian may use testimony or proofs
not only to demonstrate that something is de fide, but also to
confirm and illustrate the dogmas of our religion which are well
established : while the testimony of the Fathers may be insufficient
for fully setting down dogmas as certain, nevertheless it does
show, in opposition to the opinion of the Protestants, that these
evidences or testimonies are not recently invented corruptions.
Furthermore, in the works of the Fathers can be found many
comparisons, analogies, and reasons which arc of help in ex­
plaining dogmas more brilliantly and which, therefore, contribute
to the better instruction and edification of the faithful.

b. The way of regression or of prescription proceeds more
briefly and more forcefully, especially in the case of documents
of the first centuries which are so obscure that thev become clear
and certain only by the evidences or testimony of a subsequent
ago. For when the Church over many centuries has possessed a
certain dogma which was universally believed, then it can be
correctly inferred that such a dogma was truly spread abroad
by Christ Himself, to this extent that corruption of it is morally
impossible.

416 II. The Method to be Followed in Regard to Theologica
Conclusions.
A The truths of the Catholic faith, once explained and
proved, are, as it were, the principles from which theological
conclusions are elicited : to educe these and to set them in
logical order is the special work of theology which theology
must not neglect.
For :
1. It is not natural for man to remain satisfied with only an
explanation of dogmas, but rather to endeavor to extract the
conclusions from these dogmas by means of analysis and of
deduction.
2. The Fathers and the School men were outstanding in this
matter; many of them were most diligent in deducing theological
conclusions and thereby made a contribution to the Catholic
faith;

THE THEOLOGICAL METHOD

247

3. Once theological conclusions have been logically drawn
and logically coordinated, revealed dogmas are much better
understood, for these dogmas are not just the scattered members
of a body, but they form one body of doctrine.

417 B The Rules Which are to be followed in the matter of
theological conclusions.

I. Revealed truths must be regarded as unshaken principles ;
they are like one of the premises of a syllogism, the other
premise of which will be some truth which has been perceived
by natural reason.
For a conclusion to be certain it is necessary :

a. That the proposition which is naturally known be certain:
b. That the illation itself, by reason of which the conclusion
is drawn, be genuine and in accord with the rules of logic.

418 2. It is not sufficient merely to elicit these theological
conclusions; it is necessary to explain them accurately :
a. By attentively reading the works of the Fathers and
of the Doctors, and by bringing together those explanations
which arc united among themselves and with other revealed
truths by some common principle of relationship;
b. By making use of the principles of Christian philosophy,
ancient and modem.

419 3. Finally, it is necessary to arrange the various conclusions
and also the truths of faith so logically that they constitute
one body of doctrine.
420 III. The Method to Be Followed in Explaining Systems.
In addition to fixed or certain conclusions there are, also,
systems or schools which are diverse and sometimes opposed
to one another — for example, Thomism and Molinism.

Actually these came into existence from the imperfection
of our mind, which does not adequately comprehend the whole

248

CHAPTER II

truth, especially where divine matters arc involved, and
which desires to know many, many things. A two-fold excess
is to be avoided here :

A The excess of those who, after briefly explaining the
truths of the Catholic faith and fixed conclusions, spend
the greatest amount of time in the study of systems. Many
theologians in the 14th and 15th centuries so busied
themselves;
B The excess of others, who, judging all systems as useless,
ignore them completel}' or spend less time than is right in
explaining them.
421 The particular systems of schools should, therefore, be explain­
ed accurately, although briefly :
1. In this way we shall better understand how far Catholic
truth extends, also what is certain, what is controverted;
2. Errors will be avoided more effectively : for example, Thomism, opposed by the Violinists, more safely evades Jansenism;
likewise Molinism, assailed by the Thomiste, is more securely
protected from Pelagianism;
3. We gain a clearer knowledge of dogmas : for example, by
considering the arguments of the Thomiste and of the Violinists
we obtain a more accurate idea about the supreme dominion of
God and His supreme and universal causality, and about the
exercize of human^liberty.

TRACT VII

ONE GOD

I believe in God.
We have finished with the preambles to faith and have
explained the act of faith. Consequently our next topic
is the existence, the nature and the operations (workings)
of God ».

CHAPTER I

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

We shall discuss :
1. The demonstrability of God’s existence;
2. The arguments by means of which God’s existence is
proved;
3. The divine names.
1 Vatican Council, sessioa III; D. B., 1782 and following, xSox and following.
Summa theologica I, q. 1-16; Contra Gentiles, book 1; R. Garrigou-Lagrangb,
Dieu, son existence et sa nature.

250

I.

422

CHAPTER I

THE DEMONSTRABILITY OF GOD’S EXISTENCE**

Errors.

1. Some think that God’s existence needs no proof : thus
St. Anselm, Descartes, and the Ontologists. Others, on the
other hand, teach that this existence cannot be proved by
reason : among these are the Empiricists, Kant, the Modernists
and the Traditionalists.

2. The Empiricists profess that our knowledge is limited
to phenomena and that it cannot rise up to ontological cause,
God. Similarly teach the Positivists and the Agnostics.
423 3. Kant, indeed, maintains that the principle of causality
is necessary, but he claims this necessity from the constitution
of our mind; and thus, along with the Empiricists, ho denies
to his principle and likewise to all concepts all ontological force.
For this reason the metaphysical proof tor the existence of God
is a mere illusion. However, the existence of God is proved,
but it is proved by a moral argument : without God, he states,
there would exist no moral obligation, nor could virtue be
rewarded by perfect happiness in another life. Therefore, the
existence of God is posited and required as the foundation of
morals, and we admit His existence the more firmly, the more
correctly we live ’.

424 4. According to the Modernists, who philosophize after
the manner of the Empiricists and also of Kant, the human reason,
incapable of going beyond phenomena, cannot rise up from
creatures to recognizing the existence of God : wherefore, God
is not the object of science, but of feeling (sentiment) only, and so
does not exist, adds the Modernist entirely as the philosopher,
unless in the soul of the one believing ». Truly the believing
Modernist admits that God exists even in Himself, indepen­
dently of the soul that feels and affirms; and of this existence
he declares himself most certain from individual experience,
from the heart’s intuition through which the reality of God is
immediately arrived at.
‘ Major Synopsis, n. 391-404.
* Did. Apol., 976-977.
* Montagne, O. P., L’idée de Dieu et la psychologie du subconscient, in
Revue thomiste, 191a, p. 289 and following

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

251

But those who exclusively use the method of immanence
deny to reason all power of reaching God; whence they despise
as mere dialectical subtleties the arguments of the Scholastics
and of traditional philosophy, such as are expounded by Plato,
by St. Thomas and by Leibnitz.
425 5· The stricter Traditionalists or Fideists contended that
knowledge of supra-sensible truths and, in particular, of the
existence of God is founded immediately on social authority
and ultimately on divine revelation : thus Lamennais and Bau­
tain
But the more moderate Traditionalists said that social magis­
terium is a required condition for receiving, first of all, a clear
and certain knowledge of God’s existence, but that afterwards
this truth can be proved by reason alone — thus Ventura,

Bonnetty *, Ubaghs, Laforét *.

Thesis I
426 The existence of God is not a truth which of itself we know,
but it is a truth which needs proof. This fact is certain from
philosophical arguments; it can be proved from theology.
A The Holy Office declared that the ontological teaching
concerning the immediate knowledge of God cannot be safely
taught, and condemned Rosmini’s error relative to the
immediate manifestation of God in creatures *. The Encyclical
Pascendi condemned the assertion of the Modernists that
God’s existence is immediately perceived by means of a religious
sense 8.

B The arguments of St. Anselm, and of Descartes arc not
conclusive. In the first, the transition from the ideal order
to the real order is illogical, and the second theory falsely
presumes that the idea of an infinite God is innate in us.
1 D. B., 1622, x6i7·
* D. B., 1649, 1651.
’ D. T. C., under the heading God, IV, 808-809.
4 D. B., 1659, 1891-1695.
‘ D. B., 2081-2062.

252

CHAPTER I

427 C Ontologism, contending that in this life the human
mind can naturally see God by direct vision, cannot be admitted
— it is opposed to Scripture, to Tradition, and to experience :
1.

To Scripture:

a. Scripture shows God an immortal and invisible King
who dwells in light inaccesible, whom no man has seen, whom
no one can seel. But these words are general and exclude
vision not only through the eyes, but also through the intellect ;
the reason for this statement is the very eminence of divine
nature which is completely inaccesible to all men.

b. Scripture also states that only God beholds Himself,
so that no one can know Him as He is in Himself unless
through supernatural revelation : " No man hath seen God
at any time, the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him 2 ” : in these words the
natural sight of God is excluded.
2. Ontologism is opposed to tradition : From the declaration
of the Holy Office (September 18, 1861) the following ontological
proposition cannot lie taught or held : " The immediate knowledge
of God, at least habitual knowledge, is so essential to the human
intellect that without this knowledge nothing can be known :
indeed it is intellectual light itself ·'.*
3. Ontologism is opposed to reason : knowledge is according to
the manner of the one knowing; but man is a spirit united to a
material body. Therefore, he is not only naturally incapable
of knowing God as He is in Himself, he is even unequal to contem­
plating a pure created spirit in its own nature. For the rest,
every creature, even the most perfect, is naturally incapable
of knowing the divine essence immediately which is the subsisting
esse itself : a creature essentially is a coalescing of essence and of
esse which are really distinct." Wherefore, Ontologism is very
dangerous because it "can lead to naturalism and to pantheism.

1 First Epistle to Timothy, I, 17; VI, 15-16.
* St. John, I, 18; refer to St. John, VI, 46; to St. Mattium, XI, 27.
* D. B., 1659; refer to 1891 and the following where the condemned
propositions of Resmini are found.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

253

Second Thesis
428 The existence of God can certainly be known and proved
by the natural light of human reason through those things which
have been made. This thesis is de fide according to the Vatican
Council1 : " If anyone shall say that the One true God, our
Creator and Lord, cannot be certainly known by the natural
light of human reason through created things, let him be
anathema
Furthermore in the Oath prescribed by Pius X,
September 1, 1910, there is this declaration that God “ can
of a certainty be known and moreover can be demonstrated
even
A The Book of Wisdom 2 states that they arc vain, that
is fatuous, (Greek, μάταιοι), who have no knowledge of God
and who could not understand him, that is His existence,
from His works.

429 B St. Paul3 similarly teaches that the Gentiles, who
were lacking the light of revelation, recognized and ac­
knowledged God from those things which have been made
{natural and deductive knowledge) : “ For the invisible things
of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made; his eternal power
also, and divinity: so that they arc inexcusable because,
when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God
The definition of the Vatican Council is directed against those
who claim that God’s existence is proved by no firm arguments,
and that, therefore, God’s existence is not known with certainty.
This definition directly affects not only the Empiricists, the
Kaniians, and the Modernists, but also the Fidcists, who have
taught that certitude about God's existence can be had only
through faith 4.
» D. B., x8o6.
* Book of Wisdom, XIII, 5.
1 51. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, I, 19-21.
4 Summa theologica, I, q. 2, a. r.
N· 642 (I) — 18

254

CHAPTER I

430 Natural and analogical knowledge of God. — In our present
life God is known indirectly and analogically in the threefold
way of causality, of removal and of excellence.

God is known :
1. Indirectly, that is, not in Himself and not through
Himself, but in creatures (creation) and from creatures ;
2. Analogically, that is, through the ideas which bring
Him before us neither univocally nor equivocally, but according
to positive approximation or proportion.
A

B This knowledge of God is attained in a threefold manner
or way :

1. The way of causality — by nature there is implanted
in us that quality whereby, when we see a certain effect,
we begin to investigate its cause. Therefore, on beholding
the world, we conclude that there is some first cause which
has created it; furthermore, from our knowledge of the
perfections which creatures possess we are able to know
something about the nature and -perfection of the cause from
which creatures’ perfections proceed, just as from examining
a picture we rightly draw conclusions about some of the
painter’s qualitiesl.
2. The way of removal, of exclusion, of negation, since
by force of the principle, the Cause is more powerful than
the effect, we remove all the imperfections of creatures from
God; and thus we say that God is infinite, or that He is
determined by no limits; that He is simple that is, that He
excludes all composition and change *
*, etc. In these negations
are included the truest perfections.
3. The way of excellence — Whatever perfection is in
creatures, indeed, whatever is absolute perfection, this we
attribute in a more eminent degree, to the Creator as to the
First Cause and thence to Pure Act: thus, for instance,
because in creatures there is essence, wisdom and power,
1 st. Paul’s EpisiU to the Romans, I, 20; Book of JFtsdom XIII, 5.
* The EpisiU of St. James, I, 17.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

255

we affirm that God is super-essence, super-wisdom and
omnipotent. We affirm, further, that in God are all the
perfections which the concept of a First Cause demands.
Let us realize that these three ways of knowing God should
be used together so that wo may know as well as possible not only
His existence but also His essence and His perfection.
431 C In what sense do we know God analogically?

I. The ideas and concepts which are applied to God are
transcendental, not indeed in the Kantian sensex, but in the
scholastic sense. To be sure, a certain idea is transcendental
without ceasing for that reason to be objective, (as Kant
incorrectly maintained), when it transcends the limits not
only of a determined species but also of any genus or class,
even of the supreme genus, and thus is found proportionally
only in any genus.
There are only six transcendentals properly so called :
being, thing, one, something, good and true. But, besides,
there are metaphysical concepts namely of cause, of the intellect,
of the will, which, while not transcendentals properly (since
they are not found in all classes), are defined, nevertheless,
through an immediate relation to one of the transcendentals :
cause in respect to being of which it is the author or the
effecter, the intellect in respect to the true which it knows,
the will in respect to the good which it desires. These ideas,
thus considered, -participate in the transcendence of being,
of the true, of the good, and thus can be applied to Him
who transcends all creation. For why w'ould the notion of
being, which of itself includes no limit, not be applied to
a being which is free from all potentiality, and consequently
why would the notion of intellect not be applied to an intellect
which is made equal to, and is identified with, this most
actual and real being? Thus, in turn, in regard to the
remaining ideas which are absolutely or respectively
transcendental.
1 According to Kant seeking or inquiring is transcendental which is directed
not toward objects but toward our manner of knowing these objects (Critique
de la raison pure, Introduction, 2, 7).

256

CHAPTER I

432 i. But how can these ideas be applied to God? Not univocally
indeed, since God is not in the same genus as is man; and
not merely equivocally, but analogically, in as much as that
proportion exists by which one is related to another as to
the principal. Transcendental notions or ideas are in God
absolutely, formally-emincntly. Therefore, our knowledge
of God is not adequate nor is it merely negative; but it is
inadequate, positive and formal x.
II.

ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD’

433 Among the many arguments some are called physical,
others moral, and others metaphysical.
The first arc taken from concrete facts which are observed
in the world; they are taken especially from the order which
is apparent in the world and which denotes an author who
possesses the greatest prudence; and they are taken from
the beginning of life which cannot be ascribed to the forces
of nature alone but are ascribed to a supreme vital principle
which we call God. By these arguments we prove that God
exists as a Being relatively supreme, distinct from the world
and having sway over it ; but not as a being infinitely perfect
unless we add the metaphysical proofs.
1 St. Thomas, I, q. 12, a. 12; Contra Gentiles, Book III, c. 49; in 1 Sent,
dist. 35 q. i, a. 1. From this we understand that the Agnostics are completely
deceived when they state that the First Cause cannot be known by us; he
cannot be comprehended indeed, or perfectly and adequately understood;
but from what has been said and from what is to be said it is manifest that
the First Cause can be known in such a way that It can be distinguished from
any other being, and that it is perceptible, that It is supremely intelligent, and
that It possesses in an eminent degree whatever perfection shines out in
creatures — You will find a confutation of Agnosticism in Essays on Theism,
G. W. Ward; Agnosticism and Religion, G. J. Lucas, Baltimore, 1895; D. A.,
a. Agnosticisme, A. (TA Us.
8St. Thomas, I, q. 2, a. 3; Contra Gentiles, Book I, c. 13, 15,16, 44; Book II,
C. 15; Book III, c. 44; De Veritate, q. 52, a. 2; De Potentia, q. 3, a. 5 ; Compendium
theologica, c. 3; Physic. Book VII, lect. 2; book VIII, lect. 9 and following;
Metaphys., book XII, lect. 5 and following; R. GarriG0V-La Grangk in
in D. A., Dieu; Major Synopsis, 405-413.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

257

The second arguments, the moral arguments, are taken
either from the consensus of all people who acknowledge
and worship a Supreme Being, or from the necessity of the
moral law which supposes a supreme legislator to whom all
men are subject; we have used these proofs for demonstrating
the need of religion (sections 17-29).
However, arguments of this kind need to be made complete
by metaphysical proofs in order to have scientific force. These
proofs we shall enlarge upon brieflyx.
The metaphysical arguments (third classification), according
to St. Thomas, are selected from the things of the world
viewed in a five fold way: from moveable things we ascend
to the first immoveable Mover ; from efficient causes we ascend
to the first efficient Cause; from contingent beings, to a necessary
Being; from things more or less perfect we ascend to a Being
supremely perfect; from things ordered to a supreme Orderer
or Director.
FIRST ARGUMENT

THE ARGUMENT FROM MOTION *

434 Motion is either a change in space, or any passing from
power to act, in the corporeal and in the spiritual3. Whence,
it is certain that some things in this world are moved. But
this motion supposes a first immoveable mover ; for all that
is moved is moved by another ; and further, it is not possible
to proceed into infinity in the matter of those moving and of
those moved; Therefore, there is a first immoveable mover.
PROOF, by parts
a. It is certain that some things are moved : from experience
it is obvious that there are motions, not only local (of place or
of space), but also qualitative motions, such as motion or move­
ment to health to knowledge, to virtue, and quantitative motions,
‘ It is apparent to one considering this matter attentively that these physical
and moral arguments fall back on the metaphysical arguments.
1 Refer to Sr. Thomas, Physic., book II, lect. x and 2; book VIII, lect. 9,
X2, X3, 23.
* Refer to St. Thomas, Prima Primæ, q. 9, a. 4; q. 79, a. 4; q. 82, a. 4;
q· 105, a. 5.

258

CHAPTER I

such as the motion of growth in plants and in animals, and subs­
tantial motions, such as generation and corruption of bodies.
b. All that is moved is moved by another. This is evident to

anyone who thinks about the nature of motion or the nature of
becoming. For :
1. motion is the successive union of diverse things : for example,
what is here, afterwards is there (local motion), white becomes
black, the intellect that knows nothing gradually acquires know­
ledge (qualitative motion). But motion of this kind does not
possess within itself its own reason of being : otherwise elements.
of themselves different, would be at the same time something
of themselves one, and so the principle of identity would be des­
troyed.
2. Since motion is the passing or transition of a thing from
potency to act, it demands an extrinsic reason of being by which
this is put into action and determined or limited. For it is repu­
gnant that one and the same thing at the same under the same
respect be in potency as it is in act, or that it be the thing moved
and the thing moving. Thus, if it is set in motion, it is set in
motion by another.
c. It is not possible to proceed into infinity in the matter of those
moving and of those moved ; or, in other words, it is not possible
to go back into infinity through a series of movers which are
actually and essentially subordinate. It is repugnant for motion
to have its own sufficient reason in a series, even an infinite
scries of movers which themselves were being moved. For if
all movers receive an influx or impouring which they transmit,
so that the mover is giving only the motion which it has received,
then there never is motion. '1 hus a clock, even with an infinite
number of wheels, will not lie moved without a machine which
causes motion.
d. Therefore, we must reach a first mover immoveable because
of that immoveability of act which does not demand becoming
because it already is — or we must arrive at the mover who acts
through himself and who is consequently through himself, who
is pure act and Esse or Existence itself.
SECOND ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT FROM
THE ORDER OF EFFICIENT CAUSES 1

435
ihe world we find efficient causes each in turn subordinate
to one another, for example, all the subordinate cosmic influences
1 Refer to St. Thomas, I, q. 104, a. 1 and 2, wherein this argument is given
an excellent explanation.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

259

which are necessary for the production and conservation
of a plant, of an animal, such as generation, chemical activity
of air and of food. But such causes suppose a first uncaused
cause. For on the one hand, it is impossible that a cause
of this kind be efficient of itself because it would then be
prior to itself; on the other hand a series of such causes is
insufficient either in a straight line or in a circular line.
For in a straight line, even extended into infinity, a first cause
is required which is uncaused; in efficient causes in order, the
first is the cause of the middle and the middle is the cause of
the last, so much so that if the first cause should be removed, by
that very fact the intermediary causes and effects are removed.
But in the hypothesis of a circular line, two beings would be
mutually cause and effect to each other at the same time. For
example, take a circle consisting of four beings, a, b, c, d; a im­
mediately produces b ; b generates c, and c generates d ; therefore
a remotely produces d ; further, d would generate a in this circle,
and then d at the same time would be generating a and would
be generated by a : this is contradictory. Therefore the minor
premise stands.

Consequently, outside of a series of efficient causes, a first
cause must be admitted which has no cause — or the uncaused
cause must be admitted. But the cause that is uncaused
by that very fact has its esse or existence through itself, is
Existence itself and pure act : this is rightly God.

THIRD ARGUMENT

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE EXISTENCE

OF CONTINGENT BEINGS

436 We find in things certain qualities which are contingent,
that is, which can be or not be. a. According to science,
there was a time in which there were not in this world rational
creatures, animals or plants, a time in which heavenly bodies
did not exist such as they now arc but only in a nebulous
state; b. Further, every day living things cease to be, and
hence there are many beings which can be or not be, or can
be in this or in another mode.

260

CHAPTER I

Bui these contingent beings, which do not have in themselves
sufficient reason for their own existence, presuppose a necessary­
being which exists of itself, But :
1. This necessary- being is not a collection of contingent
beings, because a multiplication of contingent beings, into
infinity even, leaves them in their own contingency;
2. This necessary being is not an intrinsic law of contingent
beings because the law itself is also contingent and presupposes
a legislator;
3. This necessary being is not a certain becoming which
is connected with phenomena, as Bergson and Le Roy wish,
since the becoming, as something imperfect, does not have
within itself the reason for the esse or the act of existence
by which it is perfected. — But this necessary being is a Being
separated from contingency, of its very nature necessary,
existing by itself and going to exist forever : this we call God .*
FOURTH ARGUMENT

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE GRADES

OF PERFECTION IN BEINGS

Here we are considering perfections which beings take
on more or less : for example, truth, goodness. In things we
find something more or less good, true, and noble. Thus in a
different degree a stone, a tree, a horse, a man have the quality
of goodness; thus through various grades of excellence life
grows in a plant, in a beast, in a man.
But these various grades of perfections prove the existence
of some being who is supremely perfect, from whom imperfect
beings receive their own limited degree of perfection.

For we use the words more and less to refer to various things in
so far as they approach, in different ways, to something which
is supremely perfect; for example, that which is only partially
good we call thus because it is a limited participation in supreme
goodness. Therefore, because it is less or inferior in sharing
in a certain perfection, it has this perfection from another. But
this other either is of infinite perfection, or not. If it is of infinite
* Garrigou-Lagrange, in D. A., a. God, col. 1042-1043·

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

261

perfection, then we have proved our point; but if it is not of
infinite perfection, this other, enjoying limited perfection, has
received its goodness from another,’ and so it goes successively
even until we reach a Being infinitely perfect, which imparts
various grades of perfection to others. Therefore a Being supre­
mely and infinitely perfeci exists >.
FIFTH ARGUMENT

THE ARGUMENT FROM THE DIRECTOR

OR DESIGNER OF THINGS

437 If we now look at the order in the world, we see that natural
bodies, which lack knowledge, work for an end or purpose.
But this cannot happen unless they are directed by some supreme
intellect which is distinct from the world, and which rightly
is called God.
In the world various sciences demonstrate the clearest ordering
of means to an end. If we carefully consider any living thing,
we observe the greatest knowledge or wisdom : in the evolution
of the egg which virtually contains the whole organism, or in
the organs which are most fittingly adapted to the many functions
according to the diverse species of living things. All of this shines
forth brilliantly in the case of man ; in his eyes for seeing, in his
hands for touching and for practicing the many arts, in his feet
for walking, etc.

Proof of the minor in the syllogism (437). Bui this ordered
disposition of means to an end is an argument for the existence
of a being who is over and above this world and who is supremely
intelligent. For this ordering proceeds either by chance, or from

438

nature, or from a being who is above the world and who is supre­
mely intelligent. But the first two possibilities are contradictions :
i. the first because it cannot happen by chance that elements
lacking knowledge should nearly always be directed toward an
end and should attain this end by proportionate means;
1 This proof St. Thomas applies to the intellect (I, q. 79, a. 4); to truth
(Contra Gentiles, book II, c. 84); to what is good {I-II, q. 2, a. 7, 8); to the
natural law (I-II, q. 91, a. 2). The force of this argument lies in this that the
more or less perfect, as something mixed with potentiality docs not have in
itself the reason for its own existence, but finally and necessarily has this reason
for existence in another who is supremely and infinitely perfect. But if this
other, this first one, were himself in potentiality mixed, even to the smallest
degree, then he would have necessarily someone first, above and beyond
himself — this would be a contradiction. For it is inconsistent that there be
potentiality without an act which can move it into action.

262

CHAPTER I

2. the second is repugnant: under the name of nature are
designated :
a. either the entire aggregate of beings which lack intellect;
but it is impossible that things, of themselves diverse and inert,
be directed of themselves to a unity of order in an habitual and
stable manner;
b. or an intelligent cause which is within this world, namely
man ; but it is impossible that man be the cause of the order of
the universe because many beings were already in existence
and in order before man came into existence, and because man
has scarcely any knowledge of the order and intimate structure
of the parts of a flea and of a gnat — as St. Augustine states ven’
well ,*

It remains as a fact, therefore, that there is a Being, outside
and above the world, supremely intelligent, who directs
other beings toward their end a.
439 In regard to Atheists :
1. There cannot bo, unless by chance for a brief time, theoretical
negative Atheists, that is, men who invincibly and unculpably
have no knowledge of God, because those who are upright of
heart easily enough recognize and acknowledge that some Supreme
Being exists.
2. There can be, at least for a time, men who arc theoretical
positive Atheists, that is, men whose reason, deformed by sophisms,
denies or doubts that there is a God.
3. But sad experience often enough teaches that there are
practical Atheists, namely those who have no concern about
glorifying and serving God.
III.

THE DIVINE NAMES

440 We shall discuss briefly the names which are used in
Scripture, in the Old and in the New Testaments, to designate
God.
1 Enarrat, in Psalm, 148, n. 10; P. L., XXXVII, 1944.
' In a simpler form these arguments are found in Monsabré and others.
We have explained them in a more scientific manner in order that they may
be better examined and understood, and in order that priests may more
easily teach them to others, even to the educated.
» Summa theologica, I, q. 13.

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

263

A In the Old Testament.
1. El — sometimes, but rarely, used in the plural form,
Elim, it is predicated of the one and true God >, and of the
false deities 8 and analogically of angels and perchance of
magistrates, in as much as they share divine authority3.
Probably it means “ he who is powerful ”.
According to many Elohah signifies the same; in the plural
form, Elohim, it often designates the true God. El — Elyôn
has the same significance as the Most High ; El-Shaddai indicates
The Omnipotent.
2. Jahweh or Yahweh (formerly the name was Jehovah)
having its derivation from the simple form of the root hawat,
it signifies him who causes to be perpetually; or, according
to some, esse itself, in keeping with the words addressed to
Moses : “ I am who am ** ”. This is the name which is proper
to God and which is incommunicable, which is never predicated
of creatures.
3. Yahweh élohé Sabaoth, which in the Vulgate is translated
the Lord of hosts, means God, the Lord of the camps of Israel
and, in the time of the Prophets, the Lord of heavenly bodies
and of angels; therefore it means the Omnipotent.
4. Adonai, or Lord, imports the supremo dominion of
God.

441 Thus God is shown as powerful and steadfast, the Most
High, in the unity of essence enjoying manifold power and
virtue, Omnipotent Being simply, and the cause of other beings,
the Lord who rules the world, who presides over the hosts,
who governs heavenly bodies and who has angels as His
assistants. The theology of the Jews, consequently, completely
transcends the pagan mythologies.
B In the New Testament God is shown particularly as a
Father towards men; and also as King, as Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and end of all things, endowed with the attributes
already revealed in the Old Testament.
1 Deuteronomy, IV, 39. — * Exodus, XXII, 20.
• Exodus, XXII, 8, Psalms, VIII, 6, XCVI, 7.
* Exodus, III, 14-15·

CHAPTER II

THE NATURE
AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

After proving the existence of God, we must next examine
God’s nature or essence, and His properties or attributes.
ARTICLE I.

GOD'S NATURE OR ESSENCE

442 A The Catholic Teaching on the nature of God. The
Vatican Council explains it thus : The Church “ believes and
confesses that there is one tme and living God... Almighty,
Eternal, Immense, Incomprehensible, Infinite in intelligence,
in will, and in all ■perfection; who, as being one, sole, absolutely
simple and immutable spiritual substance, is to be declared
as really and essentially distinct from the world1
The Council condemns all forms of pantheism : of emanation,
of evolution, of determination of undetermined being 2.
Pius X reprobated the symbolism and the immanentism
of the Modernists who were denying the personality of God
or changing it.
443 B The Scholastic Doctrine on what constitutes the divine
essence.
Thesis : The divine essence is made up of that which is subsistens
esse itself.
I. From Scripture this is inferred wherein God is shown
giving to Himself the name Yahweh (Who is), and further
1 Vatican Council, session III, chap. 1, D. B., 1782; Major Synopsis, 418-428.
* Vatican Council, session III, can. 4, D. B., 1804.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

265

defining Himself : " I am who am1 ” as if He were saying :
" I am He whose essence is esse or Existence
2. The Fathers and theologians agree that the name (Who
is) is proper to God because it was given by God Himself
and because it better designates the divine essence.

444 3.

Reason proves this thesis :

a. Actually by deducing the attributes of God from the
subsistens esse.

From the very fact that He is subsistens Esse :
1. God is entirely simple: because He is form itself and
indeed most formal form, or esse, He contains no potentiality;
but composite parts are something material and therefore
potentially relative to the whole;
2. He is universally perfect : because He is self-subsistent
Existence and contains within Himself the total perfection of
being, and consequently contains all perfections.
3. He is the summum bonum simply and singly not only
in some class or order of things : for all being is good so far
as it is in act and is complete ; but God is A bsolute Being or
esse itself and the cumulus or sum of all perfections; and
thus in turn concerning infinity, immutability, eternity, unity,
intelligence, omnipotence, beatitude. (Refer to Major Synopsis
n. 423.)
445

b.

By shewing that other systems are inadequate.

i. The divine essence docs not consist in :
a. Infinity, radical or actual (contrary to the Scotists
and the Nominalists); for infinity is the mode of a being
already constituted;
b. Nor in freedom, for that presupposes that what under­
stands and is understood exists;
Exodus ,111, 14·

266

CHAPTER II

c. Nor in substantial and actual infinite intellectuality
(contrary to Suarez *), because intellectuality is not perceived
first in God, but is apprehended as a property proceeding
from essence; also, it is not the reason of the other attributes.

446 Corollary. From what has been stated we conclude that
Pantheism is incompatible : from God who is purest and simplest
act nothing can properly emanate forth to outside; and in
God, eternally and essentially the most perfect possible, no
evolution can be found.
ARTICLE II.

I.

THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES

THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN GENERAL

I. The Concept and Kinds of attributes.
The attributes of God are perfections which are perceived
to follow the divine essence. They can be divided in a threefold
manner :

447

a. Into negative attributes, through which imperfections
are removed from God ; for example, simplicity, immensity, etc;
and into affirmative or positive attributes, by means of which
perfections are predicated of God; for example, wisdom,
love, etc.

b. Into absolute attributes, which are appropriate to God
or belong to God as He is looked at in Himself; for example,
simplicity and eternity; and into relative attributes which
imply a reference or relation between Himself and other
beings; examples, creation, providence, etc;
c. Into quiescent attributes, which express the manner
in which God is, as infinity, eternity; and into active which
show His manner of working.
448 2. God’s attributes Distinguished from His Essence and
also Distinguished among Themselves.
1 Suarez, Dc Dco Uno, I, 5.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

267

Gilbert Porretanus, who died in 115^, and the Abbot Joachim,
who died in 1202, said this distinction is a real distinction.
Porretanus was condemned by the Council of Rheims, in 1148,
and Joachim by the Fourth council of Lateran in 1215. The
Scotists affirm that the divine attributes are formally 1* distin­
guished from essence and among themselves. Against these the
following statement is laid down :
a. It is certain that the divine attributes really differ neither
front the essence nor among themselves. For :

1. In the Sacred Writings the divine essence and the divine
attributes are mutually predicated in the abstract of one
another : “ I Wisdom dwell in counsel
“ God is light...
God is charity ’ ” ; " I am the way, the truth and the life 4*
But if there were a real distinction between divine essence
and divine attributes, they could not be predicated of one
another reciprocally; nor could they be made to be the same.

2. Blessed Eugene III, at the Council of Rheims, condemned
the error of Gilbert in these words8 : " We believe and we
confess that the simple nature of divinity is God, and that
1 A real distinction is that which exists between one thing and another;
it is divided into real major which is present between substance and substance,
or between substance and accident or between accidents oi the same substance,
and real minor, which exists between a thing and its mode, for example, between
a line and the curve of the same line. A logical distinction is that which
exists among various concepts of the same thing : if the fundamentum or
foundation is in the thing itself for the purpose of distinguishing those different
concepts, the distinction will be virtual or a distinction of reason reasoned;
thus, for example the human soul, although one really, can be called three
fold virtually since it truly is at the same time rational, sensitive and vegetative;
but if there is no fundamentum in re, the distinction is merely logical, or a
distinction of reason, such as, for example, exists between man and rational
animal : for really there is no difference between man and rational animal.
These points are commonly admitted; but Scotus thought out another
distinction which he calls formal from the nature of the thing, as it were, something
between a real distinction and a distinction of reason : so, according to him
" thisnets ” (the principle of individuation, of individual existence) is distin­
guished from matter, from form, from the compositum just as " another
positive entity ”, " the ultimate reality of being ”. Refer to Gonzalez,
History of Philosophy, vol. II, p. 266-267.
* Proverbs, VIII, 12.
* First Epistle of St. John, I, 5 ; IV’, 8.
* Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 6.
* Labbe, Councils, vol. 10, p. xro8.

268

CHAPTER II

it cannot be denied in any Catholic sense that Divinity is
God, and God is Divinity

449 b. It is commonly maintained that the divine attributes
are virtually distinguished from the divine essence and are
virtually distinguished among themselves. In the Scriptures
God is shown adorned with diverse attributes, actually with
attributes which are, as it were, opposite : He is called just
and merciful, forgiving and punishing1 etc. This can be
explained only through admitting some distinction. However,
this distinction is not real, as we have already shown; it is
not nominal, as Ockham and Gregory Ariminensis claimed,
because the divine names make known diverse reasons and
thence without cause are considered to be synonyms. The
distinction, therefore, is a distinction of reason reasoned
or a virtual distinction, or a distinction induced by our reason
with a fundamentum in re. Because of its infinity the divine
nature possesses all the perfections which arc found separately
in creatures.
It is true that the Scotists admit a distinction between the
divine essence and the divine attributes; this distinction which
they call formal from the nature of the thing, is not real, nor is
it a distinction of reason alone. If we consider the subject seriou­
sly, it becomes sufficiently evident that this distinction is nothing
other than a virtual distinction.
II.

THE SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

450 These are six in number : simplicity, immutability, eternity,
immensity, infinity, unity; by means of these the imperfections
of composition, of change, of time, of measurement of limitation,
of plurality are removed from God .*

The Simplicity of God
451 a. Concept of simplicity, — Simplicity is opposed to
composition. However, there are three kinds of composition :
1 Jeremias, XXXII, 18.
1 Major Synopsis, 429-454.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

269

physical, metaphysical and logical. Consequently there arc
three kinds of simplicity : physical simplicity — this excludes
that composition which arises from quantitative parts which
are really distinct, as in a stone made up of various minute
particles; metaphysical simplicity, excluding that composition
both of material things and of immaterial things which results
from a real distinction between potency and act, between
substance and accidents, between essence and existence;
logical simplicity — this excludes that composition which
arises, for example, from a proximate genus and a specific
difference (difference in species).
452 b. Erroneous ideas : The J nthropomorphiies. who attribute
a human form to God, denied the simplicity of God; so, too,
have the Pantheists ; and the Immanentists, who do not suffi­
ciently distinguish God from a thinking subject.

453 c. Thesis : God is a substance altogether simple and immune
from every kind of composition. This thesis is de fide from
the Vatican Council : “ Who as being one, sole, absolutely
simple and immutable spiritual substance
Proof from Scripture. — In Scripture God is shown as :

a. Incorporeal. He cannot be represented by images :
" To whom then have you likened God? Or what image
will you make for him1”? "Being therefore the offspring
of God, we must not suppose the divinity to be like unto
gold, or silver, or stone, the graving of art and device of
man 2
b. Entirely spiritual : “ God is a spirit, and they that adore
liim must adore him in spirit and in truth 3

c. So simple and spiritual that in Him there is no
composition of essence and attributes; creatures, indeed
are spoken of as having life, wisdom, but God is wisdom
1 Isaias, XL, 18.
’ Acts 0/ the Apostles, XVII, 29.
* Gospel according to St. John, IV, 24.

N· 642 (I) — 19

270

CHAPTER II

itself, life itself, truth itself, light itself, love itselfl. St. Augustine
summarizes this in these words : " Therefore God is called
simple because what He has, this He is «.

454

Proof from Reason

a. In God there is no -physical composition, for physical
composition is found in matter, or in bodies, or in component
parts. But God is not matter because matter is pure potency
while God is pure act. Nor is God a body, since body likewise
includes potency, for example, because of its divisibility.
Nor is God part of a composite, as, let us say, the soul of the
world, for God is the efficient cause of all things (section 435) :
moreover, an efficient cause cannot be at the same time the
formal intrinsic cause of its own effect.

b. In God there is no metaphysical composition :
1. Of act and potency, for God is pure act without an
admixture of any defect and of potency ;
2. Of substance and accidents, for through His essence
God is complete perfection and thus He cannot be a partaker
in further perfection through accidents;
3. Of essence and existence, for where existence and essence
differ, essence is prepared for existence just as potency in
which existence is received. But in the divine essence there
is no potentiality.
c. In God there is no logical composition, or, in other words,
God is not in any genus,
I. Neither directly as species which are included in a genus;
for in those things which are contained in a certain genus
there is found a genus, which is a certain potency, and a
specific difference, which is like an act, adding something
to the genus. But in God there neither is nor can there be
conceived composition of act and potency.
1 Proverbs, I, 20; Gospel according to St. John, I, 4, 8-9, XIV, 6; First Epistle
of St. John, IV, 8.
* St. Augustine, City of God, book XI, c. 10, n. r; P. L., XLI, 325.
• Refer to Summa theologica, I p., q. 3; Contra Gentiles, book I, cc. 16-27.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

271

2. Nor indirectly, as principles which are reduced to some
genus, for the principle which is reduced to a certain genus,
does not extend itself beyond that genus — whereas God
transcends all genuses.
2.

The Immutability of God

455 a. Concept: Immutability is opposed to change; but
change is the passing from one state of being to another, as from
potency to act. This is the Catholic doctrine : God is immutable
not only quoad substantiam, as to substance, but also as to
knowledge and volition, in as much as God is not able to know
or determine anything new because He has known and decided
all things from all eternity. This Catholic teaching opposes
the Stoics, Hegel and Renan, who have claimed that a perfect
being is not in act, but in becoming it opposes the Socinians
who claimed that God is changeable in His decrees.

456 b. Thesis : God is entirely immutable. This thesis is de
fide from the Vatican Council : “ Who as being an immutable
substance

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. From the words in which all change is denied of God :
"I am the Lord and I change not2”; “With whom there
is no change, nor shadow of alteration 3
b. From those places where any change of counsel is
denied : " He will not be moved to repentance ; for he is not
a man that he should repent4
457 2. Proof from Reason 5.

a. Everything that changes is in potency to the state
which is acquired, and by its own motion it acquires
1 Rsnax, Averrhocs, Pref., p. VII.
1 Malachias, III, 6.
• Epistle of St. James, I, 17.
• First Book of Kings, XV, 29.
• St. Thomas, I, q. 9, a. 1.

272

CHAPTER II

something new. But in God there is no potentiality because
He is pure act; there is no possibility of acquiring something
since He is infinite!}' perfect. Therefore God does not change.

b. An intelligent being does not change his will unless
motives, unknown before, are presented to his mind. But
from all eternity God knows all things perfectly with a unique
intelligence. Therefore He also decides all things with one
immoveable will, even their change. For although unmoved
and immoveably willing, God can will the changes in creatures.
Thus it is evident that prayer is not useless. Because God
foresees our prayers from eternity, He can direct events
according to our petitions.

3.
458

The Eternity of God

a. Concept.

1. In a broad sense the word demal is often used to mean
duration of time which had a beginning but which will have
no ending; in this sense the joys of the just are called eternal.
2. In a strict sense eternity is defined by Boetius1 thus :
“ The -perennial, interminable, perfect possession of life in
its fullest totality, always without beginning and without end ”.
The word interminable is used because eternity has neither
beginning nor end. The words fullest totality mean that without
succession or change eternity endures. It is called the perfect
possession for this reason : God lives in one perpetual instant, at
the same time He delights in His whole life.

459 b. Thesis : God is truly and perfectly demal. The Vatican
Council has declared this thesis a matter of faith : “ The
Church believes and confesses that God is... demal,
immense...

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. " I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end,
says the Lord God, Who is and Who was and Who is to
1 De Consolai, philosopk., book V, p. 6.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

273

come1*” : in these words it is pointed out that God lacks
a beginning and an end.

b. “ Before the mountains were made or the earth and
the world was formed, from eternity and to eternity thou
art God “But thou art always the selfsame, and thy years shall
not change34 In these words it is stated that the eternity
of God lacks succession.
2. Proof from Reason .*
God’s eternity necessarily flows from His highest and
greatest perfection and unchangeableness; for what is infinitely
perfect, pure act, and therefore immutable, can acquire or
lose absolutely nothing; again, He would acquire something
by beginning or by existing successively, He would lose
something by ceasing to be. Therefore, God is perfectly
eternal.

4.

The immensity and ubiquity of God

460 a. Concept. Immensity is the attribute by force of which
God can be present in all things and in all places, even non
existing things and places. Ubiquity is this very presence
in all existing things. In God we distinguish a three fold
ubiquity :
1. By reason of knowledge, since He knows everything;
2. By reason of power, since He acts in all beings;
3. By reason of substance, since He is substantially present
in all things; not circumscriptively, in the manner of bodies;
nor definitively, like the Angels who, although they arc entirely
in any part of a place, nevertheless are contained in
place; but in a certain indescribable manner since God is
1 The Apocolvpsc, I, S.
» Psalm LXXXIX, 2.
* Psalm CI, 26-28 refer to Second Epistle of St. Peter, III, 8; Gospel according
to St. John, VIII, 58; First Epistle io Timothy, VI, 16.
4 Refer to St. Thomas, I, q. 10, a. 2; Contra Gentiles, book I, c. 15.

274

CHAPTER II

entirely everywhere, wholly in every place, and wholly without
place since He is not contained or held in place.

4. Besides, from His overwhelming perfection God is
able to be present in all possible things.
461 b. Thesis : God is perfectly immense, and present in all
things through His knowledge, His power and His essence.
It is de fide from The Vatican Council that God is immense;
but the manner of His presence is determined with certainty
by Scriptuie and reason.

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. By means of His knowledge God is present in everything :
" Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight : but
all things are naked and open to his ej’es1*

b. By means of His power God is present in everything :
“ She reacheth therefore from end to end mightily, and ordereth
all things sweetly" "...upholding all things by the word
of his power 3 " ;
c. By means of His essence : " He is not far from everyone
of us; for in him we live and move and are3"; He is not
circumscribed or inclosed by created things : "If heaven
and the heavens of heavens do not contain thee, how much
less this house, which I have built4 ”?

462

2.

Proof from Reason.

As the first cause and the most universal cause of all becoming
and of all being or esse, God acts in all things for the purpose
of producing them, conserving them and ruling them. But
He cannot act where He is not present. Therefore God
is present in all things through His essence also.
* Epistle to the Hebrews : IV, 13.
’ Wisdom, VIII, x ; St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, 1, 3.
• A cis of the Apostles, XVII, 37.
4 ZJ Parallipomcnon, VI, 18.

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

275

This does not favor Pantheism, as certain Rationalists contend;
for the divine substance, although everywhere present, is in
reality distinct from all created substances; nor is He properly
contained in these, but rather He contains them — as St. Thomas
correctly states ·.

5.

The Infinity of God

463 a. The Concept. The infinite, in general, is that which
lacks limits. It can be distinguished in a two-fold manner :
The absolutely infinite, or by reason of being, that which
is infinite in all ways;
The infinite in a certain class, or that which contains all
the perfection possible in that class or genus.
God is absolutely infinite, in fact He embraces all fullness
of being, and so all perfections but in different ways.

There arc two kinds of perfections :
Simple perfections, which have no imperfection joined to
them and which it is better to have rather than not to have —
for example, wisdom, goodness, justice; Mixed perfections
or perfections secundum quid, which have some imperfection
and which are set against greater perfection — as, for example,
the power of reasoning, which is a perfection in man, but
which in itself is much more imperfect than the power of
understanding things by one intuition.
God possesses simple perfections formally, that is, according
to their own proper concept (analogically, however); He
also possesses mixed perfections eminently, that is, not with
the imperfections which arc joined to mixed perfections, but
in a superior way.
464 b. Thesis : God is infinitely perfect — God possesses all
perfections to an infinite degree. This thesis is de fide according
to The Vatican Council, declaring that God is “ infinite in
intellect and will and in every perfection ”.
Summa theologica, I, 8, a. 1, ad 2.

276

I.

CHAPTER Π

Proof from Scriplure.

a. From God’s words to Moses: “ I am who am”; the
Fathers and theologians assert that these words mean that
God is simply esse, Existence itself, Absolute Being or that
God has the fullness of being .*
*

b. From texts which extol the greatness of God to such
a degree that He has no limits : " Great is the Lord, and
greatly to be praised and of his greatness there is no end 2

c. From the words which assert that He alone is powerful,
just, eternal : “ The Blessed and only Mighty... who only
hath immortality ’ ”.
These words show that these perfections belong only to
God through antonomasia.

465

2.

Proof from Reason.

a. That is simply and absolutely infinite which is limited
is no way by anything extrinsic or intrinsic. But God is
not limited by anything extrinsic because He is an absolutely
independent first cause; nor is He limited by anything intrinsic
since, being the first cause, He has within Himself no poten­
tiality which would reasonably involve a consideration for
a higher cause.
b. Furthermore, since He is Existence itself, Absolute
Being in act, He has all perfections with no defect or
limitation .*

6.

The unity or unicity of God

466 a. Concept. The word one is defined thus : that which
is undivided in itself and divided or separated from every other.
1 Those who say that these words directly signify God is the Cause of ad
being can deduce such a conclusion : for God cannot cause whatever exists
unless He has within Himself the fullness of being.
« Psalm CXLIV, 3.
* First Epistle io Timothy, VI, 15-16; refer to Mackabees, 1, 8.
« Summa theologica, I, q. 4, a. 2; refer to q. 7, a. 1-2; Contra Gentiles, book I,
c. 43·

THE NATURE AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD

277

God is one both intrinsically, because His simplicity excludes
all division; and extrinsically, because He excludes any other
like to Him or because He is single or unique. The Polytheists
and the Dualists deny the last statement.

467 b. Thesis : God is one or God is unique or alone in His
most perfect unity. This thesis the Vatican Council made
a matter of faith : “ God Who, as being one, sole... substance ”.

I. Proof from Scripture.
In the Old Testament God always proclaims Himself to
be the sole God : “ See ye that I alone am, and there is no
other God besides me1
Wherefore, monotheism is a
fundamental dogma of the Jewish and of the Christian religions.

468 2. Proof from Tradition.
All the symbols and many of the Councils acknowledge
and declare the unicity of God.

3. Proof from Reason.

a. From the simplicity of God : “ That which makes common
essence individual or distinctive, cannot be shared by many...
But the divine essence is individuated by itself because in
God there is nothing other than essence and what it is · ”,

b. From the infinity of God : “ If there were several gods,
it would be necessary for them to be different : something
therefore would be proper to one which would not be proper
to another ’ ”, and consequently neither would be infinite.

* Deuteronomy, XXXII, 39; Isaias, XLIII, 10, n.
’ Compendium theologia, c. 15.
’ Summa theologica, I, q. 11, a. 3·

CHAPTER III

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS

OR WORKINGS

469

Introductory Notes concerning God’s Operations and Life.

I.

Concepts.

a. A working is either immanent, when its terminus or
end remains and continues within the agent itself ; or transient
when it produces an external effect. Within God there are
operations ad intra (toward within) : for example, knowledge,
volition; and operations ad extra (toward without) : for
example, creation, concursus, redemption.

b. In actu -primo life is the intrinsic and substantial principle
by force of which a being moves itself; in actu secundo it
is a vital immanent working by which certain beings move
themselves. There are three grades of life : of plants, of
animals, of beings endowed with intellect and will.
470 2.

God’s Life.

God is truly and supremely living, in fact, He is life itself
and the source of all life. This is de fide from the Vatican
Council : “ The Church believes... that there is one true and
living God *
1 ”.
1 The Vatican Council, session III, chap. I; D. B., 1782, Summa theologica,
I, q. 18.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

279

a. Scripture states : “ I live forever1*”. Peter proclaims
Christ the Son of the living God3; St. John teaches that
all things live in God 3.

471 b. Reason argues thus : To live is to move oneself. But
God has within Himself the principle of His own operation.
This He has in the most perfect manner because He is absolutely
independent of another and He is pure act.
Actually God is His own life just as He is His own Existence
or esse : He has life which is not shared in ; He has life absolutely
and simply. Therefore He is the source of all life, for a living
creature receives from God its living which is its existence or
esse, and is directed and tends toward the living God.
ARTICLE I.

GOD’S KNOWLEDGE 4

472 In God there is most perfect knowledge : for God is infinitely
perfect, God is the wisest Ordainer and Director of the world ;
also, He is in the highest degree of the immaterial and of the
actual (of immateriality and of actuality). Moreover, a being
is as cognoscitive as it is immaterial, for knowledge is perfected
in as much as the form of what is known is in the one knowing.
But the more immaterial a certain substance, the more easily
it can receive within itself the form of another thing.

A.

The Object of Divine Knowledge

473 The object of this knowledge or knowing is twofold :
the primary object, that is, God Himself; and the secondary
object, that is, things outside God.
I. God Knows and Comprehends Himself fully. " The
things that are of God no man knoweth but the spirit of
God * ”.
I Deuteronomy, XXXII, 40.
’ Gospel according to St. Matthew, XVI, 16.
• Gospel according to St. John, I, 4.
4 Major Synopsis, n. 459-482.
II Corinthians, II, 10-11.

280

CHAPTER III

a. Since God possesses the highest degree of intellectuality,
He understands without any potentiality, or He is pure act
in the order of understanding. So in Him the understanding
intellect and the thing understood and cognition or exercise
of the intellect are one and the same. Therefore, God knows
Himself in the most intimate manner possible.

b. Besides, the proportionate and proper object of the
divine intellect is, to be sure, God Himself; but He knows
Himself to such a degree as He is knowable, and therefore
He comprehends Himself perfectly ’.
474 2. God Knows the Other Things apart from Himself,
cither Existing, or Possible, or Future Conditioned.
a. God knows other things outside Himself.
For since God knows Himself perfectly, He knows His
own power perfectly; and “ since divine power extends to
all other things because it is the first effective cause of all
beings, it is necessary that God know other things outside
Himself
Also, God’s esse or existence is identical with His
understanding; therefore whatever things preexist in Him as
in a first cause are from eternity and have been comprehended
by Him.

475 b. God knows all things, even future free acts. This is de
fide according to the Vatican Council: "AU things arc...
open to His eyes, even those which are yet to be by the free
action of creatures
i) Scripture asserts in a general way that God’s knowledge
is universal : " The Lord knoweth all knowledge ’ ”. Scripture
states that He knows all the actions of creatures, indeed the
most secret thoughts : “ The Lord searcheth all hearts and
understandeth all the thoughts of minds *
* ”. Scripture shows
’ Summa theologica, I, q. 14, a. 3.
’ Summa theologica, I, q. 14, a. 5.
• Ecclesiasticus, XIII, 19; Hebrews, IV, 13.
4 I Paralipomenon, XXVIII, g.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

281

that God knows all future things, whether necessary or free :
“ Behold O Lord, thou hast known all things, the last and
those of old; thou hast understood my thoughts afar off...
and thou hast foreseen all my ways1 ". Scripture proves
that God knows even what is possible, for it says : " He calleth
those things that are not as those that are 2 ”.
476 2.

Proof from Reason.

God cannot know Himself perfectly unless He knows also
all those things to which His power extends, that is, all beings,
existing or possible ; for His power does extend to all things.
Thus we sec that many of the pagans, among them Cicero,
that certain heretics like Marcion and the Socinians, and that
numerous modem day Rationalists have erred in denying pre­
knowledge of future things to God in order that they might the
better preserve human freedom.

477 c. God infallibly knows the conditioned future free actions
and things, that is, those things which would have been under
a certain condition, but which will not be because of the lack
of the condition. This is the common and the certain opinion.
1. Proof from Scripture.
a. From the words of Christ : *' If in Tyre and Sidon had
been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you,
thejr had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes ’
b. From the assurance God gave to David that he would
be handed over to Saul by the men of Ceila if he were to
remain in their city .*
2. Proof from Reason. God knows whatever is true and
whatever has a reason for being. But future conditioned
things in themselves are something true and do have a reason
for being. Therefore God knows these things and, since His
knowledge is perfect, He foreknows these things not
conjecturally, but infallibly.
1 Psalm CXXXVIII, 3-5.
■ Romans, IV, 17.
’ Gospel according to St. Matthew, XI, 21.
♦ First Book of Kings, XXIII, 11 and following.

282

CHAPTER HI

478 3. Reconciling Divine Foreknowledge with Human Freedom.
The following facts should be carefully considered :
a. The difliculty revolves about the manner in which both
truths exist or stand; it is true that ignorance in regard to the
manner does not remove certitude concerning the fact;
b. God would be deceived if actions which He foresees to be
future free actions were not freely carried through;
c. Divine knowledge, as something entirely gathered together
in the immutable point of eternity, holds itself in relation to all
future tilings, whether necessary or free, as our vision in regard
to things present; but our vision does not remove the contin­
gency of those things which are seen, just as our memory does
not force facts to be which have gone by ».
d. What God foresees will indeed infallibly, that is certainly,
conic to pass, but not always necessarily ; for necessity is taken
from the order in relation to proximate causes, not from the
order relative to the first Cause.

B. The Divine Ideas and Qualities of Divine Knowledge

479 i. Divine Ideas **. In the divine mind there is knowledge
which is concerned with the proper species and the proper
individual reasons of each creature by means of which each
creature participates in the divine essence. But such
knowledge or such ideas are exemplars or images of the
things which God carries on. These ideas are many, not
on the part of the divine intellect, which in one intuitive
apprehension perfectly beholds itself and all other things
apart from itself; but rather on the part of those objects
which are understood by God.
480 2.

The Qualities of Divine Knowledge.

On the part of God, His knowledge is :
a. Universal, that is, it includes everything.
b. One and most simple, in as much as God knows Himself
by one unique act which continues unchangeable, and in His
* St. Augustine, Free Will, book ΙΙΓ, c. 4.
• Summa theologica, I, q. 15.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

283

own essence He knows the essences of all and whatever can
happen to them : for in God being or esse is the same as knowing
or understanding : but the divine esse or divine being is one
and simple.
c. God’s knowledge is iniuilive because by an act of unique
intuition He perceives all things fully without any discursion
or reasoning which would introduce a double imperfection,
namely succession and progress in knowing.
d. This knowledge is independent, that is, it needs no
external thing through which it might gain its knowledge - it is the knowledge of Him who is the efficient cause of all
things.
e. God’s knowledge is infallible, because the divine
intelligence is God Himself and at the same time the cause
and the measure of everything and of every truth and thence
the essentially adequate representation of the divine essence
and of all created things.
f. God’s knowledge is efficacious in as much as it is the
cause of things through the intermediation of the will which
carries out what has been perceived in the mind.
A consideration of this divine knowledge affords consolation
to the good and dismay to the evil.

Corollary on God’s Wisdom
481 i. Concept. Divine wisdom is the supreme love of order
through which God purposes ends which correspond to the
perfection of His nature and through which He attains these
ends by the best means. Wisdom, therefore, presupposes
knowledge which knows perfectly what is good and what
are the best means for attaining this end; it presupposes
will which is directed toward good, and power because it is
concerned with things to be done.
482 2. Thesis : God is infinitely wise in all His ways and in
all His works. This thesis is certam.
a. Proof from Scripture: In the Sacred Books it oftentimes
is said that God has done all things in wisdom, in fact, that

284

CHAPTER III

His wisdom is infinite : “ How great are Thy works, O Lord!
Thou has made all things in wisdom... and of His wisdom
there is no number...1 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom
and of the knowledge of God ** ” !

b. Proof from Reason.
1) The most beautiful order and the best adaptation of
means to an end which can be discerned in the world proclaim
a wise ordainer, just as a well-constructed house demonstrates
a wise architect.
2) Further, perfect wisdom is found where there is supreme
intelligence joined with the greatest will and power of
performing. But these three God possesses.
(Refer to
further development of this topic.)

483

C.

Kinds of divine knowledge and the medium
of divine knowledge

484 As regards the object known, divine knowledge is
distinguished in a manifold way ;
1. Speculative knowledge or knowing, which contemplates
things, and practical knowledge, which, since it is joined
with the will, is the cause of things;
2. Knowledge of approbation or approbative knowledge,
when it has joined to it an act of the will of complacence,
and knowledge of disaprobation or of reprobation, if joined
to it there is an act of dissatisfaction or of aversion.
3. However, in the schools they make a division which
is taken from the medium in which God perceives things that
are distinct from Himself. The medium in quo is that, the
cognition of which leads to the cognition of another3.
1 Psalm CITI, 24 ; Psalm CXLVI, 5; Refer to Proverbs, HI, 10 and following,
Wisdom, VII-VIII; Eccli, XXIV.
1 Epistle io the Romans, XI, 33.
• At this point we must distinguish from the medium quo : that which is
conceived as integrating and perfecting the clicitive principle of cognition
or the intellect. In us the medium quo is the species intelligibilis ; in God it
is the divine essence itself.

THF. DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

285

485 a. In this matter the Thomists distinguish a two fold know­
ledge in God :
1. Knowledge of simple intelligence through which God sees
all the essences of things possible in His own essence ;
2. The knowledge of vision by which God knows all things
existing whether they are present, or past, or future, not precisely
in His own essence, but in the free ordinance of His will, since
from eternity He decided to bring into act certain possible things
rather than others. If the question is asked ; How are sins foreseen ?
we answer that these are known not in an approbative decree,
but in a permissive decree as God from eternity’ determined in such
or such a case to withhold help on account of just causes or to
deny the help by which sin would be avoided. In the matter of
conditioned future acts or things, the Thomists say they are known
in decrees subjectively absolute and objectively conditioned.
For example, from eternity God wills that the people of Tyre
be converted if the Gospel be preached to them; that decree is
subjectively absolute. " 1 wish the people of Tyre to be convert­
ed ", but it is conditioned on the part of the object " by positing
the fact that the Gospel be preached to them
486 The Violinists object that freedom is destroyed by these
decrees. The Thomists reply : whatever God decides from eter­
nity, certainly indeed and infallibly comes to pass, but not neces­
sarily ». In addition it should be noted that it is not of the essence
of a second cause, even of a free second cause, to act independently
of a first cause : for every creature completely and always depends
on a first cause as regards esse, and therefore as regards agere
(acting) also.
487 b. According to the Violinists, in addition to knowledge of
simple intelligence and of vision, another kind of knowledge
must be admitted concerning conditioned future acts; this is
called scientia media. As the name implies, it stands in the middle
between the scientia simplicis intelligentia and the scientia
visionis. Its object lies between the mere possible and the abso­
lutely future. Indeed the Molinists teach that future free actions
are not known in the divine decrees, but in themselves, in their
own objective truth. Thus from two contradictory propositions,
for example, “ If Peter were placed in these circumstances, he
would sin
and " If Peter were placed in these circumstances,
he would not sin ", one is detenninately true and the other is
determinately false. But God can know whatever is determinately true.

1 St. Thomas,
N° 642 (I) — 2Ù

I, q. 19, a. 8.

286

CHAPTER III

The Thomiste answer that the Molinists evidently digress from
the question; for the question is not whether Gou knows future
actions, absolute or conditioned, but in what medium does God
know them. The following argument will help to answer the
question : God knows future free actions or things in themselves,
or in the created will, or in the divine essence or in His decrees;
but He does not know future actions in themselves because God
does not gain His knowledge cxtrinsically; He does not know
them in the created will which is of itself undetermined, nor
does He know future actions in His own essence which only
shows things as possible and does this by considering them
separately from existence. Therefore it stands that God knows
all future things, just as He knows all the past and all the present,
in the objectively manifold decree of His will. The scientia
media is consequently superflous.

ARTICLE II.

THE DIVINE WILL1

488 Scripture bears witness that in God there is will : “ Thy
will be done
and reason deduces this from the divine
intellect : for will follows the intellect. In God will and
volition do not differ really from His essence or His intellect.

A.

The object of the divine will

The object of the divine will is twofold : the primary object,
that is, the divine essence and divine goodness; the secondary
object, that is, creatures.

489

I. The Primary Object.

a. God wills Himself in the first place as His end : for
He know His goodness as the greatest good in itself and
because of itself ;

b. God wills Himself necessarily, because His infinite
goodness is an object adequate and perfectly proportioned
to His will and therefore His goodness necessarily determines
His will to willing.
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 19; Major Synopsis, 484-508.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

287

490 2. The Secondary Object.

a. In general.

1) God wills and loves other things apart from Himself,
for He has made all things and loves them.
2) God wills and loves other things because of Himself
or for His own glory. God wills all things in their appointed
way; creatures, however, as sharers in the divine goodness,
must be directed and put in order toward God ;

3) God wills and loves other things freely: for those
things which are for an end or purpose we will not from
necessity unless they be the means necessary for the end.
But creatures are not the means necessary for the end, God,
since the goodness of God is absolutely perfect and completely
self-sufficient without creatures.
491

b. The Secondary Object in Relation to Evil.

1) Gods intends no evil per se, because the will can seek
only real or apparent good.
2) God intends no physical evil unless per accidens. That
is sought after per accidens which is desired not because
of itself but because of something else to which it is joined.
God reasonably wills physical evil so that greater physical
or moral good will result from such evil. " Good things and
evil, life and death... are from God1”.

492 3. God does not intend moral evil, but He permits it only.
This is de fide from The Council of Trent *. “If anyone says
that... the works which are evil as well as those that arc
good God produces, not permissively only but also proprie
and per se, so that the treason of Judas is no less His own
proper work than the vocation of St. Paul, let him be
anathema ”.
’ Ecclesiasticus, XI, 14.
’ Session VI, c. 6.

288

CHAPTER III

a. Scripture expressly declares :
1) God hates and abominates sin : " Because thou art
not a God that wiliest iniquity1

2) God tempts no one : " Let no man, when he is tempted,
say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter
of evils, and he tcmpteth no man 2 ”.
3) In fact, God cannot look upon iniquity, but punishes
it with eternal punishments : " Thy eyes are too pure to
behold evil, and thou canst not look on iniquity ’ ”. " Know
you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of
God < ”?
b. God permits sins, that is, He wills not to prevent them
because from sins permitted many good things proceed :
thus, on the part of God, the manifestation of patience, of
mercy, of justice, etc.; on the part of man, the exercise of
patience, of humility, of contrition, etc.

B.

The qualities of the divine will
I

THE FREEDOM OF GOD

493 a. The Concept. Freedom is immunity from external
and internal necessity, and we define it as the power of choosing
from among many. But God is not free in regard to His own
goodness and in His workings within Himself, for He wills
and loves Himself necessarily.
494 b. Thesis : God is free in all His works outside Himself.
The Vatican Council · has declared this as de fide in regard
to creation : “ If anyone says... that God created, not by
His will, free from all necessity, but by a necessity equal
to the necessity whereby He loves Himself, A. S. ”.
* Psalm, V, 5, 1.
* St. James, I, 13.
* Habacuc. I, 13·
4 I Corinthians, VI, 9.
* D. B., 1805.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

289

I. Proof from Scripture.
Of His natural works it is said : “ Whatsoever the Lord
pleased He hath done in heaven, in earth, in the sea, and
in all the depths...*
1 ” But of His supernatural works : “ All
these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to
everyone according as he will... 2 ” It is inferred that God
is not bound to choose the best, especially from the fact that
the Incarnation, which is the best work of God, was freely
decided upon. (This will be shown later.)

495 2. Proof front Reason. Because the divine will is directed
by wisdom, it wills not necessarily but freely those things
which are not necessary to it. But none of those things
which are external to God is necessary to Him, since none
of them increases His perfection. Therefore, God freely
wills other things external to Himself ’.
It is obvious, therefore, that Abelard (mb), Wyclif (1375)·
and Calvin (1536), have erred in teaching that God could do
only those things which He did; that Leibnits and the Optimists
were in error in contending that God is free in the sense that He
can create or not, but, once we posit the fact that He wishes to
create, that He is bound to chose the best; outstandingly in
error are the Rationalists, for example, Cousin, Saisset, who
maintain that creation was necessary.

496 c. Reconciling God’s Freedom with His Unchangeableness.
The problem herein is this : whatever is in God is immutable
and necessary ; and nevertheless a free divine act is in a certain
way contingent because it can be or not be. How are these
ideas compossible?
497 I. The Scotists and some others admit a twofold act in God,
one essential and necessary, by which He wills and loves Himself,
but the other, accidental and free, by which He wills and loves
creatures. In this manner they explain freedom. But in order
to preserve His immutability they say that not every change is
excluded from it, but only the change by which God would be
‘ Psalm CXXXIV, 6.
1 First Epistle to the Corinthians, XII, 11.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 19, a. 13·

290

CHAPTER III

worse or better; now truly a free act, by means of which He
creates or loves creatures, makes Him neither worse nor better.
This system or explanation is more commonly than not rejected
because it supposes accidental modes in God; such a supposition
is repugnant to God’s most perfect simplicity.
498 2. The Thomists, however, along with the greater number
of theologians, teach that there is one act in God, which, because
of His infinite perfection, can be at the same time necessary
and free: necessary as it is terminated at the divine esse; free
as it is terminated at creatures. In this way they preserve
God's immutability. But His freedom they explain in this way.
In a free act there are three constituents : the subject willing,
the thing willed, and the relation between both; now in order
that a certain tiling be freely produced, it is sufficient that the
relation between the subject and the thing willed be free. But
thus it is when God wills creatures : for although the act of voli­
tion as viewed in God is necessary, the relation which He has
to the thing willed is not necessary, since the thing is of itself
contingent and can exist or not exist ».
2°

THE SANCTITY OF GOD

499 a. Concept of Sanctity.
in the Sacred Writings, is
and conformity with the
God is a law to Himself,
unchangeable will to act in

Sanctity, oftentimes called justice
an immunity from all moral evil,
supreme rule of morals. Since
divine sanctity is well called the
accord with His perfections.

500 b. Thesis : God is infinitely and substantially holy. This
thesis is certain. Proof from Scripture.
God is proclaimed as free from all moral evil : " God is faithful
and without any iniquity, he is just and right
";
*
"Thy
eyes are too pure to behold {with approbation) evil : and thou
canst not look on iniquity 1*3 ".
We were commanded to imitate His sanctity : “ Be holy
because I am holy...4 "
1 Refer to Billuart, De Deo, disp. VII, a. 4.
* Deuteronomy, XXXII, 4.
3 Habacuc, I, 13.
4 Leviticus, XI, 44.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

291

501 Proof from Reason.

Sanctity consists of a union with the Good through affection
and of conformity of the will with the supreme rule of morals.
But through His cognition, His will, and His essence God
is identified with the Supreme Good, and further His will
cannot separate itself from the rule of morals which is not
distinguished from the divine will itself.
Therefore, God is essentially holy.
502 c. The Moral Perfections of God.

Sanctity or holiness is, as it were, the aggregate of all
perfections or of moral virtues. Virtues are theological or
moral. Among the moral virtues some include imperfection
in their concept; but others do not. Of the theological virtues
only charity is found in God. Of the moral virtues, certain
ones which import no imperfection are metaphorically
attributed to God because of a similarity of effect — for
example, justice.
503 d. The Charity or Love or Mercy of God
God is Charity or love and He loves creatures, especially
mankind, with a merciful and efficacious love. This is de fide
from the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
Proof from Scripture.
In a general way God is said to love all creatures, and to
bestow good things on all of them : “ Thou lovest all things
that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast
made...2” “The eyes of all hope in thee, O Lord; and
thou givest them meat in due season 3 ”.
God is shown as the best father : “ Is not he th}' father,
that hath possessed thee, and made thee, and created thee 4 ”?
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 20, a 1.
• Wisdom, XI, 25.
» Psalm CXLIV, 15-16.
‘ Deuteronomy, XXXII, 6.

292

CHAPTER III

He is oftentimes called merciful, clement, patient, longsuffering, and innumerable examples of His mercy are reported :
“ As a father hath compassion on his children, so hath the
Lord compassion on them that fear him " 0 the Lord God,
merciful and gracious, patient and of much compassion... ’ ”

This fact is obvious from the parable of the Good Shepherd,
from Christ’s manner of acting with the Samaritan woman ·,
Magdalcn * with Zacchaeus 4, with the thief on the cross * etc ;
it is especially obvious from the fact that God “ spared not
his own Son, but delivered him up for us 6
Therefore,
" God is love 7
504 Proof from Reason. God is the Greatest Good. But the
good diffuses or spreads itself, or it naturally tends to
communicating itself.
God, therefore, naturally inclines
to communicating His perfections to others.
Also, mercy is attributed to God according to its effect,
but not according to a state of intense emotion or suffering :
indeed it is not proper to God to be sad, because He is incapable
of suffering; but it is fitting for God to acknowledge (and
to bear) this mercy, because He is good
* Isaias, LXIII, 16; XLIX, 15.
* Psalm CH, 13; Exodus, XXXIV, 6; Psalm CXXIX, 7; Wisdom, IX, 24;
Refer to Psalm CII, and CXXV, in their entirety; Isaias, I.V, 7;
Euch. XXXIII, 11; Joel, II, 12-13; St. Matthew, V. 45; St. Luke, V, 31;
Romans, II, 4, II Peter, III, 9; II Corinthians, I, 3.
* Gospel according, to St. John, IV'.
* Gospel according to St. Luke, VII, 37 and following.
* Gospel according to St. Luke, XIX, 2 and following.
* Gospel according to St. Luke, XXIII, 42.
1 Epistle to ike Romans, VIII, 32 — all of these qualities Contenson brings
together very beautifully : “God sends forth His blessings, not sparingly
but effusively : what is great, He gives His blessings to all; what is greater.
He gives them to those who are unworthy; what is greatest, He gives them
to those who are ungrateful; what is even greater than that, He gfi
those who are unwilling ; what is divine, after His gifts He gives Himself, He
gives His Son, He gives the kiss of His heart, the Holy Spirit. Divine love
and mercy can go no further ”, (Theolog. mentis et cordis, book I, dis. 3, c.
2, spec. 3).
* Epistle of St. John, IV, 16.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 21, a. j.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

3ft

293

THE JUSTICE OF GOD

505 a. The Concept of Justice. Strictly understood1, justice
is a virtue which inclines the will to render to each one what
is his due. It is twofold, commutative, by which the individual
gives to the individual what is strictly due to him for something
received or taken; and distributive, by which the Director
of a community gives out duties and charges, rewards or
punishments, according to merit or desert. Commutative
justice cannot be attributed to God because He can receive
nothing from us which is not already, to the greatest extent
possible, His own : “ Who hath first given to him, and
recompense shall be made him * ”?
506 b. Thesis : ll'e must agree that distributive justice,
remunerative or vindicatory, belongs to God. This thesis is
certain.
Proof from Scripture. In a general manner Scripture
declares that God is just : “ Thou art just, O Lord, and thy
judgment is right...8 ” “ Thou art just, 0 Lord, and all
thy judgments are just, and all thy ways mercy, and truth,
and judgment4 ”.
In a special way Scripture affirms that in God there is
remunerative justice : " As to the rest, there is laid up for
me a crown of justice, which the Lord the just judge will
render to me in that day 6 ”. “ Scripture also affirms that
there is also vindicatory justice in God : " Revenge is mine :
I will repay... * ”

507 Proof from Reason.
Because the divine will is most holy, it essentially loves
good and despises evil. But in God to love is to will and to do
1 Taken in a broad sense, justice is a complexus of all virtues and thus it is
not distinguished from sanctity.
• Epistle to the Romans, XI, 35.
• Psalm CX VIII, 137.
* Tobias, III, 2.
‘ II Epistle to Timothy, IV, 8.
* Epistle to the Romans, XII, 19; Refer to Psalm V, 7; Epistle to the Romans,
I, i3; Second Epistle of Peter, II, 4.

294

CHAPTER ΠΙ

good, but to hate is to withdraw grace and to inflict punishment.
Therefore God rewards the good and punishes the evil

C.

The divisions of the divine will

508 I. Virtually, or according to our manner of understanding
(section 449), the divine will is divided into the will of good
pleasure and the will of expression: the first is will properly
called or interior volition; the second is only the exterior
sign of the divine will, metaphorically called the will.
Five signs of this kind are commonly enumerated : it
instructs, it forbids, it permits, it advises, it executes
509 2. The will of good pleasure is divided into antecedent
will and consequent will; but theologians do not explain this
division in the same way :
According to the Thoniists, the will is called antecedent because
it is directed toward an object considered with relation to itself
and with no relation to circumstances; the will is called consequent
when it is directed to an object considered with all circumstances.
Thue, for example, a judge antecedently wills every man to live,
but consequently he wills to hang a murderer. Similarly God wills
antecedently to save all mankind, but consequently he wills that
certain beings be dammed because of their sins ». According to the
Molinists, the antecedent will is that by which God, antecedently
to the absolute foreseeing of the good or bad use of liberty,
decides to do something; consequent will is that by which God
wills something consequently to the absolute foreseeing of the
good or bad use of free choice ».

510 3. The will of God is conditioned if its execution depends
on some condition; it is absolute if its execution depends
on no condition. However, whatever God wills simply,
absolutely, and consequently, is always fulfilled. But what
God wills antecedently or conditionally, sometimes may
not happen ; for example : " I desired to cleanse thee, and
» Summa theologica, I, q. 21, a. i, 2.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 19, a. 12.
9 Refer to Billuart, De Deo, dis. VII, a. 5;
4 Refer to St. Augustine, De Deo Utio, part. IV, a. 6.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

295

thou art not cleansed... ” " How often would I have gathered
together thy children... and thou wouldst not1 ”. Wherefore
the will of God can be divided into efficacious and inefficacious.

ARTICLE III.

PROVIDENCE AND PREDESTINATION 2*

I.

PROVIDENCE

511 A Concept. Providence is the ordaining 0/ things to their
■proper end through the appropriate means for attaining that
end. Wherefore, Providence is formally an act of the intellect,
whose duty it is to foresee and think out the end and the means
proportionate to the end; but Providence supposes also an
act of the will because it imports an intention of end and
of means. However, the carrying out in time of things foreseen
from eternity St. Thomas calls divine direction or government ·.
The existence of divine Providence was impugned by the Epi­
cureans who fashioned God as indifferent and uninterested in
creatures; by the Stoics who thought that He had a care for the

higher and grander things, but not for the small and unimportant;
by many Deists or Rationalists who claim that the world is directed
by natural laws without any intervention of God; and also by the
Pessimists, like Schopenhauer and Hartmann, who contend that
the world, as it is, is absolutely evil.

512 B Thesis : God has a care for all things, even the most trivial,
and directs these things to their determined end. This thesis
is de fide from the Vatican Council : " God protects and governs
by His Providence all things which He hath made, reaching
from end to end mightily, and ordering all things sweetly 4 ”.

I. Proof from Scripture.

Scripture states that God has a care for all things : " She
reacheth from end to end mightily, and ordereth all things
1 Ezechiel, XXIV, 13; Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXIII, 37.
* Major Synopsis, 509-549.
’ Summa theologica, I, q. 22, a. x, ad 2.
4 Session III, chap. I, D. B., 1784 (1633).

296

CHAPTER HI

sweetly
“ There is no other God than you who have a
care for all things ” ; that He is interested even in the smallest :
“ Aie not two sparrows sold for a farthing, and not one of
them shall fall on the ground without your Father ”?
Scripture declares that God is concerned also with those
things which seem to be fortuitous : “ Lots are cast into the
lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord8
Further,
Scripture shows that God is especially interested in man,
his temporal and his spiritual concerns : " Therefore 1 say
to you, be not solicitous for your life, what you shall eat,
nor for your body, what you shall put on... For your Father
knoweth that you have need of all these things. Seek ye
therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all
these things shall be added unto you...*4 ” Also, the same
Providence extends itself to free acts through which men
proceed toward their end : “ Just as the divisions of the
waters, so the heart of a king in the hand of the Lord B ”.
Events also are directed by God, indeed to such a degree
that they contribute to the salvation of the elect : " You
thought evil against me, but God turned it into good... For
all things are for your sakes, that the grace abounding through
many, may abound in thanksgiving unto the glory of God ·”.
2. Proof from reason ’.
Providence imports two things : the assigning of an end
and of the means for attaining that end. But these two
arc proper to and in harmony with a supreme Deity; for
since every' agent acts because of an end, God, in creating
the various beings, ordained these for a determined end;
because He wills the end. He wills also the means; therefore
God has determined the means suitable to attaining the end
to such a degree that He directs creatures to their end and
has a concern for all.
1 Wisdom, VIII, x.
c Gospel according io St. Matthew, X, 29; refer to VI, 25 and following.
* Proverbs, XVI, 33.
4 Gospel according to St. Matthew, VI, 25 and following; X, 29 and following.
4 Proverbs, XVI, 9; XX, 1.
• Genesis, L, 20; II Corinthians, IV, 15; refer to I Corinthians, III, 22-23’ Summa theologica, I, q. 22, a. 1-2.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

297

513 C Solution of Difficulties.
Difficulties are taken especially from the existence of
evils in the physical order and in the moral order; from the
unequal, or, as is actually stated, the unjust distribution
of goods.
However, these difficulties do not obstruct
Providence.
i. Physical evils we explain thus :
a. The physical order, inferior to the moral order, must be
subordinated to it, and accordingly physical evils can be intended
per accidens by a universal forescer provided the physical evils
contribute to the universal good and to the glory of God. But
such is the case, for, as 5/. Thomas 1 says: "If all evils were
prevented, many goods things would be absent throughout the
world
b. When we take into consideration the fact of original sin,
we understand physical evils more easily; we understand tnat :
1) They are a sequel to sin, and so are to be ascrilied to our
first parents, not to God ;
2) They are a justly imposed punishment for actual sins;
3) They oiler an opportunity to satisfy for sin, to gain merit,
and to cultivate virtue. Thus, physical evils are beneficial to the
good of a higher order.
514 2. We reason in this way in regard to moral evil : moral evil
would be a hindrance and an obstruction to divine Providence
in so much as there were no reason present for permitting it. But

there is a reason for permitting sin :
a. On the pari of God, for His independence demands that He

cannot be impeded by the evil of creatures from creating what
is possible and useful ;
b. On the pan of the creature for “ just as the perfection of
the universe requires that there should be not only incorruptible
beings, but also corruptible beings, so the perfection of the universe
requires that there should be some which can fail in goodness,
and thence it follows that these sometimes do fail ‘
515 3. The unequal distribution of goods in itself docs not obstruct
divine Providence, because for the perfection of the universe
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 22, a. 2, ad 2.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 48, a. 2.

298

CHAPTER III

it is required that some creatures be more perfect than others.
But the objection is offered that very often holy people are
afllicted with calamities while the unholy flourish in the midst of
honors and of riches. In answer, we state that good things do
not always fall to the impious, nor do misfortunes always befall
the good, but ven' often good and bad things indiscrimately
happen to good and evil people ».
Let us admit, however, that the just are much more afllicted
than are the unjust. God’s reason for so acting we explain in
this way : on the one hand, there is no bad person who has not
done something good, and it is Atting that God grant them a
temporal reward because they are to be excluded from eternal
blessedness; on the other hand, there is scarcely any just person
who has not sinned, and it is proper that these suffer for a time
in order that they may the more quickly attain eternal happiness.
Furthermore, it should be noted that temporal goods are not
man’s supreme good, and that it is not necessary or befitting
that, in this world, virtue always be rewarded and that vice be
punished lest perhaps we be enticed to virtue solely in the hope
of some remuneration.

II. PREDESTINATION AND REPROBATION

516 A Concept of Predestination and of Reprobation.
I. Predestination, in the strict sense, is the act by which
God destines certain men to attain salvation *
*. It includes
two acts, one, of the intellect, by which God disposes and
ordains the salvation of certain people, and the other, of the
will, by which He wills them to be saved. Predestination
can be divided in a twofold manner ; one is complete or adequate
and embraces the entire series of graces leading to salvation,
and salvation itself; the other kind of predestination is
incomplete or inadequate — this refers either to single graces
or to a series of graces apart from glory, or to glory considered
separately; consequently this is called predestination to faith,
to justification or grace, to glory. Oftentimes predestination
in the Sacred Writings is called purpose, election, and the
predestined are called the elect, the chosen, the saved
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, V, 45.
* St. Augustine, Gift of Perseverance, c. 14, n. 35; P. L., XLV, 1014.
• Epistle to the Ephesians, I, x-11 ; to the Ronans, XI, 5-7; / to Thessalonians,
I, 4 ; Z Peter, I, 4.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

299

2. Reprobation is an act of the divine mind by which
God foresees that some will be evil and He decides to exclude
them as such from eternal glory.

517 B It is certain that predestination both to grace and to glory
exists, in fact, it is a matter of divine faith.

1. In Scripture it is said, in regard to predestination to
grace : “ Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of
children through Jesus Christ1*”, that is to grace by which
we arc made the adopted sons of God. In regard to
predestination to glory Scripture states : “ Come, ye blessed
of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you
from the foundation of the world - ”. Of both kinds of
predestination Scripture records : “ Whom he foreknew he
also predestinated to be made conformable to the image
of his Son... and whom he predestinated, them he also called ;
and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he
justified, them he also glorified 3 ”.
2. God does nothing in time which he has not preordained
from eternity. But in time He saved certain ones before
others. Therefore these He has pre-chosen from eternity.

C. The extension and the cause of predestination have
been very much discussed topics. In order to separate what
is certain from what is uncertain, we shall, first of all, justify
the Catholic doctrine in opposition to the Protestants and
the Jansenists; and then we shall explain the outstanding
theological systems.

I.

The Catholic Doctrine concerning the Saving Will of God

a. Errors.
The Predestinations, with their leader, Lucidus, who was con­
demned at the Council of Arles in 474, Gottschalk, condemned
at the Council of Mainz in 848 and at the Council of Quierzy

518

1 Epistle to the Ephesians, I, 5.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXV, 34.
* Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 29-30.

300

CHAPTER IU

in 849, taught that God does not wish all men to be saved, and
that Christ died for the predestined only.
Calvin revived this same error. His disciples we can divide
into two groups: The Antelapsarians or the Supralapsarians
maintained that, even before the Fall of the first man was foreseen,
some had been destined for life eternal, but others for everlasting
eunishmcnt, for this reason alone that God wishes to manifest
oth His mercy and His justice.
The Postfapsarians taught that, only after the Fall of Adam
was foreseen, God destined some men to eternal blessedness, but
others, as a punishment for original sin, to hell. The Jansenists
taught that before the Fall was considered, God sincerely willed
the salvation of all, but that after the Fall was foreseen, He willed
truly and sincerely the salvation of the elect only; and that
He had prepared efficacious graces for these alone.

519 b. Thesis : By the antecedent, true and sincere resolve of
His will God wills the salvation of all men, even after the
Fall has been foreseen; He does not destine any one to eternal
punishments before their sins or demerits are foreseen *.
It
is of faith that God sincerely wills the salvation of some
persons at least who are not predestinated, we should rather
say, of all the faithful. For the proposition of Jansenius
asserting that “ it is Semipelagianism to say that Christ
died for absolutely all men ”, understood in the sense that
Christ has died for the salvation of the predestinated only, was
condemned as heretical
All the faithful are bound to profess the Symbol in which
it is stated : “ Who for us men, and for our salvation came
down from heaven ” ; therefore it is de fide that Christ died
for all the faithful, and accordingly that God sincerely desires
their salvation.
It is certain and proximate to faith that God sincerely wills
the salvation of all adults, even of the infidels.
It is commonly held that God sincerely wills even the
salvation of infants who die before they can be baptized.
1 In addition to the works mentioned in the .Major Synopsis, refer to
L. Caféran, Le Problème dit salut des infidèles. Essai tMologique, 1912, p. 32-35,
and Essai historique.
1 D. B., 1096.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

301

520 I. Proof of thesis from Scripture.
Even after original sin God loves all creatures and has pity
on them : “ But thou hast mercy upon all because thou canst
do all things and overlookest the sins of men for the sake
of repentance. For thou lovest all things that are, and hatest
none of the things which thou hast made... *
* ” But God
would not love all, nor would He have mercy on all if He
had decided from eternity that some would be saved, but
that others would be damned, before their sins were foreseen.
St. Paid 2 speaks particularly in regard to the faithful :
" We hope in the living God who is the Savior of all men,
especially of the faithful ”.
Concerning the infidels St. Paul3 says : “ I desire, therefore,
first of all that supplications, prayers... be made for all men,
for kings and for all that are in high station... For this
is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who
will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge
of the truth ”. In this text St. Paul desires that prayers be
made for all because Christ gave Himself as a redemption
for all ; and so fallen man is included. But from the context
it is apparent that this word “ all " includes the infidels
also, because the second verse mentions the kings and the
magistrates of that time who were still infidels.
The decision of Christ at the last judgment manifestly
supposes that the reprobate arc to be condemned only because
of their evils works, but not because of the good pleasure
of God or because of original sin. For thus Christ will address
them 4 : “ Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire...
for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat, etc. ”.
521 2. Proof of Thesis from Tradition.
The Second Council of Orange and the Council of Arles
give very open support to our thesis ’. So also do the Greek
* Wisdom, XI, 24-27; XII, 19.
* First Epistle to Timothy, IV, 10.
‘ First Epistle to Timothy, II, 1-6.
4 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXV, 41 and following.
4 D. B., 200.
Ν’ 642 (I). - 21

302

CHAPTER III

Fathers and also the Latin Fathers \ with St. Augustine,
the babblings of the Protestants and of the Jansenists in
regard to Augustine notwithstanding.
Very openly the Holy Doctor has written in his work De
Spiritu et Littera (412) : “ God wills all men to be saved and to
come to a knowledge of the truth; but not in such a way as to
deprive them of free will, through the good or bad use of which
they most justly are to be judged 1 ”. Similar quotations are to
be found in other works of St. Augustine. If, therefore, there
may be doubtful passages, these should be explained with the
help of passages which are clear.
522

Proof of Thesis from Theological Reasoning.

a. Direct — God certainly has given to all the command
to accept the faith and the sacraments, which are the means
to a supernatural end. But it is repugnant that God has
commanded the means to the end without an arrangement
or ordinance to the end. Therefore, God has ordained all
men to this end, that is, He truly mils the salvation of all
men.

b. Indirect — The system of the Suprala-psarians is
manifestly opposed to the divine attributes : to goodness,
because it is cruel to give up to eternal punishments some
creatures before their sins are foreseen; to wisdom, which
intends punishments only for chastising sin; to sanctity,
because, in predestinating certain ones to hell, God should
predestinate these same ones to sin — and in this way God
becomes the author of sin ; and finally to justice, for although
God is not bound to destine creatures to a supernatural
end, nevertheless, if de facto He assigns them a supernatural
end, He owes it to Himself to grant the supernatural means
necessary to attaining this end.

c. This argument opposes the Infralapsarians also. For
if God, after the coming of original sin, wills to save only
certain members of the poor human race, where is His Wisdom?
1 Joumel, n. 125 and following Ind. theol.
* Chap. 33, n. 58; Journel 1735·

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

303

On the one hand, man still remains destined for a supernatural
end, and on the other hand, because of a fault which is not
personally his but is the sin of the head of mankind, he is
incapable of attaining this end. Where is God’s goodness?
Since He is able most easily to make available to all the means
necessary for salvation, and since de facto He has instituted
the means of redemption which can of itself benefit all mankind,
how could His goodness positively and directly hold back
many from this means of redemption? Where is His love?
In this hypothesis God actually loves certain ones in selecting
them, but the others he freely holds in contempt. With
the Psalmist, therefore, we conclude : "As a father hath
compassion on his children, so hath the Lord compassion
on them that fear him ; for he knoweth our frame, he remembcreth that we are dust1
II.

The Theological Systems Relative to Predestination

523 State of the Question. To begin we should know wherein all
Catholic theologians agree :
1. Predestination to first grace takes place before the fore­
seeing of all merit because this grace can in no way be merited.
2. Predestination to final grace or to final perscrverance does
not fall under merit de condigno.
3. Predestination viewed as adequate or complete, in as much
as it includes the entire series of graces, from the first grace
even to glory, is gratuitous and therefore takes place or happens
before foreseen merits; for the supernatural order is superior to
the forces and exigencies of nature, and accordingly destination
to it is in no way due.
We arc, therefore, particularly concerned with the question
concerning predestination to glory strictly understood. All agree
that glory in the order of execution (cooperation of the free will
with grace) is conferred because of merits; but we want to know
whether God from eternity decided to give glory to the elect
after or before their supernatural merits were foreseen.
524 The Molinists maintain that there is predestination of adults
to glory after foreseen merits ; and to make their thoughts clearer
they propose an order of divine decrees.
1 Psalm CU, 13-14·

304

CHAPTER ΠΙ

1. God wishes, even with original sin taken as a fact, by an
antecedent true and sincere will, that all men be saved, and He
prepares for them means which are remotely or proximately
sufhcient for salvation.
2. From a special predilection for some He destines graces
with which He foresees, by means of scientia media (middle
knowledge), that they will be in accord and agreement,

3. With the knowledge of vision (scientia visionis), He foresees
that these will live morally and that they will die in the state of
grace and, following their foreseen merits. He predestinates these
to glory.
Likewise He foresees that others will die in mortal sin;
â. following
their foreseen demerits, sentences them to punish­

ment.

In order to support this concept :
i. They present many texts from Scripture and, first of all,
the words with which Christ will console the elect at the final
judgment :1 “ Come, ye blessed of my Father; possess you the
kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was nungry, and you gave me to eat, etc. ”.

2. They contend that as a result of the opposite opinion
exhortations lose their force, that listlessness and carelessness
about salvation are introduced.
But the Thomists, the Auguslinians, the Congruists and many
Scotists contend that predestination to glory takes place before
merits are foreseen, although positive reprobation may follow

525

the foreseeing of merits. They usually draw up the divine decrees
thus :

I. God by an antecedent will, true and sincere, ordains all
rational creatures to eternal happiness, even with original sin
presupposed, and for all these creatures He prepares graces which
arc really sufficient.

2. But certain creatures He chooses before others, and these
Ho wishes to save by an absolute and efficacious decree.
3. For these also He prepares graces of themselves efficacious,
by means of which they infallibly, although freely, conduct
themselves well and are saved.
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXV, 34 and following.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

305

4. Foreseeing, in His own decrees, that the elect will perforin
good works and will persevere to the end, He decides in the
order of execution, in ordine exsecutionis (refer to 523), to bestow
glory on them as a reward.
5. But since at the same time He foresees in His decrees,
that others will die in the state of mortal sin, He destines these
for eternal punishments.

The proof of this opinion is taken in particular from St. Paul's

Epistle to the Romans, chapters 8, 9, and 11; in these, considering

the proposition concerning gratuitous predestination, St. Paul

explains it, proves it, and defends it against those opposing :
a. He defines it as a proposal or purpose of God, a proposal
according to the election of God 1 according to the election of grace,

that is, gratuitous, for " if by grace it is not now by works : other
wise grace is no more grace 1
He explains how in those of this
kind who are called all things work together unto good : “ That
to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to
such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints **
He declares that from such a puqxise flows an efficacious vocation,
justification and glory’ : " Whom he predestinated, them he also
called; and whom he’ called, them he also justified; and whom
he justified, them he also glorified ‘
b. Then, asking why so few of the Israelites believe in Christ,
he replies that not all have been efficaciously predestinated,
but that some only were chosen by God before others; this gra­
tuitous choosing he illustrates with various examples ·. Finally
he answers and solves the objections against gratuitous predes­
tination, in the manner of the Thomists, both by means of a gene­
ral principle : “ O Man, who art thou that repliest against God?a”.
and by the example of a potter who from the same clay’ makes
one vessel unto honor ana another unto dishonor T. Moreover,
all these are nothing more than the actual thesis of the Thomists :
for they’ suppose that God chooses us for glory' by' his own good
will, that all good things, even our merits, flow from this election.
Whoever acts prudently and ordinately intends the end before
the means. But God acts prudently' and ordinately. and further­
more merits are the means, glory is the end. Therefore He
intends the glory before the means.
’ Epistle to the Romans, XI, 11.
’ Epistle to the- Romans, XI, 5-6.
3 Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 28.
* Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 30.
1 Epistle to the Romans, XI, 6-18.
* Epistle to the Romans, IX, 20.
’ Epistle to the Romans, IX, 21.

306

CHAPTER HI

Conclusion

526 The mystery of divine predilection toward the elect remains
in both explanations : for gratuitously God chooses the
predestinated in ordine exsecutionis first for final perseverance
in grace and then for the attainment of glory. After this has
been attentively considered, there seems to be no difficulty
in establishing the eternal intention of Providence first, the
election to glory, secondly and in the order to glory, election
to grace and to a persevering obedience and service in grace ;
actuali}' the opinion of the Thomists seems to surpass the
opinion of the Molinists in this, that it sets up in God a plan
which is more ordered and regulated.
It remains for the Thomists and the Molinists to exclaim
with St. Paul : “ O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of
the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments
and how unsearchable his ways! For who hath known the mind
of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? *
1
Two facts
can certainly be gathered from Scripture, namely, that our salva­
tion is both in the hand of God and in the hand of our own counsel
or planning. Surely God will not fail us; on the contrary, He
will impart to us graces, not only sufficient but also abundant.
It is necessary, therefore, for us to make our vocation and our
election certain through good works.

527 The Number of the Predestined.
1. The number is great according to the following
quotation : After this I saw a great multitude, which no man
could number of all nations, and tribes and people, and
tongues, standing before the throne and in sight of the
Lamb 2 ”. What this number is, we do not know.

2. It is commonly asserted that the elect are fewer than
the reprobate, if the entire human race is referred to; but
the texts of Scripture from which this is inferred do not
appear to have demonstrative force : “ Many arc called but
1 Epistle to the Romans, XI, 33-34.
1 Apocalypse, VII, 9.

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

307

few are chosen1 ". “ Wide is the gate and broad is the way
that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in
thereat3
One fact beyond a doubt is this, that no one
will be damned unless knowingly and willingly through
his own fault.

3. In the matter of Catholics alone, it is commonly held,
with Suarez, that more, even of the adults, will be saved
rather than condemned, because of the saving will of God,
because of the sanctity of the Church, the parable of the
banquet at which one only was found without a wedding
garment.
528 4. As to the question of all Christians, whether Catholics
or schismatics or heretics, many claim that the number
of the damned will be greater than the number of the elect,
because they arc deprived of the means which in ordinary’
providence are necessary for salvation. To some others
a contrary opinion seems more probable.
5. Among the non-Christian sects the chosen will not
be lacking : indeed the Jews and the Mohammedans can
believe in God, the supernatural rewarder; they can, with the
help of God, elicit an act of perfect contrition ’. But the
pagans who have preserved no vestiges of revelation can be
led to the faith by internal revelation and by other means
known to God, if they have guarded and obeyed the precepts
of the natural law. This will be enlarged upon in the Tract
on Grace.
» Gosfial according to St. Matthew, XXII, 14·
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, VII, 13, 14·
* Lugo taught this (De fide, disp. XII, sect. 5, n. 50-51) : “ If there were
Turks or Mohammedans who were in invincible error concerning Christ and
His Divinity, by that fact it is not impossible for them to believe with truly
supernatural faith in one God the supernatural rewardcr : this they believe
not because of arguments that have been chosen from natural created things,
but they possess this dogma from tradition. This tradition has come forward
from the true Church of the faithful and has reached even to these people,
although other errors have been mingled into their sect. From such faith
as theirs they could proceed sometimes to an act of perfect contrition.

308

CHAPTER HI

529 Signs of Predestination.
The certain predestination of any man can be known only
through a special revelation. However, there are probable
signs which can serve as the basis for great hope within us.
These signs are everything that leads to eternal life :
a conscience that fears danger1* contempt for the world *,
patience in adversity34
*7, zeal for the salvation of souls *, the
practice of the beatitudes *, special devotion to the Sacred
Heart of Jesus and to the Blessed Virgin ®, frequent and
fervent Communion ".

ARTICLE IV.

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD 8

530 A Concept. Active power is the principle for producing
something; passive power is the principle for receiving
something. In God there is no passive power which would
involve imperfection. However, active power is a true
perfection and so it exists in God to an infinite degree —
operatio follows esse. To be sure, God is omnipotent, or God
can do all things which are absolutely possible, that is,
whatever has or can have the ratio entis, but not what involves
contradiction.
531 B Thesis : God is omnipotent or God can do whatever is
not impossible. This thesis is de fide from the various Symbols
and from the Vatican Council which confesses : " There
is one true and living God, Creator of heaven and earth,
Almighty (omnipotent) ”.
1 Ecdi., XXI, 2.
• St. Matthew, XIX, 29.
* Romans, VIII, 17.
4 St. James, V, 20.
1 St. Matthew, V, 3-10.
* Romans, VIII, 35-39.
7 St. John, VI, 54-55• Major Synopsis, 550-554·

THE DIVINE OPERATIONS OR WORKINGS

309

Proof of thesis from Scripture.
In the Old Testament there are more than seventy references
in which God is called Shaddai, that is, omnipotent. For
example, “ I am the almighty God 1 ”.
In the Old and New Testament it is shown that God can
do all tilings, so that nothing is difficult or impossible to
Him, and no one can resist His will : “ Whatsoever the Lord
pleased he hath done in heaven in earth, in the sea, and in
all the deeps...2” “Is there anything hard to God’”?
“ No word shall be impossible with God ** ”.
532 Proof of Thesis from Reason.
A being is able to do as much as its nature permits it :
operatio follows esse. But God is essentially infinite being
or esse itself. Therefore He can do whatever has a ratio
entis — or God is almighty.
533 Corollaries.

I. The power of God is infinite by reason of itself because
it is the divine essence itself. It is infinite by reason of its
action and its mode of acting because it is entirely independent,
it needs no instrument, no matter, and instantly and
immediately at one word, it can produce all things : “ He
spoke, and they were made, he commanded and they were
created · ”.
The power of God is infinite by reason of its object because
it can bring forth other things, more and more excellent,
without end, because the divine esse is capable of being shared
in ad infinitum.
534 2. A consideration of the divine power produces in us
very strongly two dispositions : First, humble submission
1 Genesis, XVII, 1.
» Psalm, CXXX1V, 6.
* Genesis, XVIII, x4.
‘ St. Luke, I, 37.
» Psalm, XXXII, 9·

310

CHAPTER III

to God as to one who holds over us the supreme right and
supreme power : “ Be you humbled under the mighty hand
of God, that he may exalt you in the time of visitation 1

Secondly, trust in God: for if the Almighty supports us,
why should we fear? For no evil can be put upon us unless
he gives assent; nor will he gives assent unless that will be
profitable to us for eternal life : “ To them that love God
all tilings work together unto good ’
THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRACT

The beatitude or happiness oi God

535 Beatitude or happiness is a state perfect in the aggregate
of all good2. According to the Vatican *Council God in
Himself and of Himself is most blessed and happy because
He knows Himself and loves Himself infinitely. His beatitude
eminently contains all other beatitude. He is our supreme
happiness, for in as much as He is Infinite Truth and the
Supreme Good, He satisfies the intellect and the will of man.
Therefore, let us contemplate God and love Him with all
our powers.

* I Peter, v, 6.
- Romans, VIII, 28
Refer to Summa theologica, I, q. 25.
» De consol, phil., book III, pros. 2; P. L., LX III, 724.
* D. D., 1782.

TRACT VIII

THE TRIUNE GOD

I believe in God, the Father Almighty... and in Jesus Christ
His only Son, Our Lord... I believe in the Holy Spirit.
536 We must pass now from a study of the one God to a
discussion of the Triune God — or a discussion of the ineffable
mystery of the Most Holy Trinity.
First of all we shall enlarge on the concept of this mystery;
then we shall speak of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity
as it is explained from the sources of Revelation and as it is
more fully set forth with the help of philosophy.
THE CONCEPT OF THE MYSTERY
OF THE HOLY TRINITY
*

537 The Catholic belief concerning the Holy Trinity was
summarized by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) in these
words : 2
“ Firmly we believe and simply we confess that there
is one sole true God... the Father and the Son and the Holy
Spirit : indeed there are three persons, but one essence, substance
or nature which is entirely simple : The Father from no one,
the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit equally
from both... consubstantial and coequal and coomnipotcnt and
coeternal... We believe and confess with Peter the Lombard
that there exists one certain greatest reality, incomprehensible
* Major Synopsis, n. 566-578.
* D. B., 428, 432.

312

TRACT VIII

indeed and ineffable, which is truly the Father and the Son
and the Holy Spirit, three persons together, and individually
anyone of them : and therefore in God there is the Trinity
only, not quaternity : because anyone of the three -persons
is that reality, namely the divine substance, the divine essence,
or the divine nature
This definition Pope Eugenius IV’ made complete, regarding
the procession of the Holy Spirit, in the decree of union
with the Greeks (1439) ; the Council of Florence1 gave approval
to this in these words ;
“ We define that this truth of faith is to be believed by
all Christians... that the Holy Spirit is eternally from the
Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit has His essence
and His subsisting esse or being from the Father together with
the Son, and that He proceeds from both eternally as from
one principle and one spiration ”.
From these documents we can define the Holy Trinity :
the mystery of three persons really distinct in one and the
same numerical substance, nature or essence, the second of
which proceeds from the first through true generation, the third,
however, proceeds from the first and the second, as from one
principle, through spiration ; or more briefly : the mystery’
of one God in three persons.

538 It is advantageous to prepare the way for the explanation
and demonstration of the Catholic doctrine by pointing out
what should be understood by the substance of God, the
nature, essence, and persons of God.
539 The words essence, nature, substance, oftentimes mean the
same thing; it is called :
a. essence when it is viewed as the reason of being, that,
namely, by which a thing is that which it is and is distinguished
from every other thing : thus the essence of man is animality
and at the same time rationality;
1 D. B., 691.

THE TRIUNE GOD

313

b. nature in as much as it is the principle of operation,
action, and of feeling, as, for instance, man’s nature is composed
of body and of soul by means of which man acts and feels
or suffers;
c. substance, in as much as it is proper for it to exist in
itself and not in another, and so it supports accidents, if there
are any.
Wherefore essence, nature, and substance :
1. differ only virtually both in creatures and in God;
2. in God they signify one thing completely simple, subsist­
ing to the fullest aegree, without accidents; they signify that by
which God is that which He is and works or acts.

540 Likewise personality is not entirely the same in God as in
creatures :
a. The idea of " person ” in creatures. Person can be
defined thus : a substance which is individual, complete, existing
in its own right, and endowed with an intellect.
The substance is called :
1. individual or singular, but not universal and abstract
which, as such, is in the mind;
2. complete, not needing to be united to another substance
in order to be fully and completely equal to eliciting its own
inherent or connatural operations : we have an example of an
incomplete substance in a separated soul;
3. existing of its own right {autonomous), or subsisting in itself
and for itself and incommunicably (through itself) ; to it arc ulti­
mately referred and properly ascribed all the operations (acts)
which it elicits;
4. endowed with an intellect: by reason of this fact it differs
from what is called a mere suppositum, and it is perceived
more fully to exist of its own right because it (the substance)
is mistress of its own acts through free will. Wherefore, what
personality adds to nature is the office and function of subsisting
in se and of acting for itself1 ; nature is that by which one works
1 Whether personality so precisely understood consists of something negative
or of a positive element will be discussed more opportunely in the Trad, The
Incarnate Word — Summa theologica, I, q. 29, a. 3.

314

CHAPTER I

or acts, while a person is that which acts or works by means of
nature.
In making the distinction between nature and person reason
alone perceives that this distinction is at least virtual, because
(of itself) nature does not exist of its own right and a person
is a principle which acts as the center of attributes. However,
we known from revelation that there is a real difference between
nature and person : in Christ there arc two natures and only
one person.

b. The concept of " person ” in God. God is truly a personl.
Person is predicated of God not in the same sense as of creatures,
but in an analogous sense and in a more excellent sense.
Among the divine persons a real distinction prevails
which depends upon the relations of origin. In the divine
persons, person is and means a relation that is something
subsistent; for example, the Son is the relation of Sonship
as something subsistent.
In section 583 we shall better understand how there are
several persons in God and how the persons are established
through the relations of origin.

CHAPTER I

THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY
IS PROVED FROM REVELATION
We are concerned first, with the trinity of persons in the
unity of nature, secondly, with the divine processions, thirdly,
with the divine missions.
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 29.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

315

PREPARATION FOR THE REVELATION
OF THIS MYSTERY»

541 I. This mystery is represented in the Old Testament.
A In the Old Testament a certain plurality in one God
is suggested by the words of God Himself : before the creation
of man — " Let us make man... to our likeness1 ”; as He
reproves Adam for his prevarication : " Behold Adam is
become as one of us 1 ” ; and as He upraids the builders of
the tower of Babel for their pride : “ Come ye, therefore,
let us go down and there confound their tongue 4 ”. More
that this, however, a certain trinity is pointed out : in the
formula of blessing in Numbers wherein the name of Jahweh **
is three times repeated; in the threefold appellation, *' Holy,
Holy, Holy”, in Isaias4; in the theophany in the vale of
Mambre. “ The Lord appeared ” to Abraham, and the
Scriptures immediately add : “ when he had lifted up his
eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near him;
and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the
door of his tent, and adored down to the ground 1 ”. The
Roman Breviary comments upon this passage in this way :
0 He saw three, and he adored one · ”. In these words and
in these theophanies a certain trinity in the divine persons
is suggested, but not so plainly that the Jews were able to
recognize it therein.

542 B The Trinity, furthermore, is foreshadowed in the Old
Testament. On the one hand, the Jews professed a perfect
monotheism; and on the other hand, the books of the Old
Testament speak of a second person who is called the Messiah,
Wisdom ; they also speak of the Holy Spirit.
» Major Synopsis, 580-596.
• Gen/ti'j, I, a6.
• Genesis, III, 22.
• Genesis, XI, 7.
• Numbers, VI, 33-26.
• Isaias, VI, x-9.
1 Genesis, XVIII.
• Homan Breviary, Quinquagesima responsory 2.

316

CHAPTER I

I. The Messiah is announced by the Prophets; He is
called Emmanuel (God with us) ; to Him are attributed eternal
origin, supreme power, and other divine attributes which
are in perfect accord with The Incarnate Word. Wisdom
of God is presented in the Old Testament in such a way that
it can probably be inferred that Wisdom is some divine
person.
a. In Proverbs, that Wisdom may more efficaciously
attract men, it relates its own own qualities and its eternal
origin : “ I wisdom dwell in counsel, and am present in learned
thoughts. By me kings reign... I love them that love me...
With me are riches and glory... The Lord possessed me
in the beginning of his ways, before he made anything from
the beginning: I was set up from eternity... The depths
were not as yet and I was already conceived... before the
hills I was brought forth... when be balanced the foundations
of the earth, I was with him forming all things...1*”

b. In the book of Wisdom he is shown as the spirit,
a certain emanation of the brightness of the omnipotent God,
the radiance of eternal light, mirror without defilement of
the majesty of God, and image of his goodness; He can do
all things and in Himself He can renew all things; He sets
all things in order delightfully; He is the teacher of God’s
knowledge and the elector (chooser) and author or artificer
(τεκνίτις) of His works; He led the first man out of his crime
and He directed the chosen people with His omnipotent
and fatherly providence : all of these achievements taken
together intimate 3 not obviously but very probably a person
distinct from God, but equal to Him.
1 Proverbs, VIII, 1-36; refer to Eccl., XXIV.
» Wisdom, I, 6; VII. 22; IX, 17; VII, 25-26, VII, r-6; X-XI. Refer to
Wisdom, IX,
XVIII, 15.
’ Refer to U. Le. breton, Les origines du dogme de la Trinite', p. x x8 : " Cc
n’est point à dire que toute la Trinité soit là. Seule la Sagesse sc distingue
de Dieu, et encore n’a-t-elle pas tout le relief d'une personnalité vivante...
Cependant c’est bien dans ce livre que nous trouvons le pressentiment le plus
net du dogme chrétien, et bientôt l’interprétation authentique de l’épttre
aux Hébreux y fera apparaître en pleine lumière cette théologie du Verbe
que nous n’avons pu y distinguer qu’obscurément ”.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

317

543 2. The Spirit of God is frequently called by name in the
Old Testament and is shown as the principle of life by whom
the face of the earth is renewed, the distributor of heavenly
gifts...1 But His personal distinction from God can hardly
be inferred from these texts.
Conclusion. All of these quotations and references in relation
to IKiWom, to the Messiah and to the Holy Spirit appear
to us as the various elements which, taken together and
coordinated, excellently disposed the mind for a fuller
disclosure of the mystery of the Holy Trinity; the Jews,
however did not fully understand these references.

544 II. In the rabbinical teaching of the Jews, in the time of
Christ, the truths concerning Wisdom and the Messiah as set
forth in the sacred books were obscured and beclouded by false
notions.
The Judaeo-Hellenic doctrine in regard to God and the
Logos, which was taught among the Stoics and the Neoplatonists did not admit a real trinity. Philo, the Alexandrian
Jew, bom approximately in the year 20 B. C., admitted
a certain Word or Logos which is the exemplar of things
created by God; but from his assertions we can rightfully
infer that the Logos is not a person, but a certain divine
power.
ARTICLE I.

THE TRINITY OF PERSONS

IN THE UNITY OF NATURE 2

545 Errors. Some taught one person in God regarded under
a three fold aspect or mode — this is modalism; others held
an inequality of persons and profess subordinatianism and
1 Isaias, XI, 2-3; LXI, 1; Second book of Kings, XXIII, 2; Osee, IX, 7;
F.zechiel, XI, 19; XXXVI, 26. St. Thomas says : “ But afterwards in the
time of grace the mystery of the Trinity was revealed by the very Son of
God ". (2‘, 2·, q. X74, a. 6). — Refer to G. Lebreton, Les Origines du dogme
de la TriniU.
* Major Synopsis, 597-643N" 642 (I). — 22

318

CHAPTER I

Arianism; still others established such a distinction among
persons that it can be then inferred that there are three
gods-these fall into tritheism.
Among the more modem, the Rationalists, Pantheists and
Theosophists, while retaining the name of the Trinity, teach a
certain incongruous kind of modalism.
The Modernists affirm that the dogma of the trinity was
foreign to the mind of Christ and was made up by the Christians
under the influence of Judaco-Hellenistic theories through the
first four centuries.
Catholic thesis. In God there are three persons really distinct
from one another, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost, in numerically one and the same nature. This thesis
is de fide from the symbols and from the Fourth Lateran Council.
I. THIS THESIS IS PROVED
FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT

Among the texts which we shall mention some refer to the
three persons together; but others refer to one or another
person only.

A

Testimony Which Relates to the Three Persons Together

546 I. In the Synoptic Gospels we shall list two particular
references.
a. In the baptism of Christ a real distinction among the
three persons is apparent not only from the different names
by which they are designated, but also from the operations,
clearly distinct, which they accomplish; the Father speaks
from heaven : “ And behold a voice from heaven saying :
this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased1
but
the Son is baptized by John and came out of the water :
" And Jesus being baptized forthwith came out of the water **
1 Gospel according to St. Matthew, III, 17.
• Gospel according to St. Matthew, III, 16.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

319

and lastly, the Holy Spirit is distinguished from the other
two, for, while the Father is speaking from heaven, He (the
Holy Spirit) descends upon Christ under the bodily form
of a dove : " And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape,
as a dove upon him1”; it is evident, therefore, that those
three are not one person, but three persons really distinct.
In addition, these three persons are consubstantial : the
Father and the Son have the same nature; the Holy Spirit
renders the same solemn testimony about Christ as the Father
does, because He possesses the same dignity or essence.

b. In the formula of Baptism the mystery of the Holy
Trinity is clearly proclaimed. About to ascend into heaven,
Christ spoke to the Apostles in these words 2 : “ Going therefore
teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ”; certainly the Father
is someone other than the Son and similarly the Holy Ghost
must be distinguished from the Father and the Son; also,
the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are united by one and
the same nature: for to be baptized in the name of some
one is to be devoted to religious worship, and this is due to
God alone, as is evident from St. Paul's teaching in regard
to baptism. Furthermore, a man must be baptized in the
name of the three persons; but baptism brings about the
remission of sins and at the same time an infusion of gracethese arc effected by God alone. Therefore, the three persons
have the divine nature, or they are consubstantial.
547 2.

In the Epistles of the Apostles.

St. Paul attributes grace to the three persons together :
" The grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the charity of God,
and the communication of the Holy Ghost be with you all2
S/. Peter writes similarly in his First Epistle, I, 1-2.
1 Gospel according to St. Luke, III, 22.
* Gospel according to St. Matthew, XXVIII, 19.
• Second Epistle to the Corinthians, XII, 13; Refer to Ephesians, IV, 4.5.

320

CHAPTER I

548 3. In St. John’s writing the trinity of the persons and
their equality are manifestly established.
a. In the -promise of the Holy Spirit made by Christ at
the Last Supper : " And I will ask the Father, and he shall
give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you
forever...” “But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things1*”,
From this text the three are regarded as distinct persons :
the Father who sends the Spirit, the Son who asks the Father
that the Spirit be sent, the Spirit who is sent by the Father
in the name of the Son, other than the Son. From the
context the consubstantiality of the three persons is manifest :
Christ said ; “ He that seeth me, seeth the Father also 1 ”.
“ I and the Father are one 3 ”, But the Spirit proceeds from
the Father, He is the source of all truths, and hence He is
equal to the Father.

b. In the First Epistle of St. John, V, 7 — dogmatic authen­
ticity of this cannot be denied or mistrusted in so far
as it is found in the authentic or official documents of the
Church.
B

Testimony Which Relates to One or Another Person

549 I. In regard to God the Father : all who admit Scripture
to be sacred acknowledge that the Father is a divine person
who is called the Father of Christ and of the Word in the
proper and strict sense.
2. In regard to God the Son or the Word.
a.
In the Synoptic Gospels Christ is shown as a person
distinct from the Father, equal to Him as one who produces
divine works . He remits sins, He is the supreme legislator,
He will judge men, He has known the Father perfectly.
We shall consider the Divinity of the Word in more detail
in the Tract on The Incarnate Word.
1 Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 16, 26.
1 Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 9-11.
3 Gospel according to St. John, X, 30.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

321

b. The Apostles teach the divinity of Christ : in the Epistle
io the Romans St. Paul calls Christ God1*; in the Epistle to
the Philippians he declares that Christ is equal to God ».
550 c. In the Gospel according to St. John the divinity of
the Word or of Christ is openly proclaimed.
a) In the prologue 3* the following two affirmations are
made : first, there is a distinction between the Word and the
Father, for it is stated, "The Word was with God
*
”; no
one is correctly said to be with himself ; also that word is
made clear somewhat later (18) in these words : " The only
begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath
declared him ” ; from these words it is obviously gathered
that the Word is really distinct from the Father because
between the Father and the Son, between the bosom of the
Father and Him who is in the bosom of the Father, it is
necessary to admit a real distinction; secondly, His perfect
equality with the Father is affirmed, for the Word is called
God : “ And the Word was God ” : in these words, without
any doubt, the Word (ό λόγος) is the subject, and God is
the predicate — this is apparent both from the context of
the language and from the article ό which precedes λόγος;
futhermore, the word God retains its own proper meaning,
and this is apparent from the parallelism : " The Word was
with God and the Word was God ”.
b. John corroborates the divinity of the Word throughout
the entire Gospel. Christ indeed received all things from the
Father, but by reason of that He does all the things which
the Father performs : “ The Father loveth the Son, and he
hath given all things into his hand... For what things soever
he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner6 ”. Thus,
just as the Father enjoys the power of raising the dead and
of judging men : " For as the Father raiseth up the dead,
1 Epistle to the Romans, IX, 5-7·
* Epistle to the Philippians, II, 5-n.
3 Gospel according to St. John, I, 1-5.
* Gospel according to St. John, I, I.
* Gospel according to St. John, III, 35; V, 19.

322

CHAPTER I

and giveth life, so the Son also giveth life to whom he will.
For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given
all judgment to the Son 1 ", Nor is there any reason to wonder ;
for He is of the same nature as is the Father : " I and the
Father are one **
551

3.

In regard to the Holy Spirit.

a. In the Synoptic Gospds the Holy Spirit is shown as
distinct from the Father and from the Son, and coequal
to them, since to Him are attributed divine works, especially
prophecy and sanctification.
b. The Apostles very often make mention of the Holy
Spirit as a person distinct and divine. A distinct personality
is manifest in those places where properties and operations
arc ascribed to the Spirit which give proof of no mere attribute
but of a true suppositum. To Him there is ascribed intellect :
" For the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep tilings
of God8”; to Him are assigned will and operation: "But
all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing
to every one according as he will4 ” ; to Him also are assigned
special operations : “ The Holy Ghost said to them : Separate
me Saul and Barnabas s ”. " Wherein the Holy Ghost hath
placed you bishops to rule the Church of God 0 ”.
The Holy Spirit is truly God and hence equal to the Father
and to the Son; for He is called God: St. Peter clearly asserts
that to lie to the Holy Spirit is the same as to lie to God :
“ Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou
shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost? ...Thou hast not lied to
men, but to God 7 ”. Omniscience in regard to divine things
is attributed to the Holy Ghost : " The Spirit searcheth all
things (that is, He perfecti}' comprehends all things), yea,
* Gospel according to St. John, V, 21-22.
* Gospel according to St. John, X, 30.
* First Epistle to the Corinthians, II, 10.
4 First Epistle to the Corinthians, XII, 11.
4 Acts of the Apostles, XIII, 2.
4 Acts of the Apostles, XX, 28; refer to Acis, XIX, 2; to Romans, VIII, 26.
1 Acts of the Apostles, V, 3-4.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

323

the deep things of God1*
To the Holy Spirit is assigned
the work of regeneration, of justification, and of sanctification,
which is proper to God, namely, true deification : “ You
are washed, you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and in the Spirit of our God 3
To the Holy Spirit
is due the cult of lalria; indeed from St. Paul3 we know
that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit : “ Know
you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost
who is in you ”? But a temple is built to God alone.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is God : this conclusion is deduced
by St. Paul when he adds to the words just quoted : “ Glorify
and bear God in your body ”,
c. In the Gospel according to St. John the Holy Spirit
is spoken of on the occasion of Christ’s baptism and of Christian
baptism 4 ; and very explicitly he is referred to at the Last
Supper and proclaimed by Christ as a person distinct from
the Father and from the Son, equal to them, and proceeding
from them. Refer to section 548.
From this testimony in the New Testament we can rightfully
infer that God is indeed one, but that He is at the same time
three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit.

II.

THE MYSTERY OF THE HOLY TRINITY

AS IRREFUTABLY7 PROVED FROM TRADITION

552 Contrary to the Unitarians, the Liberals, and the Modernists
we state that from the beginning the Church preached this
mystery, not in scientific terminology, but in a simple and
popular manner, by teaching that there is one God, but that
at the same time God is three persons. Our discussion will
be divided into three divisions according to time :
I. The Ante-Nicaean Period,
1 First EpislU to the Corinthians, II, io.
•Ibid., VI, ii.
8 Ibid., VI, 19.
* Gospel according to St. John, I, 33; III, 15.

324

2.
3.

CHAPTER I

The Post-Nicaean Period to the Sixth Century,
From the Sixth Century to the Twentieth Century'.

A Ante-Nicaean Testimony

553 We must carefully distinguish between the documents
which refer to the faith of the Church and those documents
which combine philosophical theories along with the faith.
While the faith is explained in a plain and direct manner
in the first centuries, the substance of the mystery is rightly
shown in the following centuries; however, at times obscure
and ambiguous phrasings occur; in fact even accidental
errors occur in a way of reconciling this dogma with philo­
sophical doctrines.
Belief in the Holy' Trinity we find :
554

i.

In the -practice of the Church :

a. In the manner of conferring baptism. Baptism was
bestowed by means of a triple immersion and under the
distinct invocation of three divine personsx.

b. In the many symbols. By the second century a rule
of faith is mentioned which the catechumens had to profess
before they were baptized. According to Irenaeus3 this
rule primarily included belief in the Trinity, that is, belief
" in one God, the Father almighty, who made heaven and
earth and the sea and all the things which are in them; and
in Jesus Christ the only Son of God who became incarnate
for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit who proclaimed
the dispositions of God through the prophets
1 In the Didachc, VII, 1-3, edited by Funk, t. I, p. 16, we read : “ In regard
to baptism, baptize thus : after you have said all the things which precede,
baptize in living water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost... Pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father
and 0/ the Son and of the Holy Ghost
Similarly states Tertullian, Adv.
Prax., c. 26, P. L., II, 190 : " Not once, but three times, we are bathed according
to the single and individual names, with reference to the individual persons ”.
• Contra hares, book I, c. to, n. x, P. G., VII, 549.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

325

c. In the doxologies. That these doxologies were in use
from the first Christian times is evident from the acts of the
martyrdom of St. Polycarp, St. John's disciple, who exclaimed
over a funeral pyre : " Lord omnipotent God, Father of
your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ... I praise you...
I glorify you through the eternal and celestial Pontiff, Jesus
Christ, your beloved Son, through whom (I give) to you
together with Him and the Holy Spirit, glory both now and
throughout the future ages. Amen 1 ".
In addition to the minor Doxology or the Gloria Patri,
the major Doxology or the Gloria in excelsis Deo was recited
in the Church at the beginning of the second century; in this
doxology a belief in the Trinity is made manifest at greater
length.
555 2. In the teaching of the Ante-Nicaean Fathers; among
these are the Apostolic Fathers, Apologists and controver­
sialists, and the Fathers of the third century.
a. Apostolic Fathers — St. Clement of Rome asserts that the
Father is the creator of all, the Father and author of resurrection,
almighty and immeasurable *; that the Son is loftier than the
angels? is the splendor of divine majesty, nay more, that He is
also God;8 that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets
;
*
and so, in allotting different operations to each, St. Clement
very sedulously distinguishes three termini in God.
St. Ignatius Martyr teaches identically : “ Prepared unto the
edifice of God the Father, borne unto the heights through the
engine of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the
Holy Spirit as the rope
"Be eager to be confirmed in
the doctrines of the Lord... in the Son and Father and in the
Spirit *
The testimony of St. Polycarp we have already related in
section 554.
1 Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, n. 14; edited by Funk, p. 330-332.
» Cor., XXIV, XXVI-XXVIII.
8 Cor., XXXVI. According to the reading of the oldest codex which
Hamack himself accepted, Christ is called God. II, 1.
« Cor., VIII, 1; XLV, s.
8 Ephes., IX, i.
• Magnes, XIII, x.

326

CHAPTER I

b. The Apologists and Controversialists, as witnesses to the
faith certainly refer to this dogma; but when they, as philosophers,
wish to reconcile this dogma with Platonic or Stoic teaching,
they sometimes employ equivocal or less correct words. Among
the'apologists St. Justin and Athenagoras affirm the unity of
essence and three j>crsons in God. So also, among the contro­
versialists St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, opposing the Gnostics,
very lucidly recognizes the unity of God, and at the same time
acknowledges that there are three termini in God: The Father,
creator of heaven and of earth ; the Son, born from eternity of the
Father through whom all things have been made; the Holy Spirit,
eternal, who concurs in the creation of man and who has spoken
through the prophets
c. During the third century, in the I Vest, St. Hippolytus and
Terttdlian wrote against the Monarchianism of Noetus and Praxeas; and in opposition to the Modalism of Sabellius, Novatian,
the disciple of lertullian wrote. In the East Origen and St. Diony­
sius of Alexandria opposed Sabcllianism and Unitarianism.

We should bear in mind that the Holy Pontiffs have forcefully
opposed these errors. 'Phus, Pope St. Dionysius, in his
condemnation of the Modalists and at the same time of the
Subordinationists, wrote :
" Therefore the wonderful and divine unity must not be
separated into three divinities, nor must the dignity and
supreme greatness of the Lord be lessened by any mention
of making ”

556 Therefore it cannot be said that the Ante-Nicaean Fathers
had no knowledge of the Holy Trinity, or that they corrupted
it in essentials : it is obvious also from the fact that, in the
time of the Arian controversy, they appealed to the faith
and belief of the anterior Father. St Athanasius says1 :
“ O you, the new Jews, whom are you able to bring forward as
the fathers of your affirmations? Indeed not one of the
prudent and wise can you name ”.

1 Cont. hares., I, 10; III, 9, 15, «5; IV, 9, 15.
’ Epistle in opposition to the Sabellians; P. G., XXV, 462; D. 13., 48-51.
’ The Decrees of the Nicaean Synod, 27; P. G., XXV, 465.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

327

B The Catholic Tradition from Nicaean until the Sixth Century
557 I. Arianism. The Arian heresy and the Council of Nicaea.
— In the year 325 the Council of Nicca vindicated the real
tradition in opposition to Arius; he contended that the Father
alone was eternal and He alone was properly God; he claimed
that the Word was the most excellent creature whom the
Father had created not from His own substance but by His
own will from nothing; he taught that the Holy Spirit was
in like manner a creature, inferior not only to the Father
but also to the Son.
After much discussion it was defined that the Word is
consubstantial, όμοούσιον, to the Father, so that thus all
equivocation would be done away with1 : " We believe in
one God the Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible
and invisible. And in our one Lord Jesus Christ Son of God,
the only begotten born of the Father, that is, of the substance of
the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial (of one substance) with
the Father, in the Greek they say homoousion... And in the
Holy Spirit... ”

However the special defender of the Nicaean Creed was
S#. Athanasius; his teaching in regard to the Trinity we can
summarize briefly in this way :
I. The Word, deifying us or making us gods through
Participation, is God and the Son of God in truth and by
nature. Since He is the Son, He is numerically distinguished
from the Father and is of the same substance as the Father,
in fact He is the very substance of the Father, όμοούσιος,
consubstantial with the Father; wherefore the Word proceeds
from the Father not through creation, but through generation.
Moreover, the Father necessarily and at the same time freely
begets or generates, just as necessarily and freely He wills
and loves Himself; thus it follows that this generation is
eternal because God has always been Father.
1 D. B., 54.

328

CHAPTER ï

2. Similarly, because the Holy Spirit through His indwelling
vivifies us by a participation in the divine nature, the Holy
Ghost is God through essence : this is confirmed by the fact
that the Holy Spirit is numbered or reckoned along with
the Father and the Son. So, the Holy Spirit is όαοουσ-.ος,
consubstantial with the Father and with the Son. Therefore
nothing created can be found in the Trinity because the
Trinity is in its entirety one God όλη γάο εζς θεός έστιχ.

558 2. Macedonianism. In approximately the year 360 many
semi-Arians explicitly taught that the Holy Spirit was a
creature, like to the angels, and the minister of God. These
heretics were called Pneumatomachi, and Macedonians, because
it was thought that Macedonius maintained this error (although
this is not at all certain), or Marathonians, because they
recognized as their leader Marathonius of Nicomedia.
At the Fourth Council of Rome in the year 380 St. Damasus
defined Catholic truth as opposed to the Macedonians ** : “ If
anyone does not say that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly
from the Father, just as the Son is, that He is of divine
substance and truly God, let him be anathema... If anyone
docs not say that there is one divinity, power, majesty,
dominion, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit... let him be anathema... ”
This the Second Oecumenical Council of Constantinople,
in the year 381, confirmed, accepting and considering as
valid these words which shortly before had been added to
the Nicaean Symbol for the purpose of destroying the Mace­
donian errors : " And in the Holy Spirit, Lord and vivifying,
proceeding from the Father, to be adored and glorified along
with the Father and the Son8 ”.
In this definition the word δμοούοιος is not made use of
because it was the occasion of many disputations, but only
those words are employed which are found in the Scriptures.
1 I ad Scrap., 17. Refer to "Fixeront, Histoire des dogmes, IT, p. 67-76,
De Régnon, Etudes de théologie positive sur la Sainte Trinité, Etudes XIII-XX;
p. 74. 200, 300; Etudes XXI-XXVII.
• D. B., 74 sq.
* D. B., 86.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

329

The sense of the definition, nevertheless, in no way appears
ambiguous.

559 3. Errors from the Sixth Century until the Twentieth
Century.
In the sixth century John Philipon, in the eleventh century
Roscellinus, and in the twelfth century Abbot Joachim taught
that in God there are three natures as well as three persons.
These errors the Councils of Constantinople IT, of Soissons (1092)
and of the Lateran IV (1215) condemned.

In the middle of the nineteenth century Giinther, defining
person as nature conscious or aware of itself, taught that there
are in God three natures conscious of themselves, that is,
the divine nature is trebled. This error Pius IX condemned
in 1857.
ARTICLE II.

THE DIVINE PROCESSIONS1

560 State of the Question. The Catholic teaching concerning
the divine processions is contained in these words of the
Athanasian Creed : “ The Father was made by no one, nor
was He created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father
alone, not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit
is from the Father and the Son, not made, nor created, nor
begotten, but He proceeds2 ”. It is a matter of faith, there­
fore, that the Father proceeds from no one, that the Son
proceeds from the Father through generation, and that the
Holy Spirit is from the Father and from the Son through
simple procession.
561 It is necessary at this point, to explain what procession
is — in general and in God.
I. Procession (ίκπορευσις, προβολή) in general is the origin
of one from another : so, for example, light proceeds from the
sun, the son proceeds from the lather. It is distinguished
in a two fold way :
a. transient or ad extra (toward the outside) when the terminus
is produced outside the cause; for example, in human beings the
son is a terminus outside the father;
Major Synopsis, n. 644-646. — 8 D. B-, 39·

330

CHAPTER I

b. immanent or ad intra (toward inside) when the terminus
remains within its principle, as thinking remains within the mind.

2. In God, likewise, a two-fold procession is distinguished :
a. procession ad extra by which creatures proceed from
God as effect from cause;
b. procession ad intra, by which one person proceeds from
another as what has been principled (principiatum) proceeds
from the principle, and remains within the divine essence.
Passively regarded, this procession can be defined as the
origin of one divine person from another or from two others
through a communication of the one same nature: but actively
considered, this procession is an immanent working or operation
by which the divine life is communicated to a person who proceeds
from another.
The Father proceeds from no one. Scripture is entirely
silent in regard to such procession. All tradition very clearly
teaches that the Father is άγένητον or βΜντητον, that is,
neither created nor begotten. ‘ Consequently, in the Decree
for the Jacobites, the Council of Florence proclaimed : " The
Father, whatever He is or whatever He has, does not have
it from another, but has it from Himself ; and He is a beginning
without a beginning1 ”,
Also, divine processions are only according to immanent
actions. But in God these actions are two only : to know
and to will; according to these actions the Son and the Holy
Spirit proceed.
We must now consider the procession of the Son through
generation and the procession of the Holy Spirit through
spiralion.

A

The Procession of the Son through generation

562 First Thesis : The Second Person of the Holy Trinity proceeds
from the First Person from all eternity through true generation.
This thesis is de fide from the Council of Nicaea, from which
1D. B., 704.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

331

we have quoted in section 557 in opposition to the Arians
and all others who claimed that the Word or Christ was
called the Son of God in a broad sense or through adoption.

Proof of thesis.
1. Proof from Scripture. In Scripture the second person
of the Holy Trinity is called simply the Son of God, proper,
true and only begotten : of Him it is stated : " The Father
loveth the Son and He hath given all things into his hand 1*
4”.
” You have received the Spirit of adoption of sons whereby
we cry : Abba Father 8 ”. Whence the filiation of the Word
greatly transcends our sonship : for while men arc called
the sons of adoption, the Word is called the Son without
any addition ; actually through Him filiation is communicated
to men : “ But as many received him, he gave them power
to be made the sons of God * ". “ He that spared not even
his own Son... ” " The Son of God is come... that we may
know the true God, and may be in his true Son ♦
“ The
wily begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
declared him...8 ”

2. Proof from Tradition. In addition to the symbols and
the councils, which openly affirm this generation, the Fathers
have proved that the Son is consubstantial with the Father
from the fact that He is begotten by the Father from the
substance of the Father. Thus St. Augustine says: “For
it is said in relation to something, as the Father in relation
to the Son and the Son in relation to the Father, which is
not accident; because both the one is always Father, and
the other is always Son ”.

“ Wherefore, although to be the Father and to be the Son
is different, yet their substance is not different; because
they are so called, not according to substance, but according
1 Gospel according to St. John, III, 35.
• Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 15.
• Gospel according to St. John, I, 12.
4 Epistle to the Romans, VIII, 32; First Epistle of St. John, V, 20.
• Gospel according to St. John, I, 18.

332

CHAPTER I

to relation; this relation, however, is not accident, because
it is not changeable 1 ”.
Hence we must reject the error of Hardouin and of Berruyer
who taught that Christ is called the Son of God only because
of the hypostatic union of his humanity with the second
divine person. Clement XIII rejected this error.

563 Second Thesis : The Word or the Son ■proceeds from the Father
through intellectual generation or from the intellect of the Father.
This is theologically certain ; it stands in opposition to Durandus
who claimed that the Son proceeds from the nature of the
Father.

This thesis is deduced as a theological conclusion :
1. From Scripture wherein He who is the Son is called
the Word. But the immanent word is the offspring of the
intellect.
2. This thesis is affirmed as a theological conclusion by
the Fathers because the Son is called the Word, Wisdom, the
Image of the Father. St. Basil writes : “ Why the Word?
In order that it may be clear that He has proceeded from
the mind *

3. From theological reasoning. The definition of generation
is adequately substantiated in the procession of the Word
from the Father.
a. The Concept of generation. Generation is the originating
of something living from a living and united principle, into
a likeness of nature.
Explanation of definition :
I. The origin of something living from something living : these
words signify that the one generating and that which is generated
must lx: endowed with life. Thus Adam made from the slime of
the earth cannot be called generated because earth lacks life;
’ De Trinitate, V, 4, 5; P. L., XLII, 914.
* Homily on : " In the beginning was the Word, P. G., XXXI, 475.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

333

2. from a united principle, that is, the one generating must
be united to the one generated through the active communication
of its own proper substance or at least of a part of that substance;
thus Eve, formed from Adam's rib, cannot be called his daughter
because in this work or act Adam was passive.
3. Into a likeness of nature : herein two ideas are expressed,
the one generated must be like the one generating through receiving
the same nature, at least specifically, and further, generation of
itself tends to producing this likeness.
b. The Procession of the H’W is true generation l. For it is :
1. The origin of something living (of the Word who is
God) from something living (that is, from the Father, true
God);
2. from a united principle : for the procession of the Word
is immanent and the Word is perfectly united to the Father
through participation or communication of the numerically
same essence ;
3. into a likeness of nature: the Word proceeds by way
of intellection : but intellection, of its nature, tends to producing
a likeness of the thing known in the one knowing.
B

The Procession of the Holy Spirit

564 Errors — The Eunomians and the Macedonians denied that
the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; they were condemned
and completely overthrown at the Council of Constantinople
(381). Later Theodoret (434), the Monothelites, the Iconoclasts
(in the eighth century), Phottus (in the ninth century), Michael
Cerularius (in the eleventh century), all of whom the’ schismatic
Greeks still adhere to, opposed the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Son. Against these, first of all in Spain, and then in
Franco and Germany, the particle Filioque was added to the
Nicacan Symbol, and was accepted and approved of by the
authority όί the Roman Pontiffs.

First Thesis : The Holy Spirit truly proceeds not only from
the Father but also from the Son, as from one principle and
through a single spiration. This thesis is de fide from the
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 27, a. 2.
N» 642 (I) — 23

334

CHAPTER I

Second Council of Lyons (1274) : " We confess that the Holy
Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and from the Son,
not as from two principles, but as from one principle, not
through two spirations but through one single spiration ”.
These last words were added for the purpose of solving the
difficulty of certain Greeks who rejected the formula from the
Father and from the Son because they erroneously thought that
thus two principles of the Holy Spirit were being established.
Therefore the meaning of the thesis is that a double spirative
force is not allowed but only one spiration, which is common
to the Father and to the Son : for in giving origin to the Holy
Spirit, the Father and the Son are not mutually opposing each
other.

Proof of thesis.
I. Proof from Scripture. That the Holy Spirit proceeds
from the Father is expressed very often *
1 in vet}' clear words.
It remains, therefore, to prove, against opponents, that the
Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son.
In many places in Scripture :
a. The Spirit is called the Spirit of the Son, or the Spirit
of Jesus Christ: “ God hath sent the Spirit of his Son... 2 ”
“ The Spirit of Jesus suffered them not3

b. He is said to have been sent by the Son as well as by
the Father ‘ “ If I go ”, says Christ, “ I will send him to
you ”. When the Paraclete cometh, whom 1 will send you
from the Father ”.
c. The Spirit is said to receive something from the Son ·,
" He shall glorify me, because he shall receive of mine, and
shall show it to you. All things whatsoever the Father hath
are mine; therefore I said, that he shall receive of mine, and
show it to you
1 Refer to Gospel according to St. John, XV, 26; to St. Matthew, X, 20.
1 Epistle to the Galatians, IV, 6; Refer to F.pisllc to the Romans, VIII» o.
* Acts of the Apostles, XVI, 7.
• Gospel according to St. John, XVI, 7; XV, 26.
» St. John, XVI, 14.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

335

But the Spirit cannot be called the Spirit of the Son, sent
by the Son; he cannot be said to receive something from
the Son, unless for this reason : He has His origin from the
Son; for a divine person can receive nothing accidental from
another.
565

2.

Proof from Tradition.

a. From the Fathers. Since our adversaries admit that
the Latin Fathers have clearly taught this thesis, it will be
sufficient to give a report on the testimony of the Greeks.
Thus St. A thanasius writes :*
1 “ That kind of property which
we know belongs to the Son in relation to the Father, this same
kind of property we shall find the Holy Spirit possesses in relation
to the Son
and elsewhere * he calls the Son " the Source, the
fountain of the Holy Spirit ”. St. Cyril of Alexandria * writes :
“ Because the Holy Spirit dwelling within us makes us conformable
to God, and because He proceeds from the Father and from the Son,
it is manifest that He is essentially of the divine essence, proceed­
ing in this essence and from this essence, just as the breath
coming from the human mouth — although this example is poor
and not worthy of so great a subject ”.
Many Greeks explain this doctrine in another way; they say
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.
This manner of speaking the Council of Florence authentically
explained in this way, with the approval of the Greeks : “ What
the holy Doctors and Fathers say, namely that the Holy Spirit
proceeds from the Father through the Son. lends itself to this under­
standing, that this statement signifies that the Son also is, accord­
ing to the Greeks, the cause, according to the T.atins the
principle of subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just as the Father
also is. And because all things which are of the Father, the
Father Himself gave to His only begotten Son in begetting Him,
except actually being the Father, that very fact that the Holy
Spint proceeds from the Son, the Son Himself jiossesses eternally
from the Father, from whom also He has been begotten * ”.
1 Ad Scrap., Ill, n. 1.
1 The Incarnation, n. 9.
» Thesaurus, assert. 31, P. G., LXXV, 5S5. We should realize that the
Greek word πρόειοι which is translated in Latin by the word procedat (proceed),
literally means oriatur (arise); wherefore the Greeks have imagined that the
Spirit principally proceeds (ίχπορεύεαΟχι) from the Father and secondarily
arises (rcpoUvxt) from the Son.
« D. B., 691.

336

b.

CHAPTER I

Proof from the Synods and from the Councils :

1. Before the schism of the Greeks. In the fifth century,
in the -profession of faith which the African bishops delivered
to King Hunneric, the following words are found : “ We
believe that the unbegotten Father, and the Son begotten
of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father
and from the Son are of one substance ”. The Synod of
Alexandria approved of the epistle of St. Cyril which stated
that the Spirit " proceeds from the Son and from God the
Father ”. This epistle was praised by the Councils of Ephesus,
of Chalcedon, and of Constantinople II.

2. Councils held after the schism. From the Fourth Latera n
Council (1215), at which many Oriental Bishops and abbots
were present1 we have these words : " The Father from
no one, but the Son from the Father alone, and the Holy
Spirit equally from both ” ; the Second Council of Lyons already
quoted; the Council of Florence where, with the approval
of the Greeks, it was defined : " The Holy Spirit is eternally
from the Father and from the Son, and has His essence and
His subsisting esse from the Father and at the same time
from the Son, and proceeds eternally from both as from one
principle and through one spiration 2 ”.
Corollary. It was right that the particle “ Filioque ’’
was added to the Symbol because the Holy Spirit truly proceeds
from the Son. At the Council of Florence both the Greeks
and the Latins approved of this addition.

566 Second Thesis : The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
and from the Son from the divine will by an act of love.

I. This is a theological conclusion which the Fathers and
theologians commonly deduce from the various names and
operations attributed to the Holy Spirit, from the fact that
He is called love, charity, gift and that to Him are ascribed
» D. B., 42S.
a D. B.. 691.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

337

the works of sanctification : all of these considerations involve
the will.
Theological reason supports this conclusion. For in the
intellectual nature we find an act of the intellect and an
act of the will; the will follows the intellect. Wherefore,
if a procession according to the intellect is present in God,
Whose nature is supremely immaterial and intellectual, it is
no wonder, but rather it is entirely proper, that a second
procession according to the will be present also. For although
in God will and intellect are the same, nevertheless, because
it is the manner of love that it proceeds only from a conception
of the intellect, so in God Himself the procession of love
occurs in due order as regards the procession of the Word ;
and thus in the divine persons1 procession of love has a
distinction of order from the procession of the Word.
567 2. The procession of the Holy Spirit is not true generation.

a. The Athanasian Creed states : “ The Holy Spirit was
not made by the Father and by the Son, nor was He created,
nor begotten, but He proceeds ’ ”,
b. So also the Fathers have written; for example. St. *Basi
says : “ We do not call the Holy Spirit unbegotten : we know
one who is unbegotten —■ tho Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Nor do we say that the Holy Spirit is begotten : we have learned
in the tradition of faith that one is the only-begotten » ".
c. Theological reason confirms the fact that the procession
of the Holy Spirit is not true generation. For proceeding
by an act of love, the Holy Spirit by the force of His origin
is not like His own principle, or He does not proceed in the
manner of likeness or similitude. Indeed He does receive
the divine nature, but not through generation. But How he
receives remains unknown to us : wherefore it is said only
that He proceeds. His origin can be called Spiration because
it is procession of the Spirit, says St. Thomas .*
* Summa theologica, I, q. 27, a. 3.
* D. B., 39.
1 Epist., 125, m. 3, Jourxel, 917.
« Summa theologica, I, q. 27, a. 4·

338

CHAPTER I

568 There is no other procession in the divine persons than
that of the Word and (hat of Love: no other procession is men­
tioned in Scripture or in Tradition. This fact can be inferred
from what has already been stated :
1. Since there are only three divine persons, only two can
proceed. It is impossible for three to proceed because, if such
were the case, either they would proceed from one another, or
one would proceed from Himself - this would be incongruous.
2. Ina nature which is entirely intellectual processions can be
conceived only according to the intellect and according to the
will, but in an intellectual and divine nature, which is infinitely
perfect, only one procession of knowledge can be conceived,
one procession of the will. To understand successively and
discursively is unworthy of God and the completely simple unity
of will follows the completely simple unity of intellect.
3. There is the objection that procession can take place accord­
ing to potency and goodness; but it has no merit, for potency
is the principle of acting with reference to another, goodness
pertains to essence not to operation. Wherefore processions
according to potency and goodness cannot be conceived in God l.
COROLLARIES RELATIVE

TO THE THREE PERSONS

569 I. The three divine persons are perfectly coequal. This
is de fide according to the Athanasian Symbol: “And in
this Trinity nothing before or after, nothing greater or less,
but the three entire persons are coeternal and coequal to one
another... Equal glory, Coeternal majesty 2 ”.
All of this follows from what has been said; for the individual
persons arc truly God. or the individual persons possess the entire
divine nature. ’ Tn fact, according to St. Augustine, each one
of the divine persons has as much perfection as all three together
have : " So great is the Father alone or so great is the Son alone,
or so great is the Holy Spirit alone as is the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit together
Therefore, the individual persons and the whole Trinity are
equally to be adored and to be honored with the same worship.
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 27, a. 5.
’ D. B., 39.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

339

570 2. A circuminsession in the divine -persons must be admitted,
that is, a mutual coexistence and co-dwelling of the divine
persons among themselves — thus the Father is in the Son,
the Son is in the Father, and each is in the Holy Spirit, and
likewise the Spirit is in the Father and in the Son. This
is de fide from the Council of Florence1*: " Because of this
unity (of nature) the Father is entire in the Son, entire in
the Holy Spirit : the Son is entire in the Father, entire in
the Holy Spirit; the Spirit is entire in the Father, entire in
the Son
This doctrine is stated directly in Scripture in relation to
the Father and to the Son * : "Do you not believe that I am
in the Father, and the Father is in me ”? St. Paul implicitly
teaches this in regard to the Holy Spirit when he teaches
that the Holy Spirit is in God, just as the spirit of a man
is in a man
This circuminsession arises :
a. From the consubstanliality of the persons : for, as St. Tho­
mas 4 rightly declares, " By His essence the Father is in the Son
and the Son is in the Father, forasmuch as the Father is His own
essence and communicates it to the Son, not by any change on
His part. Hence it follows that, as the essence’of the Father is
in the Son, the Father Himself is in the Son

b. From the origin of the persons : for since the Son and the
Spirit are termini of immanent operations, they remain necessarily
in the principle from which they proceed.
c. From the relations of the persons : for it is clear that " one
of opposites is relatively in the other according to the intellect ”
(or logically).

571 In God an operation ad extra is one and the same: it is
common to the three persons.
This is de fide from the Athanasian Creed: " Not three omni­
potent (beings), but one omnipotent
Operations ad extra arc
1 D. B., 704.
‘ Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 10; refer to X, 30, 38.
* First Epistle to the Corinthians, II, io-ii.
4 Summa theologica, I, q. 42, a. 5.

340

CHAPTER I

produced by divine omnipotence and divine nature which is one
in God : therefore the operation of God ad extra is one also. Scrip­
ture attributes the same works, for example, creation and sanc­
tification, both to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy
Spirit. Furthermore, in acting ad extra the divine Persons are
not relatively opposed to one another.

ARTICLE III.

THE DIVINE MISSIONS1

We shall consider : first, missions in general, secondly,
an invisible mission, thirdly, a visible mission.
Λ

Missions in General.

572 I. Concept and species. .Mission, sending (from miltere,
to send), is the going out of one being from another with a
destination at some terminus. This definition contains three
elements : a terminus from which, a terminus to which, a causal
nexus or link between the two.
A mission is called -physical, moral, or substantial according
to how it happens or takes place — either through a physical
impulse, or through a command or counsel, or through a
certain origin.

2. Mission among the Divine Persons *. Such a mission
can exist only :
a. According to a procession of origin which implies equality
between the one sent and the one sending;
b. With a new mode of existing in the terminus, because
the divine person who is sent does not begin to be where before
he was not, so also he docs not cease to be where he was.
Wherefore a mission includes eternal procession and adds
a temporal effect because of which the sent person exists in
a new manner; however the entire newness exists on the
part of the effect, because whatever is in God is eternal.
c. Therefore, in the divine persons a mission is defined
thus : the procession of one person from another or from others
1 Major Synopsis, 667-677.
• Summa theologica, I, q. 43, a. 1-8.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

341

with a destination or purpose of some temporal effect or with
a new manner of existing among creatures for their sanctification.
573 3. Thesis : The Father cannot be sent, but the Son and
the Spirit can be sent; on the other hand the Father and the
Son can send, but the Holy Spirit cannot send. This thesis
is certain.
a. The Father cannot be sent.
1) In Scripture we do not read that He is sent, but only
that He sends to us : " We shall come to him and make our
abode with him 1*
2) St. Augustine * explains this : “ The Father alone is
referred to as not sent : because He alone does not have
an author of whom He may be begotten or from whom He
may proceed

b. The Son and the Holy Spirit can be sent.
1) Of Himself the Son Says : “ The Father who sent me’”;
of the Holy Spirit the Son says : “ The Holy Spirit whom
the Father will send in my name 4
2. The reason for this is that the Son and the Holy Spirit
proceed from another person and therefore they can receive
something from the other person.
c. The Father and the Son can send.
1) Of the Father it is said : “ God sent His Son 5
of the
Son it is said : " But if I go, I shall send him (the Holy Spirit)
to you · ".
2) Those persons can send from whom another person
proceeds, and to whom authority over another person belongs.
1 Gospel according to St. John, XIV’, 23.
* Lib Cont. Serm. Arian., c. 4. Refer to St. Thomas in I Sent., dist. 15,
q. 2, d. unie.; I, q. 43, a. 4.
* St. John, VIII, 18.
* St. John, XIV, 26.
* Epistle to the Galatians, IV, 4.
* Gospel according to St. John, XVI, 7.

342

CHAPTER I

d. The Holy Spirit cannot send.
1) Nowhere in Scripture do we read that the Holy Spirit
sends another divine person.
2) Besides, he alone can send from whom another divine
person proceeds ; but no person proceeds from the Holy Spirit.
B An invisible mission

An invisible mission is one which takes place in an internal
way, without any exterior manifestation.
574 Thesis : An invisible mission of the divine persons exists
when sanctifying grace is infused into the soul.

Proof of thesis.

I. Proof from Scripture. From Scripture it is evident
that charity and sanctifying grace, which are inseparable,
are essentially joined to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
in fact to the indwelling of the entire Trinity within us. Of
the sinner we read : " For wisdom will not enter into a malicious
soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins1 ”, On the other
hand it is said of the just man: “ If anyone loves me... my
Father will love him, and we will come to him and make
our abode with him 3 ". And again : “ Do you not know
that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwells within you...?" "The charity of God is in your
hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us * ”.
From these texts it is apparent that with grace and charity
given the Holy Spirit, and that consequently the Holy
Spirit is possessed “ because what is given to some one is
possessed by him in some way4 ", so that we may enjoy it
(the Holy Spirit) as a friend and a special protector. Perfect
friendship includes the real and intimate presence of the
* Wisdom, I, 4.
* Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 23.
* First Epistle to the Corinthians, III, 16; Epistle to the Romans, V, 5.
4 St. Thomas, in I Sent., dist. 14, q. 2, a. 2.

THE HOLY TRINITY PROVED FROM REVELATION

343

friend and it is the nature of a friend to watch over his friend
in a special manner and to protect him from enemies *.
But the Spirit does not come alone; the Father and the
Son come with Him, the Father as one not sent, but the Son
as sent by the Father alone.

2. Proof from theological reasoning. For a divine mission
it is necessary that the divine person, who proceeds from
another, exist in a new manner among creatures. But, through
sanctifying grace God dwells in a new manner in the just,
that is, as a friend whom we enjoy, a special protector, to
be glorified by us. This new divine indwelling is attributed
to the Holy Spirit through appropriation ; it takes place through
habitual grace only, but not through actual graces or graces
gratis given.

C A visible mission
575 I. Concept. A visible mission is one which takes place
with some external sensible effect or sign. For this there are
three requirements : a visible sign, a new sign, regard for
the sanctification of souls.

2.

Kinds.

a. One kind is substantially visible, to wit, the mission
of the Divine Word in the mystery of the Incarnation, in
which the Son of God was substantially united to a visible
human nature.
b. The other kind is representatively visible, as was the
mission of the Holy Spirit manifesting Himself under sensible
forms to which, however, He was not substantially united :
for example,
i) at the Baptism of Christ, under the form of a dove *,
for the purpose of showing the abundance of Christ’s grace;
1 First Epistle of St. Peter, V, 7.
5 Gospel according to St. Matthew, III, x6.

344

CHAPTER II

2) on Pentecost under the form of tongues of fire which
were at the same time representative and effective because
they gave internal grace *.
In the conferring of the Sacraments there is no visible
mission of the Holy Spirit because no new or extraordinary
sensible sign is used, but there is an invisible mission only
in as much as habitual grace is bestowed through the
Sacraments.

CHAPTER II

THE PHILOSOPHIC-THEOLOGICAL ELUCI­
DATION OF THE MYSTERY OF THE
HOLY TRINITY 3
We shall discuss at this point :
1. the knowability of this mystery,
2. philosophic-theological analogies and theories,
3. Conclusions that follow.
I.

THE KNOWABILITY OF THE MYSTERY
OF THE HOLY TRINITY

576 Errors. Through excess Abelard (1142), Richard and
Hugo of St. Victor (1173), Raymond Lull (1315), Gunther
(1863) were in error, teaching, in different ways, that the
existence of the Holy Trinity could be known or proved
by reason alone. Through defect the Rationalists are wrong,
1 Ads 0/ the Apostles, II, 3.
* St. Thomas, I, q. 43, a. 7. ad 6.
* Major Synopsis, n. 678-730.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

345

thinking that this mystery openly contradicts reason. In
opposition to both groups we lay down this two-fold thesis.

577 First thesis : The mystery of the Holy Trinity cannot be
understood or demonstrated by reason alone. This thesis is
certain.

Proof of Thesis.
A Proof from Scripture. Scripture testifies that God
alone is equal to knowing the Trinity: “ No man hath seen
God at any time : the only begotten Son who is in the bosom
of the Father, he hath declared him
“ No one knoweth
the Son but the Father, neither doth anyone know the Father
but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal
him 1

B

Proof from Tradition.

1. The Fathers very clearly go along with Athanasius,
who declared : “ 0 foolish people, bold and hasty in all things!
Why do you not rather cease to examine so diligently the
Trinity and just believe that it is, imitating the leader of
the apostles in this regard, whose words are these : it is
necessary first of all to believe God that it is...

2. The Vatican Council declared that there are certain
mysteries which can neither be understood nor demonstrated
by reason 2. But all admit that the mystery of the Trinity
is the most difficult and the loftiest of all. Therefore through
reason it can neither be discovered nor demonstrated.
Consequently, in 1887, the following proposition of Rosmini
was condemned : “ Once the mystery of the Holy Trinity
has been revealed, its existence can be demonstrated by
arguments which are wholly speculative, negative indeed
and indirect, arguments of such a kind, nevertheless, that
’ Gospel according to St. John, I. 18; according to St. MaMeu·, XI, 27.
* “ If anyone shall say that in divine revelation there are no mysteries,
truly and properly so called, but that all the doctrines of faith can be understood
and demonstrated from natural principles, by properly cultivated reason,
let him be anathema
(of faith and Reason, cannon x).

346

CHAPTER Π

through them this truth may be referred to philosophical
discipline and knowledge, and may become a scientific propo­
sition like many others1*
4

578

C Proof from Reason

a. Every proof or demonstration is effected either a priori,
or a simultaneo, or a posteriori. But the existence of the Holy
Trinity cannot be demonstrated a priori, or though cause, because
God has no cause; nor can it be demonstrated a simultaneo, or
from the very notion of God which in us is based too much on
analogy ior us to infer from it that there are three persons
in God; it cannot be demonstrated a posteriori, or through effects,
because the effects produced by God are caused by His omni­
potence, which is one and not three.

2. The insufficiency of the reasons offered by those who teach
the contrary opinion confirms this thesis. Thus :
a. Abelard, by comparison and appropriation rather than by
demonstration, conceived God not as a real Trinity of persons
but as a nominal Trinity of attributes, namely of power, of
wisdom, and of goodness ».

b. Lull rightly drew his conclusions from divine goodness :
but the fact that divine goodness is fruitful within God Himself,
is known through revelation along ·.

c. On purely rational grounds Gunther concluded from the
existence of the word in the human intellect to the existence
of the personal Word in the divine mind and in God that there
are three subjects conscious of themselves; thus tritheism mA
introduced .*
d. Philosophizing in the manner of Kant, Rosmini brought
forward a completely nominal Trinity — or tritheism ·.
e. Schell reasoned from aseity, which he did not understand,
and from it he inferred that there arc three principles in God,
but he could not prove that these are distinct, one from the
other.
1 Refer to the decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 14, 1887. D. B., 1915 (1760).
* Auelard, Introduction to Theology, book 1, P. L., CLXXVHI, 989; book II,
1086; Christian Theology, book II, P. L., 1239-1261,1278. D. B., 368. Summa
theologica, I, q. 32, a. 1.
* Articles of Faith, chap. VII.
4 Refer to Pesch, De Deo Trino, u. 494, 495.
* D. B., 19x6.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

347

579 Second Thesis : It cannot be shown that there is any
contradiction in the dogma of the Holy Trinity when it is correctly
set forth.
Proof.

A On the authority of scholars in philosophy and in the
natural sciences, and notwithstanding the difficulties which
they have carefully considered, these men have believed
this dogma.
B From Reason.
1.Indeed there is an inconsistency in the mystery of the
Holy Trinity if, in stating it, we include terms that contradict
and exclude one another. But this need not be so. For
we say that God is one in respect to nature and three in regard
to persons. Certainly a being can be one under a certain
aspect and multiple under another aspect. For example,
there is in man a two fold substance, a spiritual substance
or a soul, and a material substance or a body; nevertheless
there is only one person. For contradiction, therefore, to
be present in this Mystery, it would be necessary to prove
that there is no distinction, not even virtual, between nature
and person. This cannot be done.

2. Our second proof from reason rests on the fact that we can
answer the outstanding objections to this thesis.
a. Things which are identical to a third are identical among
themselves. But the three divine persons are one and identical
with their essence. Therefore among themselves they are iden­
tical.
In replying to this objection we distinguish the major premise :
things which are identical to a third in every respect are identical
among themselves — this we grant; but things which are identical
in one regard and different under another respect — this we deny.
The three persons are identical with divine nature under one
respect in as much as they equally possess the divine nature,
but virtually they differ from it because they do not possess
the divine nature'in the same manner. For example, in actively
generating, the Father gives that nature to the Son, the Son
receives it. But between giving and receiving there is a real
distinction.

348

CHARTER II

b. It is further objected that the existence of three persons
is an obstacle to divine simplicity. St. Thomas replies ‘ " We
must sav that there is in the Son something which is common
to the Father, namely, essence, and that there is something
through which the Son is distinguished from the Father, that is,
relation. Nevertheless there is no composition because relation
is really (secundum rem) essence

II.

ANALOGIES

AND PHILOSOPHICAL EXPLANATIONS

580 Comparisons and Analogies. .Analogies to the Holy Trinity
we find :
a. In the universality of creatures on whom the mark
of the Trinity has been impressed;

b. In men just as in the angels — in man the image of this
mystery shows itself; St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and Bossuet
have developed this idea. In the intellectual soul there
are two immanent processions, namely the word which proceeds
from the intellect, and love which proceeds from the will.
581 Philosophical and Theological Explanations of the Dogma
of the Holy Trinity.

Both the Greek Fathers and the Latin Fathers have proposed
these explanations.
Λ

The Theory of the Greek Fathers

The Greeks, eager to preserve the distinction of persons,
in opposition to the Modalists have accurately defined the
words ούσία and ύπ-ίττασ·.;, and have taught that in God
there are three hypostases which are mutually opposed :
namely, the unbegotten Father who begets the Son; and
through Him and at the same time with Him spirates the
Spirit, communicating to both the entire divine nature.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 28, a. 3, ad I,

THE PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

349

They conceive circuminsession as a certain vital circle,
proceeding from the Father into the Son and into the Spirit
and, as it were, returning from the Spirit into the Son and
into the Father.
IForÂs ad extra are common to the three persons; thus the
Father does these things through the Son and in the Spirit.
Like the Latins, the Greeks profess a trinity of persons,
a unity of nature and among the persons real relations which
proceed from their origin.
582

B

The Theological Explanation of the Latin Fathers

Among the Latins we pay special attention to St. Augustine
and to St. Thomas.

I.

St. Augustine’s Teaching.

a. Considering God in as much as He is one, St. Augustine
attributes to the Father unity. This unity is regarded absolutely
and does not presuppose anything else. Thus it is proper to the
Father to whom any other’ person is not presupposed. To the
Son he attributes equality which denotes unity with regard to
another. To the Holy Spirit he attributes concord or link
which is the union of at least two (presupposed) ’.
b. Looking upon God as the cause of things », St. Augustine
assigns to the Father power ** which possesses the reason of prin­
ciple or principle without a principle. He assigns to the Son
wisdom which bears a likeness to the Son in as much as He is
the Word. To the Holy Spirit he assigns goodness, the object
of love.

c. Viewing God from the viewpoint of his effects, he calls
the Father ex quo, from whom, because the relation (habitude)
of the efficient cause is proper to the Father as is also power.
He calls the Son per quern, by whom, because the relation
of the formal cause belongs to the Word, as does wisdom and
art or knowledge. The Holy Spirit he names in quo, in whom,
1 Christian Doctrine, book I, chap. 5.
• The Trinity, book VI, chap. xo.
* Symbols also attribute to the Father creation which is the proper work
of omnipotence.
No 642 (I) - 24

350

CHAPTER Π

because the relation or habitude of one containing is proper to
Love in this that in His goodness He preserves and governs
things by guiding them to a fitting end *.

2. The Thomistic or Psychological Explanation.
583 The Angelic Doctor notes that, according to Catholic
faith, there are in God two immanent processions, namely
the word which proceeds from the intellect, and love which
proceeds from the will. Then he shows that from these
processions arise four relations, three persons, and therefore
three personal properties and five notions.
a. The Processions 2. In God there is :

1) Procession through the intellect; from this the internal
word comes forth. This is true generation.
2) Procession through the will. This is not generation.

3)

In God are no processions besides these.

584 b. The Relations
From the fact that there are two
processions in God arise four relations: the relation of the
Father to the Son or Paternity, the relation of the Son to the
Father or Filiation, the relation of the Spirator to the Holy
Spirit or Active Spiration, the relation of the Holy Spirit
to the Spirator or Passive Spiration — also called Procession.
1) These relations are not accidents since in God there
is nothing accidental. Nevertheless they are realities because
God is truly the Father, truly the Son, truly the Holy Spirit;
but they are realities existing by the very subsistence of
the divine essence, so that divine relations are the divine
substance itself.

2) These relations are virtually distinguished from the
divine substance : for, in their own proper concept they do
1 Refer to St. Thomas, I· p., q. 39, a. 8.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 27, a. 1-5.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 28, a. 1-4.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

351

not express divine substance but only references or relationships
(to substance) : wherefore there is room for a real distinction
by which relations are set off among themselves. For Paternity,
in as much as it is opposed to Filiation, is really distinguished
from it. Active Spiration, since it is opposed to passive
Spiration is really distinguished from it : that which produces
is necessarily distinguished from that which is produced.
But active Spiration, not opposed to Paternity and Filiation,
is not really distinguished from them.

585 3.

The Divine Persons1.

a. In God there are three persons really distinct. The
name of person is appropriate to God. Because the opposite
divine relations are subsisting in the divine nature, correctly,
although analogously they have been called persons by the
Fathers and by the Doctors. Boetius defines person thus :
an individual (incommunicable) substance endowed with reason.
Or, in other words, a person is something substantial,
intellectual, indistinct in se and distinct from others. But
each one of the opposite relations which are in God is
something :
1) Substantial : it is repugnant that there be in God anything
accidental or shared in. For since God through His essence
is perfection, it is repugnant that He be a participator in
further perfection through accidents.
2) Intellectual: whatever is in God is the divine nature,
which is in the highest degree of immateriality and of
intellectuality; moreover, divine relations are founded in
the operations of the intellect and of the will.
3) Undivided in itself : in God there is one Paternity,
one Filiation, one passive Spiration since there is one Father,
one Son, one Holy Spirit.
4) Distinct from others : Paternity and Filiation, as they
are opposite, are really distinct from each other; thus passive
Spiration is distinguished from Paternity and from Filiation
since both are identified with active Spiration.
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 29 and 30.

352

CHAPTER II

b. In God there are only three -persona because there are
only three subsistent relations really distinct one from the
other, namely : Paternity and Filiation which are immediately
opposites to each other, and Passive Spiration which is opposite
to Paternity and to Filiation by reason of Active Spiration
with which they are identified. However, there can be no
other distinction in God apart from a relative distinction,
for an absolute distinction would be a substantial distinction
and consequently would multiply Divinity or would imply
polytheism. Whence the axiom : In God all things are one
where relative opposition does not prevent this.
c. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the
Son by one spiration, in such a way that the Father and the
Son are the one principle of the Holy Spiritx. For if the
Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Son, in no way could
He be distinguished from the Son. Truly the divine persons
are really distinguished from one another only through
opposite relations. But opposite relations arc found in the
divine persons only as relations of origin since one person
proceeds from another. Therefore the Hol}· Spirit is not really
distinct from the Son unless He proceeds from the Son ’.
III.

A

LOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

Properties of the Divine Persons.

586 I. Personal properties · are those things by which the
divine persons are constituted. They are three : Paternity,
Filiation and Passive Spiration. Active Spiration, common
to the Father and to the Son, is not, to speak strictly,
a property.
* There are, nevertheless, two spiraling, but not two spirators because as
St. Thomas declared (q. 36, a. 4. ad 7), it seems better to say that because
spiraling is an adjective, and spirator a substantive, we can say that the
Father and the Son arc two spiraling, but not two spirators, by reason of the
one spiration. Refer to annotations IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX of Cajetan
on this question; St. Francis Sales, Traite de l'amour de Dieu, book III, chap. 13.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 36, a. 2.
* Ibid., I, q. 40, a. 4.

THE PHILOSOPHIC-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

353

•

2. The notional acts ’. Notional or personal acts through
which the divine persons who proceed are produced are two :
generation, proper to the Father, through which the Son
is produced; and spiration, common to the Father and to
the Son, through which the Holy Spirit is produced. These
acts we can call both necessary and voluntary.

587 3. Notions *. These notions arc distinctive characteristics
by means of which the divine persons are discerned and
distinguished one from the other. There are five : two
belonging to the Father, Innascibility and Paternity; one
proper to the Son, Filiation ; one for the Holy Spirit, Passive
Spiration; one a characteristic of the Father and of the Son
together, Active Spiration.
Conclusion. " Therefore there are five notions in God : innas­
cibility, paternity, filiation, common spiration, and procession.
Of these only four arc relations for innascibility is not a relation
except by reduction. Four only are properties. For common
spiration is not a property, because it belongs to two persons.
Tnree are personal notions, that is, constituting persons, namely
paternity, filiation, and procession. Common spiration and inna­
scibility are called notions of persons, but not personal notions ·

B Proper and Appropriated Names *.

589 i. Proper names arc those which belong to one person
in such a way that they cannot be predicated of the others.
Appropriated names are of themselves common to the three
persons, but they are attributed to one before the others
because of the similitude between a common attribute and
a personal attribute.
2. a. The Father is properly called the first principle
or the source or font of the entire Trinity (but not the cause
or author of the Son, because these words in the Latin language
imply in the thing caused a diversity and dependence of
* Ibid., I, q. 41, a. 1-6.
* Ibid., I, q. 32, a. 2-4·
* Summa Uwologica, I, q. 32, a. 3.
‘ Ibid., I, q. 33-38.

354

CHAPTER Π

nature), the Unbegotten and the Innascible, Father and Genitor.
Through appropriation the Father is called Omnipotent, the
Creator, Eternal.
b. The Son is properly called not only the Son but also
the Word, the Image, because by force of origin He is perfectly
like the Father, the Splendor of glory, and the Figure of the
substance of the Father. Through appropriation the Son
is called Wisdom.
c. The Third Person is properly called the Holy Spirit,
Love, because He is the terminus of the love of the Father
and of the Son, Charity, Gift, because love is the first and
most excellent gift. Through appropriation the Third Person
is called the Paraclete or consoler and Advocate, because through
grace He consoles us and petitions for us with unspeakable
groanings. All these are the works of love.
C

The Rules for Speaking Correctly about the Holy Trinity

590 Since the mystery of the Holy Trinity rests essentially
on the unity of nature and on the distinction of persons, all
must be avoided which would transgress either of these
dogmas.

Wherefore :
1. Names signifying the divine essence substantively,
as God, Divinity, Omnipotence, Wisdom, etc. are predicated
of the three persons individually. The divine nature is one.
2. Names signifying the divine essence adjectivally are
predicated plurally of the three persons because they refer
to persons. Therefore we say there are three existing or
three wise, or three eternal, and uncreated and immense
whenever these terms are understood adjectivally. But if
they are considered substantively, we say one uncreated,
immense and eternal being — as in the Athanasian Creed ».
3. The words which express notional or proper operations
of persons and their relations, must not be predicated of
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 39, a. 3.

THE PHILOSOPHIC-THEOLOGICAL ELUCIDATION

355

essence (otherwise relative opposition and a real distinction
would be implied), but must be predicated only of the person
or of God (taken for the persons); for example, it may not
be said that the essence generates, proceeds, etc.; rather
it must be stated that God generates, the Son is generate,
or begotten *.
4. Names expressing a distinction should be so carefully
employed that they do not import a distinction of nature
and any inequality of persons.
a. Thus the words three, trinity are to be used, but not,
triplicity, triple, because these last words suppose that there
are many natures.
b. We say : One (masculine) is the Father, one (masculine)
is the Son, but not one (neuter), because the neuter gender
designates nature.
c. It cannot be said : “ The Father is units with the Son ”,
because the masculine gender commonly refers to person;
truly the Father is not one person with the Son.
d. Expressions such as these must be shunned : “ God
is singular, alone, solitary ”, because such words exclude
a plurality of persons.
e. It cannot be stated that there are three diverse persons,
because diversity supposes a multiplication of nature.
f.Also it should not be stated that the persons are of like
substance because likeness in this case implies a multiplicity
of substance; on the contrary it should be said that the three
persons are of one substance.
g. It is not proper to say that in God there are three
individuals, because individuals designate a nature one in
species, but diverse in number, whereas in God nature is one
not only specifically, but also numerically.
* Some of the Fathers at times have spoken somewhat less accurately in
this regard but they are to be understood with charity; for example, if it is
stated that wisdom begot wisdom, or if the Son is called wisdom from wisdom,
the proposition should be explained in this way : the Father who is wisdom
itself begot the Son, who. as God, is also wisdom itself. Refer to Hurter,
n. 261.

356

CHAPTER Π

CONCLUSION OF TRACT

Devotion to the Holy Trinity »

j. We should perpetually give glory to the Trinity : Glory be
to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Ghost. This glory

591

is evinced especially in knowledge and in love : therefore, in order
that we may truly imitate the Trinity in whose likeness we have
been established, and in whose name wo are baptized, we must
constantly think of God, and regard Him with love. While
we contemplate the perfect unity of the three persons, we should
have before us Christ’s prayer * : " That they all may be one,
as thou, Father, in me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one
in us
This unity we should imitate through the practice of fra­
ternal charity. In order that we may be able to delight in the
invisible mission of the divine persons, " let our fellowship be
with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ*
1 ".

2. In regard to the persons individually considered :
a. Let us acknowledge God the Father by a confession of praise
and by acts of thanksgiving, love, by zeal for the divine glory;
b. Let us imitate the Son of God, Jesus Christ;

c. Let us adore the Holy Spirit who fulfills various oflices in
the Church, and let us live in Him and from Him by holding
on to charity.
And if through charity we are united to God, the three divine
persons will come to us and they will make their abode within
us :4 for “ God is charity, and he that abideth in charity, abideth
in God and God in him * ”.

1 Coxtexsox, Theo/, mentis, 1. Ill, d. II, c. I, spec. I; Laborde, Dévotion
à la T. S. Trinité; R. Plus, Dieu en nous; Taxquerry, Précis de IhM. ascet.,
5' edit., n. 9$« 101.
’ St. John, XVII, 21-22.
’ Gospel according to St. John, I, 3.
‘ Gospel according to St. John, XIV, 23.
1 First Epistle of St. John, IV, 16.

TRACT IX

GOD THE CREATOR

I believe in God... the Creator of heaven and of earth.

592 We proceed from an exposition of the interior life of God
to a discussion of the divine operations ad extra, namely the
production of creatures and their elevation to a supernatural
state. We shall consider :
1. Creatures that are not spiritual — or the creation of the
world ;
2. creatures that are wholly spiritual — or the angels;
3. creatures that are material and at the same time spiritual
— or man.

CHAPTER I

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD
Questions which are entirely philosophical we take for
granted have already been solved elsewhere; at this time we
are looking for what faith teaches :
1. Concerning the origin of the world and the Mosaic
cosmogony ;
2. concerning the origin of life and of the various living
species.

CHAPTER I

358

ARTICLE I.

THE MOSAIC COSMOGONY1

593 By way
introduction we note that according to an
answer ** of the Commission De Re Biblica :
1. The literal historical sense of the first three chapter
of the Book of Genesis must by no means be excluded.

2. Nevertheless, not all the words nor individual words
must be accepted necessarily in their literal sense when,
for example, the discourses themselves are manifestly to
be taken metaphorically or anthropomorphically — especially
if the Fathers have understood these words metaphorically.

3. It was not the intention of the sacred writer, in the
first chapter of Genesis, to teach in a scientific manner the
intimate constitution of things and the complete order of
creation, but rather to give to his nation the popular conception.
4. Finally, the word yôm (day) can be taken either in
the literal sense for a natural day, or in the non-proper
sense for a certain period of time.

Using these principles as our foundations, we shall explain :
1. What is certainly and obviously taught in Scripture
concerning the origin of the world;

2.

What can be freely disputed.

A Dogmatic Truths Which Are Surely Contained
in the First Chapter of Genesis 2
In four thesis we shall make these truths manifest.

594 First Thesis. All creatures, whether spiritual or material, or
spiritual and at the same time material, were made by God
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 66-74 ; Petawvs, de sex dierum opificio; H. Pinard
in D. T. C., a. Création; Gujbert et Chinchcle, Les Origines.
’ June 30, 1909, A. A. S., t. I, p. 567-369; D. B., 2121-2118.
• Major Synopsis, n. 741-750.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

359

from nothing. Tliis thesis is de fide from the Creed : I believe
in God the creator of heaven and of earth; it is de fide also
from the Fourth Lateran Council and from the Vatican Council,
both of which we shall soon quote. This thesis stands in
opposition to Pantheists, Dualists and idolaters.

595 I. Moses declares that the world and everything in it
was created by God : “ In the beginning God created heaven
and earth 1 ”. These words according to biblical usage signify
the whole universe of things; further, in verses 2 and 27 it
is clearly stated that all things and individual things were
made by God. In this matter we are concerned with creation
from nothing :

a. This is proved from the text : the word bara {He created)
in the forms kal and niphal is employed in Scripture only
to refer to the proper working of God cither natural or super­
natural ; hence it is most appropriate for designating production
from nothing, an action entirely proper to God .*
b.

This is confirmed :

1) From the context: Moses describes the first origin of
things; but he is entirely silent concerning the preexisting
matter of the world, in fact he excludes such matter, at least
equivalently.

2) From parallel places these facts become much more
certain :
a) The Prophets very often extol God’s creative power
such a way as to exclude all dualism and to make it apparent
that God is the author of all tilings ’.
b. The same teaching we find in the Psalms, wherein
it is said that all things were made by the simple word of
’ Genesis, I, I.
* VVellhausex, although a rationalist, very openly declares this (Prole^om.
sur GesckicUe Israel, Berlin. 1883, p. 32J) : " The book of Genesis uses a parti­
cular work in order to signify God’s creative action alone ”.
’ Amos, IV, 13; IX, 5-7; Jeremias, X, 12-17, LI, 15-20; Isaias, XL-LVI.

360

CHAPTER I

God1; in the sapiential books wherein it is stated that God
made all things, even the abysses; in fact those things which
seem evil to us (hail storms, famine, and death) 2*
.

c) This doctrine is more clearly shown in the Book of
Machabees: the mother of the Machabees, full of wisdom,
addresses one of her sons thus : “ I beseech thee, my son,
look upon heaven and earth and all that is in them, and
consider that God made them out of nothing
*
”. So it is
not to be wondered at that creation from nothing is a dogma
of faith explicitly defined at the Fourth Latcran Council
and at the Vatican Council : “ He created out of nothing both
the spiritual and the corporeal creature
c. Creation from nothing is proved from reason : everything
outside of God is produced by Him. But if God had produced
the world from something previously supposed and established,
everything outside of Him would not have been produced
by God. Therefore God made all things from nothing.

Second Thesis. The world was not created from eternity,
but was created in time, or rather with time. This thesis is
de fide from the Fourth Lateran Council; it was confirmed
by the Vatican Council : “ From the beginning of time He
created out of nothing both the spiritual and the corporeal
creatures

Proof from Scripture
"In the beginning God created heaven and earth4”;
beginning must be understood as the beginning of time :

a. Such is the obvious meaning of this word; further,
this meaning has nothing inconsistent about it; rather, it is
confirmed from the parallel places; for
1 Psalm, XXXII, 6, 9; CIII; CXIII, 3; CXXXV, 5-xo.
’ Proverbs, VIII, 22-32; Eccli., XXXIX, 30-39.
’ II Machabees, VII, 28.
4 Genesis, I, 1.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

36!

b. this expression in the beginning, elsewhere 1 is translated
through the words, on the day, an expression which certainly
designates time;

c. Wherever creation is mentioned, such words are used
as make it clear that the world had a beginning : “ Before
the mountains were made or the earth was formed... ” “ He
chose us in him before the foundation of the world 2
596 Third Thesis. God alone is the immediate efficient cause
of creation. This is de fide from the ordinary magisterium
of the Church.

Proof from Scripture
1. From the silence of the sacred writer who, while very
often mentioning the angels as God’s helpers in governing
the world, is completely silent concerning their intervention
in creating it.

2. From the places in Scripture where it is made evident
that all instrumental causality is excluded : “ Thou thyself,
O Lord, alone, thou hast made heaven and the heaven of
heavens, and all the host thereof ”. " I am the Lord, that
make all things, that alone stretch out the heavens, that
establish the earth, and there is none with me3 ”.
Proof from Tradition
The Fathers often declare that the world was not made
by angels or by another creature, but by the Father through
the Word; in this way they imply the divinity of the Word
because the act of creating belongs to God. St. Augustine **
writes : "No angel can create nature any more than he can
» Ibid., II, 4.
* Proverbs, VIII. 22 : Ephesians, I, 4.
• II Esdras, IX, 6; Isaias, XLIV, 24.
« De Genes, ad litteram, book IX, c. 15, n. 26, 28, P. L., XXXIV, 403, 404·

362

CHAPTER I

create himself1* ... alone... God is the Creator”. And the
Fourth Lateran Council declares: "God is one alone... He
is the one beginning of the universe, the creator of all things · ”,
597 There is some controversy as to whether creation could have
taken place through a creature as the instrumental cause. It
is commonly taught that no creature can be the instrument of
creation; the proof of this statement, in the manner of St. Thomas,
is as follows : an instrumental cause cannot be employed to do
something unless through what is proper to itself it acts dispositivcly to that effect; thus an axe cannot be the instrumental cause
for cutting or splitting unless in so far as it affords the opportunity
for something to be cut because of its sharpness. But no creature
can antecedently arrange or dispose nothing so that it may become
being : for there’is no medium between nothing and being. There­
fore no creature can be assumed or taken as the instrumental
cause of creation *

598 Fourth Thesis. All creatures were created good by God.
This is de fide from the Fourth Lateran Council4. " The
devil and the other demons by nature God created good,
but of themselves they became evil.
The words in the first chapter of Genesis, which are often
quoted, make this fact obvious · : " And God saw that it was
good... God saw all the things that he had made, and they
were very good ”. Moreover, God, the supreme good, cannot
will evil.
However, it does not follow from this that the world which
God created is the most perfect. For since God's goodness and
power arc infinite, they cannot be exhausted through a finite
work; therefore, God could make other creatures who would
be more perfect. Nevertheless, we can state that the world is
relatively the best, in as much as God chose the best means to
attain the end He had proposed to Himself in creating.
1 Rightly, therefore, says St. Thomas : " According to the Catholic faith
we maintain that God immediately created all spiritual substances and the
matter of corporeal things : we consider it heretical to declare that something
was created through an angel or through another creature ”. De Pot., n. 2, a. 4.
‘ D. B., 428.
• Summa theologica, I, q. 45, a. 5.
4 D. B., 428.
• Genesis, I, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

363

599 Corollaries. From what has been said it follows that :
1. God alone is the efficient cause of all creatures; He has
brought them forth freely from nothingness by an act which
is common to the three persons of the Trinity — in the Trinity
all things are common unless the relation of origin makes
it impossible.

2. God is the exemplar cause of creatures since He created
them according to eternal ideas which He had in mind, in
conformity with the verse : “ Thou hast made all things
in wisdom...1 ”
600 3. The primary end of creatures is the manifesting and
glorifying of God's goodness; the secondary end is the good
of creatures.
In regard to the primary end — The Vatican Council stated
that God created “ to manifest His perfection by the blessings
which He bestows on creatures ”, and issued this definition :
“ If anyone shall deny that the world was made for the glory
of God, let him be anathema 2*”.
Scripture makes the primary end obvious; “ The Lord hath
made all things for himself 2
Iteason argues in this way : Every agent acts for a purpose ;
otherwise from the act of the agent this would no more follow
than that. Now, imperfect agents, in acting, intend to obtain
something. Truly, therefore, it is not pro]>er for the first agent,
which is in all ways perfect, to act for the purpose of acquiring
some good, but for communicating its perfection or a likeness
of its goodness. Therefore, God created because of His extrinsic
glory, and this consists precisely in the manifestation of His
perfections4.
In regard to the secondary end of creation, that is, the good
of creatures — God cannot intend His glory without at the
same time willing the good of creatures, for these creatures
1 Psalm, CHI, 24.
* D. B., 1783, 1805.
’ Proverbs, XVI, 4.
4 Summa theologica, I, q. 44, a. 4·

364

CHAPTER T

manifest their own glory in so far as they share in His
perfections. Also, in giving glory to God, creatures attain
their own perfection and happiness.
B

The Order of Creation Described by Moses 1

601 Thesis : In the first chapter of Genesis the intimate
constitution of things and the complete order of creation
arc not described in a scientific manner; instead there is a
popular — historical representation which was adapted and
accomodated to the understanding of man at that time. This
thesis is certain according to the reply of the Commission
De Re Biblica.

I. The mosaic narration is historical, or it contains “ the
relating of things which really happened; these narratives
correspond to objective reality and to historical truth ”.
All of this is manifest :
a. From the obviously historical nature of Genesis : if those
matters which are told about the children of Adam, about Noah
and his children, etc. are historical, as all acknowledge, why are
those stories dismissed which consider the first origin of things?

b. From the particular inter-relation of the first three chapters
among themselves and their connection with the following chapters :

just as the first origins of the Jewish people are portrayed in the
following chapters, so in the first chapters the origin of the entire
human race and of the world itself is delineated. Likewise,
if we compare the first chapters one with another, it will become
sufficiently clear to us that in these chapters the successive
creation of unformed mass is being described, later the production
of diverse beings, the formation of the first man and of the first
woman are spoken of; then follows the story of the command
given to them, of their temptation and of their fall. Actually
all of these subjects are co-joined just like historical facts.
c. From the other places in Scripture in which the facts related
in the first chapter are likewise mentioned as historical : thus on
many occasions the work of creation as accomplished by God *
is spoken of in terms of great praise.
1 Major Synopsis, n. 751-763.
» Genesis, XIV, 19; Isaias, XLII, 5; XLV, 18; Proverbs, III, 19; VIII, 22;
Wisdom, IX, 9; Psalm, XXXII, 9; CXLV, 5; II Mac., VII, 28.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

365

602 2. However, Utts narrative is -popular as well as historical;
but it is not scientific.

a. The sacred writer's intent is not the teaching of the
physical sciences, but of the truths necessary for salvation.
Consequently, he speaks of the origin and of the formation
of the world in a popular manner :
1) He does not describe, therefore, in a scientific way the
innermost constitution of visible things, for example, the nature
of light or of the firmament, or of the heavens, geological
strata, or biological laws.
2) Nor does he explain in detail the complete order of creation,
but only those matters which are better known to the people,
for this purpose that he may be able by means of this review
to drive home more forcefully the fact that all things truly
come from God.
3) He does not always follow a strictly chronological order
thus when it is stated that light was made on the first day
but that the lights were made on the fourth day, it may
not be inferred from such a narration alone that light preceded
the actual forming of the sun.
4) At times metaphorical or anthropomorphical discourses
are employed in the manner of a dialogue for the purpose
of describing something more vividly; for example, God
said : Be light made ; and light was made ; these words cannot
be taken literally.
603 b.

Proof of number 602.

1) St. Thomas thought that nothing certain could be
educed from Scripture in regard to the manner and order
of creation and that Moses followed the common manner
of speaking».

2) The Commission De Re Biblica, June 30, 1909, taught
that " in the first chapter of Genesis it was not the mind
of the sacred writer... to teach the complete order of creation
1 Refer to Summa theologica, I, q. 70, a. 1, ad 3; II Sent., d. XII, q. x, a. 2.
N° 642 (I) — 25

366

CHAPTER I

in a scientific way, but rather to give to his people a popular
knowledge... which was suited to the understanding and
discernment of man 1 ”,

604 3. In regard to the various disputed systems we must realize
that every system can be unrestrictedly defended which
preserves the historical-popular sense of the first chapter
and does not contradict proved facts. The various systems
which Catholics have devised can be reduced to three : the
literal, the allegorical and the concordist.
a. The Literal interprets the words of Moses literally and
maintains that day in the Book of Genesis means a day of twentyfour hours. This system is usually rejected because it opposes
certain positive facts of geology and of paleontology.
b. The A llegoricai or Idealistic system is two-fold : first, there
is that of Philo, of the School of Alexandria and of St. Augustine,
which teaches that the entire world was created in one instant,
but that Aloses distinguished six days in order to establish a
logical order in his description; then there is the system of some
moderns believing either (along with Michelis, Faye, Hummelauer)
that Moses sets forth in logical order six prophetic visions
through which creation has been revealed, or (with Clifford,
Bishop of Clifton) that the mosaic description is not an historical
narration, but a liturgical poem dedicating the individual days
of the week to the individual works of the Creator. However
according to the Commission De Re Biblica these systems should
be amended so as to admit that in these visions or poems there
is to be found an historical description of God’s works. For the
rest, there is no objection to distinguishing logically, in the
mosaic narrative, a three-fold work, namely, the work of creation,
tho work of distinction, and the work of adornment — St. Thomas
was in favor of this distinction.
607 c. The system of the Concordists or Periodists acknowledges
that six days signify six periods of undetermined duration, as
philology permits and paleontology demands : thus, according
to this theory, geological phases harmonize with the mosaic
narrative, at least in regard to the main features. Such a system
is not particularly probable : for it falsely supposes that Moses
wished to teach the people the origin of things in a scientific
way; furthermore the order of creation in this manner of under­
standing hardly fits in with geological facts.
1 D. B., n. 2127.
a Summa theologica, I, q. 65.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

367

Conclusion
For solving difficulties it is sufficient to show that no
discrepancy can be proved to exist between the historicalpopular narration of .Moses and the sciences which attempt
to establish a chronological order of creation.
ARTICLE II.

TRANSFORMISM 1

608 State of the Question. Thus far we have treated of the
origin of the world; now we are concerned with the origin
of living things. Absolute Transformism claims that there
is no first cause, that matter is eternal, that from its forces
alone living things have sprung up by spontaneous generation
so that thereafter through a successive transmutation they
settle into diverse species. Thus Huxley and Darwin.
A moderate or mitigated Transformism, recognizing the
existence of a supreme cause, maintains that any evolution
cannot take place without the providence, direction, and
approval of God, because He has infused into natural things
the forces which bring about an evolution, because He has
established laws which govern this evolution, and thus directs
it by His power and wisdom to ends and purposes determined
beforehand by his prescience.
609 Among those endorsing moderate transformism : some place
limits on the forces of evolution, estimating that some determined
transitions or progressions cannot take place through evolution,
for example, a transition from inanimate matter to first living
matter, from vegetative to animal life, from certain particular
species to other particular species, from an animal body to
a human body; and in these new productions they require
the special and immediate intervention of God which they call
" creation ” in a broad sense, thus showing that God alone acts
without any active concursus of secondary causes. Others
concede that these transitions (except very often in the transition
from non-living to Jiving) take place through evolution, that
is, through the active union of natural causes; but for this
1 Perier, Le transformisme; Amann, a. Transformisme in D. T. C.,
col. 1365-1396.

368

CHAPTER 1

they require the special or extraordinary intervention of God
which they distinguish from the ordinary concursus of God,
necessary’ tor all evolution, because the effect produced exceeds
the natural and ordinary forces of these causes and they act
only’ as instrumental causes produced by divine power. Still
others, more inclined to scientific experience than to meta­
physical considerations, do not care whether these transitions
can happen through the ordinary forces or laws of evolution
or not; for, since neither the causes which produce evolution nor
the laws which govern it arc known by us, they think that we
cannot discern which cases of evolution depend on the ordinary’
divine concursus, or which cases depend on the extraordinary.
They do not wish " a priori ” to impose such or such limits on the
ordinary forces of evolution because future experiences may
show them to be in error. Therefore they regard it as sufficient
to attribute to the First Cause all that must be imputed to It ·.

6io First Thesis: Absolute Transformism which denies all
Intervention of God, openly contradicts faith no less than it
contradicts reason.
Faith teaches that God has created all things and governs
them.
Evolution must not be an expedient and easy way for
denying the creation of the world by God, as the transformist
materialists of the nineteenth century contended, and as many
Catholics once feared. Actually, if evolution be admitted,
reason takes from it arguments demonstrating the existence
of God (Refer to the first and fifth arguments)
Evolution is an ascent to higher forms, the acquiring of greater
vital perfection. It cannot happen that from the forces alone
of something less, something greater arise (du " moins ” à lui
tout seul, ne peut sortir le " plus ”). For the production of an
absolutely’ greater and new perfection, pre-contained in no
previous cause, is metaphysically’ impossible. Therefore, the
more perfect forms of living things cannot ascend unless there
exists a living Being supremely perfect in whom exist in a pre­
eminent way all the perfections which will arise successively by
force of evolution in the passing of time, from whom natural
1 Bergounioux, Harmonies du monde moderne. Esquisse d'une histoire
de la vie. De Saint-Seine, A la découverte de la vie.
* Refer to Grison, Témoignage de l'univers, p. 22-29, 96-1x0, 251-259,
265-266.

THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

369

causes have received the forces of passing over to higher things,
and without whose concurrence they cannot employ these forces :
to this high degree the wonderful evolutional force greatly explains
the divine power; in no manner or form could this force be
“ a se ”.

Similarly the fortuitous evolution of species is unintelligible.
In this (theory) the directive intention or purpose (plan) of evolu­
tion is manifest; the appearance of life itself in matter, the link
of successive species originating according to an always increas­
ingly complex order of one from another, and finally the very
commencement of human cerebral activity, by force of the ma­
thematical laws of probability governing matter, were highly
improbable; that the wonderful progression should first of ail
free living things from aquatic conditions (life first appeared in
the sea), then from cold (the transition to warm blood lest an
animal become torpid in winter), and finally that it form the
brain and judgment from reflections in such a way that the orga­
nism can be the store house of an intellect and of man’s liberty,
were highly improbable. And since this plan or purpose, by
means of the forces of evolution naturally infused into living
things, and by sure laws directing evolution (although wholly
unknown by us), in the course of thousands and thousands of
ages, is the order to action, a Supreme Intellect, the author of
nature, must be necessarily maintained; long before the event
both the ascending sucession of living things and their terminus,
man, are foreseen by this Intellect, and the forces and laws
which progressively and marvellously carry on evolution to this
terminus are set in order. This “ telefinalism ", " the leading
idea which directs the concept of vital evolution ”, offers a much
better explanation of an intelligent and spiritual cause than does
immediate and successive production of fixed species because
it argues for a Supreme wisdom as director.
It is known that Pasteur demonstrated by means of most
celebrated proofs that spontaneous generation, that is a transition
from non-living to living by means of natural forces, can never
be perceived by observation. Relying on these facts, many
Catholics concluded that spontaneous generation is summarily
impossible and that the beginning of living things on earth
necessarily postulates God as the creator of life. On the contrary,
very much annoyed by these experimental proofs, atheists
strove to show the’possibility of spontaneous generation.

6ii

Today as a result of investigation there seem to be come changes
in the state of this question. Some beings have been found,
called in the French “ virus filtrants ”, which are viewed as
intermediaries between greater chemical molecules and smaller

370

CHAPTER 1 — THE CREATION OF THE WORLD

bacteria, and which suggest that there is a possible transition
from non-living to living ’.
Therefore it is wiser not to rely on Pasteur’s scientific experiences
to prove that God is the creator of life, but from the transcend­
ency », made clear by scientific declarations, of living things over
non-living to demonstrate metaphysically that God is the first
cause of this transition from non-living to living (either through
Himself or through second causes).

612 Second Thesis : Mitigated Transformism, which admits
divine intervention, is not manifestly opposed to faith.
1. The words of Genesis (I, 11, 12, 21, 24, 25, 29) show
indeed that there is some distinction among the species,
caused by the divine will, but they do not evidently state
that all species have been immediately created by God —
thus the best of the modem expounders confess. Corluy*
*
says : " Where as Darwinian transformism must be said
to contradict the obvious sense of Scripture; nevertheless
it need not be stated that it openly opposes the sacred text:
truly Scripture is silent on the manner in which the earth
produced that variety of species, whether immediately, or
with the passage of time, or with absolute constancy of species,
or with relative constancy only. Similarly, the words of
Genesis : I, 10, 12, 20, 21, 24, in no way are opposed to
spontaneous generation, in fact rather they intimate it, if
they are taken in their obvious, literal sense.
2. The principle according to which scientific transformists
interpret paleontological discoveries is the principle of economy ;
this was known by the Scholastics under the form : beings are
not multiplied beyond necessity. Today it can be proposed
under this form : the extraordinary' and immediato intervention
of God is not multiplied unnecessarily. This, far from taking
anything away from God’s power or wisdom, actually adds
much to them — this was apparent likewise from the preceding
thesis.

613 3. Some of the Fathers and almost all of the Scholastics
certainly admitted the spontaneous generation of living things
1 Bergounioux, Harmonies du monde moderne, p. 82-85; — Axann,
a. previously referred to in D. T. C., col. 1378.
• Colin, De la matière à la vie. Carles, Unité et vie.
* Corluy, Spicileg., dogmatico-biblicum, vol. 1, p. 198.

CHAPTER Π — THE ANGELS

371

and held as at least probable that certain species of living things
received their origin from inferior species. Thus Sz. Augustine
had his theory *' rationum seminalium ” >. Similarly wrote
St. Thomas : " Species, also, that are new, if any such appear,
existed beforehand in various active powers; so that animals,
and perhaps even new species of animats, are produced by putre­
faction by the power which the stars and elements received at
the beginning...1 ".

Conclusion : Transformism of itself does not exclude theism ;
nor docs belief in God demand fixism.

chapter

π

THE ANGELS
We shall consider angels in general, guardian angels and
the bad angels.
I.

ANGELS IN GENERAL’

Under this heading we speak of the concept of angels, of
their existence, of their gifts, of their elevation to grace and
their fall therefrom, and of the orders of angels.

A Definition of Angels

614 Angel (from the word άγγελος, messenger) is usually
defined in theology thus : a created substance, entirely spiritual,
intellectual and subsistent.
The substance is called :
a. entirely spiritual, that is, in no way ordained for informing
a body; in this way an angel differs from all corporal creatures,
1 De Genes, ad Utt., book V, c. 5. n. UÎ refer to c. 23, n· +5» etc., P. L.,
XXXIV, 326, 338.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 73> a· *· ad 3·
• Major Synopsis, n. 775-799·

CHAPTER II

372

b. intellectual — in this way an angel is distinguished from men
who acquire many truths by means of reasoning;
c. subsistent, or endowed with a personality; thus an angel
is a complete substance which by itself can carry on its own ope­
rations m its own right ; it has dominion over its own actions.

B

The Existence of Angels

615 Errors. The existence of angels was once denied by the
Epicureans and by the Sadducees; today it is denied by atheists,
rationalists, also by liberal protestants who say that angels,
mentioned in Scripture, are either good inspirations sent by God,
or men sent by God to enlighten others.
Some of the ancient Fathers and theologians were in error
in regard to the nature of angels, thinking that they were united
to very fine bodies. In this matter they were led astray either
by platonic philosophy or by certain texts of Scripture 1 which
they did not correctly understand.

616 Thesis : It is a matter of faith that angels or intellectual
creatures distinct from God and superior to men exist; it is
certain that angels are entirely spiritual.
The Fourth Lateran Council3 has given this definition
“ Who of His almighty power simultaneously from the
beginning of time created out of nothing both the spiritual
and the corporeal creature : to wit, the angelical and the
mundane : and afterwards the human creature as partaking,
in a sense, of both, consisting of spirit and of bodv
In
this definition, confirmed by the Vatican Council *,
1. The existence of angels is defined as a matter of faith ;
2. Angels are distinguished both from corporeal creatures
and from man who is corporeal and spiritual; hence the
spirituality of the angels is certainly implied;
3. Men were created after the Angels;
4. Whether the creation of the corporeal world and of the
angelic world was contemporaneous is not apparent because
1 Genesis, VI, 2.
* D. B., 428.
8 D. B., 1783.

THE ANGELS

373

the word sitnitl can be equivalent to the word aeque, meaning
equally or together.
617 Proof of Thesis.

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. In the Old Testament :
1) Before the exile angels arc mentioned either by the
actual name of angels1* (ίγγδ/ζς, mal’âk), or by the name
of sons of God *, or of spirits ’ : they are shown as innumerable
beyond a multitude 4*, created by God *, superior to men %
spiritual 7*, celestial ·, standing religiously before the throne
of God ·; they arc shown accomplishing the decrees of the
omnipotent Godannouncing the will of God *, helping
men “.
2) A fter the exile, according to ail, testimony about the existence
of angels is found in Daniel in IT **
Esdras, in Tobias1*, in Zacha­
rias >·, in the Macha bees

b. In the New Testament — the existence of angels is
more frequently and more openly maintained herein. In the
1 Genesis, XVI, 7, 9; XIX. ». »5! XXI. »7; XXII. Xi-15; XXIV, 7, 40;
XXVIII, 12; XXXI, 11; XXXII, 1; XLVITI, 16.
1 Job, 1,6; II, i.
» Psahn, CI, 6.
« Genesis, XXVIII, 12.
* Ibid., I, 1; Exodus, XX, xi.
* Genesis, XXI, 17; XXII, xi, XXIV, 7, 40; Jud., VI, 12-21 ; Psalm, VIII, 6.
7 Num., XXII, 31; Jud., VI, 21; XIII, 16, 20.
* Genesis, XXI, 17; XXII, xx; Job, I, 6; II, x.
•Job, I, 6; II, 1; Isaias, VI, 3.
10 Genesis, XVI, 7; XIX, 1; XXL »7; XXII, 15; Numbers, XXII, 22;
Jud., II, i.
« Genesis, XXII, 15; Num., XXII, 35; Jud., VI, 12.
” Genesis, XXIV, 7, 40; Exodus, XXIII, 20, 23; XXXII, 34; XXXIII, 2;
Genesis, XLVII, 16; Judith, XIII, 20. From these references it is sufficiently
apparent that some Rationalists were completely in error when they maintained
that the Jews i»» exile borrowed their doctrine about angels from the Persians.
15 III, 57. 58, 95; Vf. 10 i*VIII,
* * 1413; X, 13. 21, 51; XIV, 33·
14 IX, 6.
“ III, 25; XII, XV, 19, 20; XIII.
* I. 9.
1’ II Mach., XI, 6.

374

CHAPTER Π

Gospels an Angel appears to Zachary to foretell the birth
of John, and to the Blessed Virgin to announce the mystery
of the Incarnation1; and to Joseph 2 in order to teach him
the miraculous conception of Christ and to tell him of Herod’s
death; Angels appear to the shepherds saying: “Glory to
God in the highest3 ”; they minister to Christ after his
temptation ‘. They appear many times to announce Christ's
resurrection a. Furthermore, according to Christ, there are
more than twelve legions of angels in heaven °, the angels
of little ones always see the face of the Father ’, the angels
will separate the wicked from among the just ’, the children
of the resurrection will be equal to the angels ».
In the Acts of the Apostles we see an Angel opening the doors
of the prison for the Apostles during the night », we see another
angel speaking to the deacon Philip *·, another freeing Peter »,
one striking Herod », and another angel standing by Paul at
night in the sea ,4.

St. Paul relates very many things about the orders and offices
of Angels, “ whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities,
or powers ”, in the Word, as the ideal, exemplar}', eternal cause
of all things, the ange’s were created », — the angels are spirits
endowed with intellect, because they know and adore God;
they are greatly inferior to the Son, » although they are ministers
to the Supreme King, ministers to whom God has committed the
carrying out of His works especially for those who will receive
1 St. Luke, 1, II, 26 and following.
’ St. Matthew, I, 20; II, 13, 19.
* St. Luke, II, 13.
4 St. Matthew, IV, n.
Matthew, XXVIII; St. Mark, XVI; St. Luke, XXIV; 5/. John, XX,
* St. Matthew, XXVI, 53’ Ibid., XVIII, 10.
* Ibid., XIII, 49; refer to XIII, 41 ; XXIV, 31.
" St. Luke, XX, 36.
» A cfs of the A postles, V, 19.
“ Ibid., VIII, 26.
» Ibid., XII, 7-15» Ibid., XII, 23.
14 Ibid., XXVII, 23.
» Colossians, I, 16.
14 Hebrews, I, 4-7·

THE ANGELS

375

the inheritance of salvation >. But the evil angels blind the
minds of unbelieving men that they many not perceive the light
of the Gospel ·; and in order to deceive inen more easily Satan,
the angel of darkness and of perversity, sometimes transforms
himself into an angel of light and of sanctity ».

618 In the Scriptures the Angels are shown as :
a. True substances, but not mere abstractions of the mind.
They liberate Lot from Sodom, taking him by the hand4 ;
they have charge of men4; they adore God4; some of them
sin and are thrust down into hell7.

b. Inferior to God, for they are created by God and are
sent as His ministers or servants 8.
c.

Superior to men

d. Entirely spiritual. First, at no time docs Scripture
speak of the body of Angels ; indeed it does assert that Angels
have appeared in bodily form, but not that these Angels
are naturally or personally united to a body10. Secondly,
very often Angels arc called spirits; but the word, spirit,
when predicated of intellectual natures — and angels arc
so — always designates a substance which is entirely
incorporeal. For example, “God is a spirit11”; but men,
possessing bodies, are not called spirits until after death
* Ibid., I, J4.
a II Corinthians, IV, 4.
» Ibid., XI. 14.
4 Genesis, XIX, 16.
* Psalm, XC, ix-12.
4 Hebrews, I, 6.
» II Peter, II, 4.
« Hebrews, I, 14; Colossians, I, 16.
* Psalm, VIII, 6; II Peler, II, 4.
11 Thus the angel Raphael says to Tobias (Tobias, XII, 19) : " I seemed
indeed to eat and to drink with you, but I use an invisible meat and drink
which cannot be seen by men ”, From this wc may infer that Angels do
not use the food of human beings, that they do not have a body naturally
united to themselves, but only an apparent body. Refer to Dorn Legeay,
O. S. B., L’Ange et les Thèophanies d'après la doctrine des Pères, in
Revue Thomiste, X, 138 and following, 405 and following.
“ St. John, IV, 24.

376

CHAPTER Π

when they arc separated from their bodies : " They supposed
that they saw a spirit1*410
11
”.
619

2.

Proof from Tradition.

Up until the seventh century’ nearly all the Fathers spoke
about the Angels, but they spoke briefly; very often they
were uncertain about the nature of the Angels and even made
erroneous statements regarding them, errors which they
took over from apocryphal and neo-platonic books.
a. According to all, Angels were created by God, endowed
with an intellect and freedom.
b. But the absolute spirituality of Angels certain Fathers
did not clearly maintain, especially because it was difficult for
them to conceive a creature as real without having joined to it
at the same time a body which was at least tenuous and ethereal.
Thus St. Justin *, Athenagoras ", Si. Irenaeus *, TertuUiati ,

Clement of Alexandria ·, St. Cyprian ’, Lactantius

St. Ambrose ·

attribute to the Angels a certain ethereal, shining, celestial,
spiritual body.
After the fourth century the Greek Fathers declared that angels
arc incorporeal, immaterial, and spiritual *·.
St. Chrysostom
called the opinion absurd and blasphemous which declared that
Angels had carnal intercourse
Nevertheless, it is apparent
from various texts that this spirituality, according to the estim­
ation of the Greek Fathers, was only relative **
.
Pseudo­
• St. Luke, XXIV, 37-39.
• A pol., II, 5, P. G., VI, 432.
» Leg., 24, P. L., VI, 984.
4 Har., Ill, 20, 4, P. G., VII, 944.
• Idol., IX, P. L., I, 671; Cult femin., I, 2, P. L., I, X305.
4 Ped., Ill, 2, P. G., VIII, 576; Strom., HI, 7, P. G., VIII, ri6x ; V, 1,
P. G., IX, 24.
’ De hab. I'irg., 14, P. L., IV, 857.
• Div. inst., II, 15, P. L., VI, 333.
• De virgin., I, 8, P. L., XVI, 203.
10 Didymus, de Spiritu Saneto, I, 5, 6, P. G., XXXIX, 1037; Eusebius
Caesar., Dem., Evang., IV, I, P. G., XXII, 252; S. Basilius, Hom. Quod
Deus non sii auctor mali, 9, P. G., XXXI, 349. Refer to Tjxeront, Hist,
des dogmes, t. II, p. 33·
11 In Genes. homiL XXII, 2, P. G., LI 11, 187.
“ St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. XVI, 16, P. G., XXXIII, 939.

THE ANGELS

377

Dionysius supposes rather than clearly affirms an absolute spi­
rituality ».

620 3. Proof from Reason.
a. Prom the order in the universe. If we posit the existence
of the angels, tliis order is better preserved : for then there
are beings which are completely corporal, those which are
corporal and at the same time spiritual, and finally beings
which are entirely spiritual. But without the angels this
ascending series of creatures is obviously broken.
b. Also, with the angels we have the best image in this
world of the divine Intellect; and God receives greater glory
through the angel’s knowledge and superior praise 2.
C

The Natural Gifts of the Angels

621 i. The angels possess an intellect properly so called; by means
of this without discursion, through intuition they know themselves,
they know God, tho other angels and men, and future necessary
things. But naturally they do not know future free events or
the secrets of the heart .*

2. Consequently, angels possess free will: will follows the
intellect; also angels were able to merit and demerit4.
3. The angels are in place, not circuniscriptively in the manner
of bodies, but definitively, so that they are entirely in every part
of the place which they occupy just as our sou) is entirely in
every part of our body 4.
* Cat. Hier., XV, P. G., Ill, 328-340.
» Siohvm tkeotogica, I, q. 5». a· x; Contra Gentiles, II, c. 46, 91; De Malo,
q. 6, a. 6.
3 Ibid., I, q. 54-59.
* Ibid., I, q. 59 and 60.
* Ibid., I, q. 52 and 53.

378

CHAPTER Π

4- Angels naturally are superior in power to men. But how
far their power extends wo do not know; but since they are
creatures, they can do nothing contrary to the absolute will of
God.

D

The Grace of the Angels and Their Fall

i. Angels were nol created in supernatural blessedness or with
the beatific vision, but as it were in the tcay to this terminus, provid­
ed with sanctifying grace and supernatural gifts ». This is certain.
a. Proof of the first part of thesis : " To be established or

622

confirmed in good is of the nature of beatitude. But the angels
were not confirmed in good as soon as they were created; the fall
of some of them shows this'”. This is indeed reasonable, for
it is proper that no one who possesses free will be crowned unless
he strive lawfully ».
b. Proof of second part of thesis : From those places where
the angels are called the sons of *God
,
saints », angels of *light
;
these statements denote the state of sanctifying grace; also
from the texts in which the angels are described as enjoying
the beatific vision.

623 However the time at which they were adorned with grace
cannot be determined with certainty : " Although there are con­
flicting opinions on this point... yet it seems mono probable and
more in keeping with the sayings of holy men that they were
created in sanctifying grace ’ '. Grace was bestowed on all the
angels and the way and period of probation given to them were
brief ·.
2. Some of the angels through their own fault committed sin
and were assigned to eternal punishment ·.
a. The Fourth Lateran Council made this declaration concern­
ing the first part of this thesis : " The devil and the other demons
by nature were indeed created good, but by themselves they became

624

* Catech. Rom., P. I, a. I, n. 11.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 62, a. x.
■ II Timothy, II, 5.
* Job, XXXVIII, 7.
4 Daniel, VIII, 13; St. Mark, VIII, 38.
4 II Corinthians, XI, 14.
T Summa theologica, I, q. 62, a. 3.
* Ibid., I, q. 62, a. 5.
» Refer to F. Nau, Dimons, in D. A., I, 9x7 and following.

THE ANGELS

379

St. Thomas 1 explains very clearly how the angels were
able to sin. “ Sinning is nothing else than a deviation from that
rectitude which an act ought to have; that act alone, the rule
of which is the very will of the agent, can never fall short of
rectitude... the divine will is the sole rule of God’s act because
it is not referred to any higher end. Thus only in the divine
will can there be no sin; whereas there can be sin in the will of
every creature
evil1

625 Theologians inquire as to what hind of sin the angels committed.
The common answer is that the first sin of the angels was pride;
for Scripture states : *' Never suffer pride to reign in thy mind,
or in the words; for from it all perdition took its beginning...
for pride is the beginning of all sin " ».
2k spiritual nature is
attached only to spiritual things; and thus the devil sinned by
seeking after spiritual things inordinately, or by being proud,
namely by considering, by loving, and by wishing his own per­
fection without considering, loving and willing the supernatural
rule or precept according to which, from the positive will of God,
this perfection was to be pursued *.
Bui in what did this sin of pride consist! St. Thomas says that
the devil sinned by striving to lie as God, not indeed through
equality, but through likeness e in an inordinate way : or ** he
desired as his last end of beatitude something which he could
attain by virtue of his own nature, turning his appetite away
from supernatural beatitude, which is attained by God’s grace.
Or if he desired as his last end that likeness of God which is bestow­
ed by grace, he sought to have it by the power of his own nature;
and not from divine assistance according to God’s ordering ·
Suarez ’ and others claim that the devil first sinned concerning
the hypostatic union, either by seeking after it inordinately or
by refusing to obey Christ revealed to him as the Lord.

b. After their sin the bad angels were assigned to eternal punish­
ments : God did not spare the angels that sinned but delivered

626

them, drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto
‘ D. B., 428.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 63, a. 1.
• Tobias, IV, 14; Eccli., X, 15·
4 Refer to Summa theologica, I, q. 63. 2 and 3.
* The texts of Scripture (Isaias, XIV, 13-X4» Esechiel, XXV III, 2) which
many theologians bring forward to prove this point are understood literally
not of the devil, but of the kings of Babylon and of Tyre.
• Summa theologica, I, q. 63, a. 3.
1 De Angelis, book VII, c. 13·

380

CHAPTER Π

torments «
The Fathers and theologians teach that it is more
probable that a period of penance was not given to the fallen
angels ».
From the perfection of the angels’ intellect and will St. Thomas
deduces that they could not recover. For all the things which
the angels know, they understand in their own special manner
or they apprehend intuitively and immovably as we apprehend
first principles: but since the will follows the intellect the will
in the angels chooses immovably.

E

The Orders of Angels

627 i. We gather that there is a vast multitude of Angels, both
from the fact that Scripture represents them under the form of
an army », and from these following words and from others like
them : " Thousands of thousands ministered to him and ten
thousand times a hundred thousand stood before him ** ",
2. How are the Angels drawn up and assigned? According
to Scripture the Angels certainly are not equal : they are divided
into nine orders.
Scripturo and Tradition attribute various
names and duties to then, and in this way proclaim a plurality
of orders. The Church commonly teaches that there are nine
orders because the sacred books list nine names of Angels which
are not synonymous and which seem to denote diverse orders.
Pseudo-Dionysius » taught that all of the Angels are divided
into three hierarchies which in turn are separated into three orders
or choruses — thus there are nine choirs of Angels. The Fathers
of the following age, in particular St. Gregory the Great · and
nearly all the Scholastics, followed this order: as a result this
teaching became the common teaching.
St. Thomas » explains the orders in this way : the first or highest
hierarchy beholds the ideas of divine Providence in God Himself,
the second in the universal causes, and the third in their application
to particular effects.
The first hierarchy, which contemplates God, embraces the
Seraphim, Cherubini,'and Thrones: the Seraphim excel in what
is the supreme excellence of all, in being united to God through
charity; the Cherubini know the divine secrets supereminently;
1 II Peter II, 4; refer to Jud. 6.
» Summa tluologica, I, q. 64, a. 2.
* III Kings, XXII, 19; St. Matthew, XXVI, 53; St. Luke, II, 13.
« Daniel, VII, xo.
* De attest. Hierarchia, c. 6, xo.
* llomil. 34 in Evang.
1 Summa theologica, I, q. 108, a. 6.

THE ANGELS

381

the Thrones are raised up so as to bo the familiar recipients of
God in themselves.
The second hierarchy, which is concerned with the government
of the world, likewise consists of three orders : the Dominations
appoint those things which are to be done; the Virtues give the
power of carrying out what is to be done; the Powers order the
means by which what has been commanded can be carried out.
The third hierarchy is engaged in the execution of divine plans.
But in the carrying out of any action there are beginners and
leaders — this belongs to the Principalities; there are others
who simply execute what is to be done, and these are the A ngels ;
others hold a middle place, and these are the Archangels.

II.

GUARDIAN ANGELS
*

The good Angels assist God particularly in the custody
of men. Consequently we shall consider :

a.

The Existence of Guardian Angels,

b. Their duties towards us,
c. Our obligations towards them.

A
1°

The Existence of Guardian Angels
IN RELATION TO INDIVIDUAL MEN

628 Thesis : Holy Angels are appointed to the guardianship,
of men while they are wayfarers (while they are on this earth).
This thesis is certain ; in fact, according to many, it is de fide
in the light of the institution of the Feast of the Guardian
Angels and the universal consensus of the Church.

Proof of Thesis
a. Proof from Scripture.
Scripture very plainly teaches that the good Angels arc
God’s ministers in the matter of the salvation of men, without
stating, however, that each man has a guardian angel.
* Major Synopsis, n. 800-810.
N° 642 (I) — 26

382

CHAPTER II

1. In the Psalm1 it is said : “ He hath given his angels
charge over thee, to keep thee in all they ways; “ but these
words refer to all the just who trust in God, as is evident
from the beginning of this psalm and from the common
interpretation of the Fathers.

2. Christ warns that the children must not be scandalized
because " Their Angels (that is those who watch over them)
always see the face of my Father ·
However, this quotation
refers to all children.
b. Proof from Tradition.
All the testimony of Tradition is summarized and confirmed
so to speak, by the institution of the Feast of the Most Holy
Guardian Angels, and especially by the collect of the Mass :
“ O God who in thine ineffable providence hast sent thy
holy angels to watch over us ”.

c. Proof from Reason.
God is wont to govern the inferior through the superior;
but Angels are superior to men; therefore God governs and
protects men through Angels ’.
629

Corollaries.

i. In regard to the number of Guardian Angels :
It is certain that each of the faithful just has his own Guardian
Angel. This is implied in the texts quoted from Scripture and
it is particuarly apparent from the unanimous consensus of the
Fathers and form the common understanding of the faithful.
St. Basil * says : “ That an Angel is present to every one of the
faithful no one will deny ”.
The same assertion is commonly made in behalf of sinners
and of infidels. Christ died for all, He merited the means for
salvation for all; but in the present dispensation one of these
means is angelic guardianship.
1 Psalm, XC, Xi-12.
* St. Matthew, XVIII, io; Refer to Hebrews, I, X4·
* Refer to Summa theologica, I, q. 113, a. 1, 2; Contra Gentiles, III, c. 78,
79; Caicch. Roman., p. IV, c. 9, n. 4 and following.
* Cont. Eunom., Ill, 1.

THE ANGELS

383

2. In regard to the time of angelic protection :
It begins at the moment of birth, according to most in the
maternal womb actually; it continues throughout life and ceases
at death.
2°

IN RELATION TO COMMUNITIES

630 a. The Doctors hold it as very probable that there is a special
Guardian Angel for the Church, namely, St. Michael. Truly
it does appear from Scripture that St. Michael was once instructed
with the charge of the Synagogue1; but the Church succeeded
the Synagogue. Also, the words and prayers in the office of
St. Michael at least intimate that Archangel is the special protector
of the Church.

b. It can also be stated with sufficient probability that special
guardian angels have been set over individual kingdoms and
nations, actually even over communities of some importance,
for example, over particular churches, religious communities.
As much is implied in various places in Scripture ·.

B Duties of Guardian Angels towards Men

631

In Regard to the Body:
a. The Guardian Angel turns away exterior harm from
us, or he removes us from this harm : “ The Angel that
delivereth me from all evils 8 ”,
b. He also helps us in worldly affairs which are related
to our salvation — this is apparent from the example of
Tobias 4.
1.

In Regard to the Soul :
a. The Angels keep the devils at a distance .*
b. They offer holy thoughts to us ·.
2.

1 Daniel, X, 21; XII, I.
» Exodus, XXIII, 20; Deut., XXXII, 8; Dan., X, I3Î Zack., I, 12;
Acts, XVI, 9.
* Genesis, XLVIII, x6; Psalm, XC, 11 : refer to Tobias, VI, 8.
♦ Tobias, XII, 3 ete. — The entire book of Tobias should be read in order
to find in it a graphic description of those things which Divine Providence
offers to us through the mediating ministry of the Angels.
» Tobias, VIII, 3.
• Ibid., VI, 16.

CHAPTER II

384

c. They present our prayers and our good works to God
and thus they bring to these greater efficacyl*.
d. At times they inflict curative8 punishments : but vindi­
ctive punisliments are generally inflicted by the bad angels.
e. Finally, in the very moment of death, they aid us in
a special way against final temptations, and they lead us to
heaven or to purgatory ·.
C Our Duties towards the Guardian Angel

632 These offices St. Bernard sets forth : “ How great a reverence
should this word (guardian angel) bring upon you, how great
a devotion it should bring to you, how great a confidence
it should contribute to you ! Reverence for his presence,
devotion for his goodness, confidence for his defense 4*
III.

THE BAD ANGELS

The bad angels6*or devils attack man in a two fold way :
first, in the ordinary manner through temptation; secondly,
in an extraordinary way through possession and magic.
A Diabolical Temptation 4

633 i. Its Existence : More often than not devils incite or tempt
men into sin. This statement is de fide from the universal
magisterium of the Church.
• Ibid, vn, 12.
• II Kings XXIV, 16.
• St. Luke, XVI, 22. Refer to Cardinal Newman’s Dream of Gerontius
wherein no less theologically than poetically he describes the struggle of the
Christian soul with the devil before death.
4 Sermon 12 in Ps. 90, n. 6.
• The bad angel· have received various names; they are called devils (Dcut.,
XXXII, 17; St. Luke, VIII, 2; St. Matthew, VIII, 31); wicked spirits (St. Luke,
XI, 26; .ids, XIX, 12); unclean spirits (St. Luke, VIII, 29); rulers of the world
of this darkness, spirits of wickness (Ephesians, VI, 12). One of them is regarded
as their leader and he is called the prince of this world (St. John, XII, 51, XIV,
30); the prince of devils (St. Matthew, IX, 34); Satan (St. Luke, XI, 18); the
devil (St Matthew, XIII, 39); the god of this world (II Corinthians, IV, 4);
the great dragon, the old serpent (Apocalypse, XII, 9).
4 Major Synopsis, n. 811-8x8.

THE ANGELS

385

a. Proof from Scripture.
In the Old Testament we see that our first parents are led
into sin by the devil *
*, and that pious Job is likewise tempted
by him in various ways.
In the New Testament the devil assails Christ Himself,2
he urges Judas the traitor on to handing over the Master *,
and he incites Ananias to tell a lie to the Holy Spirit *.
Besides, in general St. Peter and St. Paul warn us to beware
of the temptation of the devil : “ your adversary the devil,
as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour...
for our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world
of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness...s ”
b.

Proof from Reason.

а) On the part of God: for temptation demonstrates the
need man has for grace when he is tempted ; it also manifests
the divine wisdom, for, in helping us when we are tempted,
God shows how to choose a greater good from evil.
б) On the part of man : through temptations of various
kinds man’s virtue is tried and strengthened ; he more readily
senses his own infirmity and in this way he is moved, to real
humility; finally, by resisting temptation, he does penance
for his past sins.
634

2. The manner in Which Diabolical Temptation Takes Place·

a. The devil cannot act directly on the intellect and on the will,
because the intellect and the will are faculties which are entirely
spiritual and in their own right — to this degree that they depend
on God alone and arc moved by Him alone.
1 Genesis, III, x-6, refer to F. Nav, D. A., t. I, p. 917 and following.
» St. Matthew, IV, 3-10.
* St John, XIII, 2, 27.
* Acts, V, 3.
* I Peter, V, 8-9. Ephesians, VI, 12; refer to St. Luke, XXII, 31 ; VIII, 12.
* Refer to the Catechism of the Council of Trent, p. IV, sixth q., n. 5;
Schram, Instil. theol. myst., CXIV and following; St. Bonaventure, In
2 Sent., diet. 8, p. 2, a. 1.

CHAPTER II

386

b. However, the devil can act :
x) On the external and internal senses, for example, on the
menory and on the imagination;
2) On the sensible appetite, for these faculties are organic and
corporeal and corporeal nature serves the angels. Nevertheless,
in all these cases man is free and, with God's grace, is able to
overcome temptation ».

B Diabolical Obsession and Possession

635

I.

The Idea of Obsession and of Possession.

a. Obsession is an action of the devil who front the outside
as it were besets the body of a man by attacking it with
various molestations and at the same time by plaguing the
soul with grave temptations — for example, the history
of St. Anthony.

b. Possession is the action of the devil who enters the
body of a man, dwells and operates therein by making use
of the body’s senses and members and by producing
unaccustomed and unusual acts.

Signs of diabolical possession, according to the Roman liilual
are ’* speaking unknown languages fluently or understanding
those who speak these languages, disclosing matters that are
distant and hidden, displaying powers which are beyond the nature
of age or condition, and other things of this kind, all of which
arc stronger indications and proofs when many of them are present ”
636 2. Thesis : Demoniacal possessions must be admitted,
even after the time of Christ. This thesis is certain.
a. Proof from Scripture.
Very often mention is made in the Gospel of those obsessed
by the devil and of the sick who are distinguished from the
former : “ They presented to him all sick people that were
taken with diverse diseases and torments, and such as were
possessed by devils 2
1 l Corinthians, X, 13.
• St. Matthew, IV, 24; VIII, 16.

THE ANGELS

387

Besides, Christ speaks to the devils, rebuking them and
forbidding them to speak, or ordering them to depart : “ And
he cast out many devils, and he suffered them not to speak,
because thej' knew him... Deaf and dumb spirit, I command
thee, go out of him, and enter not any more into him1 ”.
Finally, Christ gives to the Apostles the power of casting
out devils as a power distinct from that of healing the sick *.
But if demoniacal possession is nothing other than natural
disease, then Christ deceived the Jews and the Apostles
by his manner of acting and by his words — such an idea
is certainly repugnant.
b.

Proof from Tradition.

It is evident from innumerable confirmations of the Fathers
that in the first centuries there were cases of real possession
by the devils, and that Christians had the power of casting
out unclean spirits. These facts are equally evident from
the practice of the Church in instituting the special order of
Exorcist for expelling devils, and in including in the Ritual
special prayers for liberating those possessed by the devil.
Furthermore, history substantiates this point, referring to
many cases of possession, the truth of which can hardly
be called into doubt ’.

c.

Proof from Reason.

Reason can show the possibility of diabolical possession
once we posit the existence of devils. For since the devil
possesses great ingenuity and power, he certainly can produce
far greater wonders than can those who practice hypnotism.
But these last can so govern the hypnotized person that they
direct his physical and psychical powers at will, even contrary
to the person’s inclinations. Certainly, a fortiori, the devil
can do the same.
1 St. Mark, I, 34; IX, 24; S/. Luke, VIII, 30.
* St. Matthew, X, 1; St. Mark, XVI, 17.
* Reive to Ribet, La Mystique divine, p. 198 and following; Lekiche,
Etude sur les Possessions en gâterai et sur celles de Loudon en particulier, Paris,
1859; J· Segaud, Une manifestation diabolique, Lyon, 1899.

388

CHAPTER II

Ιί we ask, “ ΠΆγ does God permit possession?” we receive
our answer from St. Bonaventure 1 ; " God permits this either to
show his own glory (St. John, IX, 3), or to punish sin, or to correct
the sinner (I Corinthians, V, 3), or to enlighten us.

637

3.

Helps against the devils

The helps which we should employ to protect ourselves against
demons are :
a. A purifying of conscience through sacramental confession :
b. Reception of Holy Communion;
c. Prayer with fasting;
d. The use of sacramentels, especially of holy water;
e. Exorcism, which must be practiced cautiously, and not
without the permission of the bishop.

C.

Magic

638 In general magic is the power of producing extraordinary
and unusual effects. It is distinguished in a two-fold manner :
natural, by which marvellous or extraordinary things are
accomplished through the hidden forces of nature *, or by
means of skill; diabolical or black magic through which amazing
things have been accomplished with the help of the devil.
Theologians distinguish the crime, the art, and the fad of magic.
The crime of magic is the impious attempt to produce extra­
ordinary' results with the aid of the devil, either through an
explicit or an implicit pact with the devil himself.
The magic art is the faculty (with certain signs posited) of
producing certainly and constantly wonderful effects with the
help of the devil. Its existence must not be too readily admitted.
So states St. Thomas
Magical facts are phenomena performed with the devil's help,
which can be explained neither by physical forces nor by the
efforts of man. we have mention of such facts :
1 2 Sent., dist. 8, p. 2, a. I, q. 1.
• Some of those devoted to this kind of knowledge have come into suspicion
of being in league with the devil because, from a very diligent investigation
into natural forces, they have been able to do things which were considered
prodigious by the common person.
* Summa theologica, I, q. xio, a. 2.

THE ANGELS

389

1) In Scripture : " And Pharao called the wise men and the
magicians, and they also by Egyptian enchantments and certain
secrets did in like manner > ", Similarly in the New Testament
there is the same matter of magical works performed by Simon,
by Elymas and by the girl with the pythonical spirit *.
Also
Christ’and Paul predicted that there would be great signs and
prodigies in the time of the Anti-christ.
2) Among the Church writers : while some of these may be
fabled, there are, nevertheless, a few which are worthy of belief
because of the teaching and piety of those who bear witness
to them.
D.

639

Fads which Approach Magic, Magnetism, Spiritism,
and Hypnotism *

State of the Question.

In our times under the name of

magnetism, of spiritism and of hypnotism many phenomena
have taken place about which we may wonder whether they be
diabolical or not.
I. Antony Mesmer, who died in 1815, is acknowledged as
the discover of animat magnetism. A doctor in Vienna, ho thought
that he had discovered a wonderful medium in a certain most
subtle fluid which supposedly flows from the bodies of animals,
which, in fact, pervades absolutely all bodies.

Three phenomena in particular are ascribed to magnetism :
a. Convulsions,
b. The state of paralysis and of catalepsis, in which one's
members are rigid and sensibility disappears,
c. Magnetic sleep, in which state the person magnetized,
although deprived of the use of his senses, nevertheless, sees,
hears, and speaks, actually knows wonderful things which before
were unknown to him, and perceives actions which are being
accomplished secretly or at a distance.

640 2. Modem Spiritism had its origin in the United States of
America, but soon spread throughout Europe and became common
by the middle of the nineteenth century. There have been dif­
ferent forms of spiritism : for sometimes the spirits sent forth
responses with a revolving table mediating, or through a medium
» Exodus, VII, π.
» Acts, VIII, 9, ii ; XIII, 8; XVI, 16.
* Major Synopsis, n. 820-827.

390

CHAPTER II

or intermediary person; but occasionally the direct evocation and
appearance of spirits took place. However, it is apparent that
in all of these many frauds were involved.
Among the phenomena which have been scientifically examined
and are considered to be free from fraud, these facts were of
special note.
641 Physical phenomena :
a. The noise of the table which produces the responses;
b. Objects affixed to the walls fall and are moved confusedly;
c. The bench on which the medium sits is raised in the air;
this is called levitation ;
d. Flames appear ;
e. Human hands, feet, head become visible, even an entire
body which walks and speaks.

Intellectual phenomena :
a. Distant acts are disclosed, lost objects are discovered;
b. Responses are given which are pious, heretical, repulsive
to the mind, the nature, and the dispositions of the bystanders;
c. The presence of a spirit which is evil and fearful of holy
things is revealed from the convulsions of the table whenever
blessed rosaries arc placed upon it .*
3. The phenomena of hypnotism are divided into three kinds :
a. Somatic or corporal, which are catalepsis, lethargy, and
sleep-walking ;
b. Intellectual, the principal of which is mental suggestion;
this takes place especially in the state of sleep-walking : that
is, the hypnotized person hears and carries out all that the person
hypnotizing suggests and commands;
c. Mixed, which, through the mediation of the imagination,
arc produced on the body — for instance, a bloody sweat.
The following thesis makes clear what we must think of these
phenomena.

642 Thesis : The phenomena of magnetism, of spiritism, or of
hypnotism, through which things hidden, remote and future
1 These facts have been made known by reputable eyewitness — Refer to
D. D. Godf. Brossais Saint-Marc, Rapport épiscopal sur les fables tournantes
et parlantes, July 6, 1853 from the archives of the Chancery of Rennes.

THE ANGELS

391

are disclosed, are diabolical; but the other considerations can
be explained by fraud or by natural laws.

Proof of Thesis

I. Proof from Authority.
This thesis is deduced from the various answers of the
Holy Office; from these it is evident that :
a. Many of these phenomena in se are not preternatural,
nor are they illicit ;
b. Other phenomena, however, have no proportion to the
means employed and are, therefore, illicit.
In answer to the question as to whether magnetism, as it
is generally accepted and as it is in se, should be considered
licit or illicit, the Holy Office, on June 23, 1840, replied:
“ If all error, soothsaying, explicit and implicit invocation
of the devil is removed, the use of magnetism, namely, the
act alone of employing physical means which arc in all other
ways licit, is not morally forbidden provided such an act does
not tend to an end which is illicit or in any manner perverse.
But the application of principles and of means which are
purely physical to things and to effects which are truly super­
natural, for the purpose of explaining them physically, is
nothing more than deception, completely illicit and heretical
This decision was confirmed on July 28, 1847.
Just what these supernatural effects are, the Holy Office made
clear in a letter, July 30, 1856 : " While the licitness or illicitness
in the use or abuse of magnetism is sufficiently explained by this
general decree, nevertheless, the evil of men has increased so much
that, neglecting the licit pursuit of the sciences and pursuing
curiosities instead, to the great loss of souls and the detriment
of civil society itself, they glory in the belief that they have
found a certain principle of foretelling and of divining. Hence
these followers of somnambulism and of clear vision, as they
call themselves, foolish women carried away by deceptions and
by gesticulations which are not always proper’ chatter on and
on that they perceive invisible things and with rashness and
senseless daring they presume and pretend to draw up teachings
on religion, to call up the souls of the dead, to receive answers.

392

CHAPTER Π

to discover things unknown and far removed, and to exercise other
superstitions practices of this kind. In all of this, whatever
art or illusion is employed, since physical means are ordained
to effects which are not natural, we find deception which is completely
illicit and heretical, and a scandal opposing the integrity of mora­
lity ».
Furthermore, on April 24, 1917, The Holy Office forbade " atten­
dance at any of these spiritist manifestations whatsoever *
* ”.

643

2.

Proof from Reason.

a. Proof of the first part of the thesis : the disclosure
of hidden things, especially of future things, cannot be attributed
to natural forces; for there is no proportion between this
certain knowledge and the natural powers either of the one
practicing magnetism or of the one magnetized, or of an}'
kind of fluid. Our faculties, even when hyper-stimulated,
cannot, in opposition to the law's of nature, see the secrets
of hearts or the future things which are known only to God.
Also, if we were to admit the existence of magnetic fluid
as material, it would not be able to affect our intellect which
is immaterial — not even through the mediation of the senses,
because they can make known to the intellect nothing besides
their own sensible impressions. It is necessary therefore
to have recourse to a superior cause. This cause can be
neither God nor a good Angel, for in the use of spiritism,
of magnetism, or of hypnotism, employed for the detection
of the occult, so many things are worthless, indecorous, and
shameful that they would in no conceivable wray become
God and His Angels. What remains but that the devil himself
is the cause. In a very special way spiritism, when it is the
alleged evocation of spirits, is illicit, and its doctrine is full
of errors contrary to faith.

644 b. Proof of the second part of the thesis : Physical and
intellectual phenomena which do not exceed the forces or powers
of the bystanders can be attributed to natural causes or to
fraud. Lekmkuhl rightly declares : " It is most certain that
1 A. S. $., I, p. 177.
• A, A. S., XI, p. 268.

THE ANGELS

393

things which are wholly unusual can happen in man in an
entirely natural manner because of clianges in his nerves and
in Iris brain ; in fact it becomes evident that amazing halluccinations sometimes take place in an entirely natural manner
1) A sound general principle is this, that notliing should be
considered supernatural unless it cannot be otherwise explained
But hypnotic phenomena, whether mechanical, or physiological,
or intellectual, provided they do not surpass the powers of by­
standers, can very frequently be explained through the influence
of an image on the senses and on the body itself. Even when
one is particularly watchful this influence is so strong that some­
times it is sufficient to cause sickness .*

2) Suggestion itself shows nothing miraculous since, in some
way, it is similar to those things which occur in the state of natural
sleep; very often it happens to those sleeping that they regard
as real the imaginar)’ likenesses of things which arc represented
in their phantasy *. Now the hypnotized person, at the suggestion
of the one hypnotizing, vividly perceives in his phantasy like­
nesses of things which are described, and regarding these as real,
he acts in the same manner as if he were truly perceiving the ver)’
tilings themselves. But the authority which the one hypnotizing
exercises over the one hypnotized is explained both through the
consent given at the beginning by the one hypnotized wherein
he abdicates, so to speak, his own will, and through the influence
which the one hypnotizing possesses directly over the senses and
nerves, indirectly over the will, of the subject *. Nor can it be
stated that suggestion at a distant time is absolutely repugnant,
provided that it be recalled by one or another means into the
memory of the one hypnotized.

3) Also, phenomena which are produced by scientific experi­
ments in a regular and nearly constant manner should not be
easily attributed to the devil. ' But reliable witnesses affirm that
the greater part of the phenomena of this kind are so produced .*
From the fact certain acts of magnetism must be attributed
to the devil some argue that all acts and facts are caused by him.
This argument labors under a manifest defect.
1 St. Thomas has noted this in Contra Gentiles, book III, c. 99. Refer to
CocoxxibR, O. P., L'hypnotisme franc.
* It even happens that a man sleeping and dreaming enters a conversation
with another who is awake, provided tills one does not break off the thread
or outline of the dream.
* Coconnier, previously referred to, p. 547 and following.
* Revue thomiste, 1895, p. 413 and following, 693 and following.

CHAPTER III

MAN 1
We pass now to a discussion of man, namely of his origin
of his elevation, and of his fall.
ARTICLE I.

THE ORIGIN OF MAN 2

In relation to man’s origin we shall briefly explain four
points :
1. the creation of our first parents;
2. the unity of the human race;
3. the nature of man;
4. the origin of individual men.
1.

THE CREATION OF OUR FIRST PARENTS

State of the Question
We must make mention of a few facts which arc related to
the theories of the transformiste. First, those who are called
materialists and positivists contend that both the body and the
soul of man take their origin from the brute through the natural
laws of evolution without God’s intervention — thus Darwin,
Spencer, Haeckel, Vogt. Such an error is obviously opposed to
the mosaic narration. Secondly, the Spiritualists or these who
hold a more moderate opinion claim that man’s body has been
gradually formed by the progressive evolution of some species
of animal, and that when it was ready for a higher life, it received
a rational soul directly from God — nearly all scientific men
believe thus.

645

646 Thesis : It is de fide that our first parents in regard to body
and in regard to soul were created by God: it is certain that
1 In addition to the works mentioned in the Major Synopsis, refer to
A. D'Alès, D. A., voL II, 473-5<4·
■ D. T. C. Transformisme, a. already cited.

MAN

395

their souls were created immediately by God; the opinion, once
common, which asserts that even man's body was formed
immediately by God has now fallen into controversy.
That man was created by God, at least mediately, is so clearly
stated in Scripture that no Christian can deny it ». But, in
addition, it was commonly held that God immediately fashioned
the body of Adam from the slime of the earth at the same time
that He created his soul as the breath of life.
The reasons for this assertion and those against it we shall
explain.
A Scripture
The obvious meaning of the narrative in Genesis3 is that Adam’s
body was formed immediately from the slime of the earth, that
is, from inorganic matter, but not from the body of some brute,
and that the body of Eve was formed from a rib of Adam.
On the contrary, if the nature of this narrative is considered
to be popular-historic, employing metaphors then in use among
the Semites, slime can thus be metaphorically understood to
signify only the material or physico-chemical elements from which
man’s body is constituted, whether they be still inanimate and
inorganic, or whether they be already ordered and living in an
animal organism. In other words, the sacred author intended
only to teach this : man has been created by God of matter and
of spirit, — without affirming anything concerning the form
or the manner of being of this matter. This interpretation
seems to be entirely in conformity with the principles set forth
by Leo XIII in the Encyclical " Providentissimus · ”, and repeated
by Pius XII in the Encyclical “ Divino afflante Spiritu « ”,
namely : the sacred authors do not give a properly or peculiarly
scientific teaching, but “ they describe and treat these very
things either according to a certain manner of translation, or as
the common speech reported them in those times. ”

The nearly unanimous interpretation of the Fathers and of
the ancient Theologians, excepting Origen, Cajetan and a few
others, favors the opinion of the immediate production of the
human body.
On the contrary we must understand that the Fathers and the
ancient Theologians only repeat the words of Sacred Scripture.
’ Genesis, I, 27.
• Genesis, II, 7. 21-22.
* Ench. Bib!., n. 106.
4 A. A. S., Oct. 20, 1943, p. 299.

396

CHAPTER III

A dispute had not arisen regarding the manner of forming the
human body; this dispute they had no intentions in any way
of settling. Wherefore it is apparent that they do not propose
as a doctrine of faith the immediate formation of the body by
God from the slime of the earth in opposition to the mediate
formation.

647 C By force of implied reasoning man spontaneously avoids
admitting that he has taken or drawn his origin from animality,
both because of the bodily dilferences between man and ape arid
especially because of the transcendency of his intellectual soul
over the sensible soul of the brute.
Contrariwise, we must note that such reasoning is not over­
forceful because, when we consider the transcendence of the whole
man over the brute, we realize that this transcendence denies
that a mere evolution of the body of an animal into the body
of a man can take place.

To be sure, because of the transcendence of the soul, which
is called by its own proper name of spirituality, the soul of
our first parents could arise only from a spiritual cause,
and hence could be formed neither from natural forces alone
nor from the biological forces of nature. More than this,
since spirituality absolutely denotes the subject’s independence
of matter as much in being and becoming as in acting, it
must be stated that the human soul could be educed by no
cause from the potency of animality, but that the human
soul has been created immediately by God from nothing and
has been infused into a prepared body.
As long as the spiritual origin of the human soul is correctly
preserved, the differences of body between man and ape do not
oppose the origin of the human body from animality since all
transformists acknowledge that man descends not from an ape
but from a remote common parent (from the order of " primates ”)
according to progressively divergent lines.
D Finally, it is pertinent to repeat for the sake of soundness
the scientific arguments, at least briefly1 : paleontological dis­
coveries offer always more numerous and inter-allied corporal
forms which are intermediary between modem day men and
animals called " primates ”, and which indeed are chronologically
set in order according to ascending grades and which gradually
1 Bexgouxioux et Clorv, Les premiers Hommes; — Bore, L'homme :
genèse et cheminement, Nouv. Rev. Thcologique, April, 1947.

MAN

397

approach the human form to such a degree that it becomes more
and more probable, in fact it now appears almost certain among
the scientists, that these successive forms have received their
origin one from the other. Especially in the last discovered
(Sinanthropus, Africanthropus, Meganthropus, Java Man, New
Pithecanthropus, etc.), forms have come to light which, bearing
more resemblance to the superior primates and inferior to Nean­
derthal man, remove every gap or division between animal and
man; and although they are tributed to what the French call
“ anthropiens ”, they seem to be, according to many learned
men, the vestiges and signs of primitive men who were endowed
with an intellect.
It seems difficult to admit a general evolution of species without
also admitting that the human body was formed through evolu­
tion. For the terminus of this wonderful and progressive ascent
of species obviously is man who, with his reason and freedom,
has dominion over all sensible creation and in whom alone as in
a proximate end is found the reason and intelligibility of all vital
evolution.

648 Conclusions.
1. The opinion which asserts that the human body has
arisen from animality through the forces of evolution is not
heretical, in fact in can be admitted theologically, as Cardinal
Liénart declared in a fairly recent article».

2. It is of great interest that in this question neither
paleontological nor theological science should pass beyond
its own proper limits and that in this way no empty conflict
should arise with great danger in matters of faith to souls
which would result. The greatest prudence is needed in
order to propose to the unskilled this opinion about the
origin of the human body; those who enjoy a reputation in
the sciences must impose no burden beyond that which faith
legitimately exacts.
II.

THE UNITY OF THE HUMAN RACE

State of the Question
That all men have taken their origin from one first parent in
the past was denied by the Pre-Adamites (Isaac de la Peyrère,

649

1 Le chrétien devant Us progrès de la science, Etudes, Dec. 1947.
Ν'» 642 (I). — 27

398

CHAPTER ΠΙ

1655) aud in modern times by the Polygcnists who, while admitting
evolution, think that the transition from the animal to the human
body was accomplished not in one and man one woman, but in

many.

650 Thesis : The universal human race has arisen from the one
first parent Adam. According to many theologians this
statement is proximate to a matter of faith.
A

Proof from Scripture.

1. Scripture directly states that there was no creature
existing when Adam was created. " And there was not
a man to till the earth
" But for Adam there was not
found a helper like himself 1*”. Hence Adam is called the
father of the world, and Eve the mother of all the living ·.
Again, St. Paul directly asserts that all men are descended
from one: “ He hath made of one all man land to dwell upon
the whole face of the earth 3 ”.

2. This is indirectly proved from St. Paul's teaching which
Catholic Tradition corroborates in regard to original sin;
according to this teaching all arc bom infected with original
sin by reason of the fact that all draw their nature, infected
by sin, from the same head or source 4.
B

Reason confirms this thesis.

Today nearly all scholars confess that there are present in all
men many things which argue for specific identity, namely :

anatomical structure of body, physiological operations, the laws
of generation and of birth, the faculty of speaking, the indefinite
fecundity' of marriages which are contracted among the men of
every maimer of diversity ». All of this positively confutes the
polygenists who profess’ Polyphyletism, that is,’ from many
" phyla " or stems of animals different in species have arsen
many human " phyla ”.
1 Genesis, II, 5, 20.
* Wisdom, X, x; Genesis, III, 20.
3 Acts, XVII, 26.
4 Romans, V, 12.
4 Refer to De Qnatrcfagcs, Unite de l’espèce humaine; Vigouroux, Les
livres saints et la Critique.

MAN

399

Opposing the polygeirsts are the monophylet?sts, ma;nta;n;ng

Monophylelism, a system wh;ch states that one human phylum

has arisen from one animal phylum but that the transition has
been made in many individuals of the same phylum. It must be
declared that Monophyletism is only a hypothesis or probability
which as yet cannot'be proved by paleontology; nor can one
conjecture just how it could be proved.
III.

THE NATURE OF MAN

651 First Thesis : Man is composed of an organic body and a
rational, spiritual, and immortal soul, which coalesce into one
nature.

This thesis is certain.
Proof from Scripture.
1. God is said to have formed the body of Adam from the
slime of the earth, and to have breathed into it the breath
of life, the life principle, or the soul, indeed a spiritual soul,
since by his reason man is the image of God who is a spirit.
In this way man was made “ into a living soul ”, or was made
of one nature determined by the soul.
2. Those things which are predicated of Sheol, the grave,
suppose the immortality of the soul1*
3; as much is evident
from the resurrection of certain bodies * and from the practice
of evoking the dead ’.
3. Among the prophets4, in the Sapiential Books B, in
the Books of the Machabeese, the spirituality and the
immortality of the soul are very clearly proclaimed.
A

1 Genesis, XV, 15; XXV, 8; XXXV, 28; XLIX, 32; Numbers, XX, 26;
Judges, II, 10.
’ Thus Elias raised up the son of the widow of Sarepta (III Kings, XVII,
17-24); Eliseus raised the son of the Sunamitess (IV, Kings, IV, 17-27); by
a touch of the liones of Eliseus a cadaver came back to life (IV Kings, XIII,
20-21).
3 Denier., XVIII, 11; 1 Kings, XXVIII, 8; Isa. XIV, 19.
4 Ezechial, XXXVII, 10.
* Sap., IX, 15; III, 1-4; V, 16; Prov, XII, 28; XIV, 33; Ecel. XII, 7;
Eccli., 19-21.
• II Machabees, VII, 23; VI, 26; XII, 43-46.

400

CHAPTER III

4. In the New Testament the human soul is represented
to us as completely distinct from the body which it survives \
as a spirit that knows the things of a man · as immortal
and capable of eternal life.
B Proof from Tradition.
Very often the Fathers affirm the spirituality and the
immortality of the soul. Thus we read in the Constitution
of the Apostles:*
* “ We fully acknowledge within us an
incorporeal and immortal soul
652 Second Thesis : The rational soul is per sc and essentially
the form of the human body.
This is de fide according to the Council of Vienne (1311-1312) :
Defining... that whoever presumes thereafter to assert, to maintain,
or to hold that the rational or intellective soul is not the form
of the human body per se and essentially, must be regarded
as a heretic 1
There are three essential included in this definition :
1. The human soul is the form of the human body or is substan­
tially united to the body just as form is united to matter; and
therefore the human soul communicates to the body its own
esse, constituting, along with it, one nature.
2. Per se, that is, not through another, but directly,
immediately through its own very self;
3. Essentially, namely, through its own essence (but not
through some faculty *,{or through a knowledge of its operations0,
or through accidental influx or influence) so that the essence
» Matthew, X, 28.
* I Corinthians, II, xi.
■ Book VI, C. ir, P. G., I, 938; Refer to Journet., Enchir. Patrist., 147.
41). B., 481; refer to 738.
0 This R. J. Olivi taught, insisting that the rational soul informs the body
not per sc, but through its sensitive and vegetative faculties. This teaching
was condemned by the Council of Vienne.
0 The teaching and proposition of Rosmini condemned by Leo XIII : " The
union of soul and of body properly consists of an immanent perception by
which the subject, contemplating the idea, affirms the sensible after the subject
has contemplated its essence in that (idea) or perception. D. B., n. 1914.

MAN

401

of the soul truly elicits intellectual activities but also sensitive
and vegetative activities along with the body to which it is
united.
653 Corollary. From this it follows that the soul of man is one;
and that we cannot admit tricholomism according to which man
is composed of three substances, spirit (spiritual soul), soul
(animal soul), and body. Following the Greek philosophers,
Philo, Apollinaris, some Protestants, and Gunther1 taught this
theory.

Hoto is the soul the form of the body? 3 According to Cardinal
Zigliara, the Council of Vienne defined that the soul is the form
of the body in a strictly scholastic sense. According to Palmieri,

654

who defends the theories of the modern atomists, the Council
defined only that the soul in man is one, that it gives life to the
human body, but the Council did not define how the soul is the
form of the body.
It is certain that the Council of Vienne did not condemn the
theory of the Scotists; according to this theory there exists in
man, besides a soul, a form which gives corporeal esse. But the
doctrine of St. Thomas is more sound, stating that there is no
other substantial form in man than the intellective (rational)
soul.
IV. THE PROPAGATION OF THE HUMAN RACE
OR
THE ORIGIN OF INDIVIDUAL MAN

655 State of the Question. The body of individual men is
propagated through generation ; but the question is — how
does the soul have its origin.
A The Originisls and the Priscillianists taught the préexistence
of souls, namely : souls per se arc incorporeal spirits and from the

tieginning they were created, all of them, by God; but in punish­
ment for their defection they have been inclosed in bodies.

B According to Traducianism the human soul is produced
from the substance of the parents : some claim from the actual
bodily seed, others say directly from the soul of the parents
’ ViGOUROUX, Did. de la Bible, I, p. 454
*448.
1 Garrigou-Lagrange, Le sens commun..., p. 128-131.

402

CHAPTER III

— this last is also called Generationism
Allied to this are the
opinions : of Froschammer who claimed that the soul is created
by the parents through a peculiar or particular power placed
in them by God; of Rosmini who held that the sensitive soul
is generated by the parents and that afterwards through the
enlightenment of being it becomes rational.

656 Thesis : Human souls arc created by God when they are
infused into bodies. This thesis is certain.
A The Council of Constantinople condemned Origin ism
in 553 · “K anyone claims the fabulous pre-existence of
souls..., let him be anathema’”. Anastasius II rejected
as heretical the opinion of those who declare that souls are
transmitted from the seed by parents ’. Froschammer was
condemned by Pius IX *
*, Rosmini by Leo XIII *.

B Scripture · supports this thesis : " The dust return
into its earth, whence it was, and the spirit return to God
who gave it
C The Fathers in common have supported Creationism :
thus, among others, Lactantius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome,
St. Hilary, St. Gregory Nazianzus, St. Cyril of Alexandria
Their teaching Peter Lombard has summarized thus : “ The
Catholic Church teaches that souls are infused into bodies
and in being infused are created · ”, After reporting on the
three opinions, Generationism, Preexistcntianism, and
Creationism, St. Thomas ’ says : “ The first two were condemned
by the judgment of the Church and the third was approved ”.
The other scholastics generally agree with this.

1 Thus Tertulliax, St. Fulgentius, St. Augustine, in varying forms;
in modem times Klee and Hennes.
* D. B., 203.
* D. B., 170.
* In the Brief, Gravissimas to the Archbishop of Monac., Dec. 11, xS6s.
4 D. B., 19x0; refer to 533.
* Ecclesiastes, XII, 7.
’ P. L., VII, 73; X, 358; XIV, 366; P. G., XXVII, 552; LXXVII, 22.
4 Sent., book II, d. rS, n. 8.
* De. Pot., q. 3, a. 9; Summa theologica, I, q. n8, a. 2.

MAN

403

D Reason 1 confirms this thesis. If souls are transmittal by
parents, they are, reasonably, transmittal by the body or by the
soul. But neither can be so : not the first because the intellective
principle in man is a principle transcending matter; nor the second
for the soul of an infant cannot be created by the soul of the
parents because creative power belongs to God alone; and is
not an emanation from the soul of the parents because the soul
is a simple substance from which, therefore, nothing can bo
taken away. Therefore souls are not transmitted by parents
but are created by God.

Nevertheless, parents arc rightly said to generate man because
from their own substance they produce a body so sot in order
that, by reason of the natural law which God has established,
the infusion of a soul necessarily follows or attends it (the body).
Hence it is shiningly clear how great the dignity of man is : from
the manner in which He was created by the special intervention
of God; from his relationship to the world, of which he is the
center, the ruler, and the priest; finally, from his nature which
is in the image of God.

ARTICLE II.

THE ELEVATION OF MAN

TO THE SUPERNATURAL STATE

Since God has adorned man with supernatural gifts also,
it remains for us to explain man’s elevation to the supernatural
order. But because gifts both properly supernatural and
preternatural were granted to our first parents, we shall consider
each type successively after giving some preliminary ideas
about the natural order and the supernatural order.
T. INTRODUCTORY CONCEPTS
CONCERNING THE SUPERNATURAL ORDER’

Three points must be made clear :
A

the concept of the natural order and of the supernatural

order ;
1 Suinnia theologica, I, q. n8, a. 2.
* Major Synopsis, n. 845-834; Bainvel, Nature ci surnaturel, Ι9°5·

404

CHAPTER HI

B the various states in which man could have been constituted
relative to his end;

C the errors regarding the supernatural order.

A

The Natural and the Supernatural

Wc shall explain :
1. what is natural and what is supernatural;
2. what the natural order is and what the supernatural
order is.

658 i. The Concept of Nature. Nature denotes three things :
First, individual nature in as much as it is the principle
of being and of acting;
Secondly, the collection of all created substances (la nature)
in as much as they form, as it were, a universal principle
of operation ;
Thirdly, God Himself since He is the author of nature.
659 2. The Concept of the natural — By the natural we
understand that which, once creation is posited, is due to
any nature or person 1 :
a. constitutively or according to essence : whatever is
required for establishing or constituting any being in its
own species; thus body and rational soul form the essence
of man ;
b. consecutively, that is, according to the forces or faculties
which flow from the essence itself : for example, intellect
and will in man ;

c. exigitively or according to needs : thus the di vane
concurrence is required for exercising faculties.
’ Non-Catholic$, «specially rationalist, often use the word natural, in respect
to cognition, for what is sensible, and the tern» supernatural for whatever goct
beyond experience. Metaphysically, they call what is finite natural, but whas
is infinite they call supernatural.

MAN

405

All three points are concerned with what is called due
or owing to nature.

d. meritoriously, that is, according to merit, — whatever
an intcllectural creature can attain through the manner of
moral sanction or decree; for example, the acquisition of
a natural end is something natural.
What is obtained thus is called due to the person or merited
by the person who is legitimately exercising his facultiesl.
660 2. The Concept of the supernatural ». The supernatural
is properly defined as that which is completely undue to nature
or to person and is, therefore, above the essence, the faculties,
the exigencies and the merit of any nature.
The words, is above, are used because the supernatural is beyond
nature and perfects it.
The words, essence, faculties, exigencies, and merit are made
use of to show that the supernatural not only transcends the
constitution of any being, but that it can neither be claimed
nor acquired naturally; so, the supernatural in general is that
which is granted to a being above and beyond what is due to na­
ture and merited by a person.

The supernatural is divided into the relatively supernatural
and the absolutely supernatural.
The relatively supernatural or the supernatural secundum
quid or the supernatural in a definite respect is that which
is above the faculties and exigencies of some natures only,
but not of every’ nature : thus infused knowledge exceeds
the nature of man, but it is not above the nature of an angel.
Related to the relatively supernatural is the preternatural,
that which, while not due, nevertheless does not go beyond
‘ Because the word natural sounds like the word original or like what is
connected with origin, oftentimes it designates widely and improperly : 1) a
truly supernatural gift which is linked with origin; for example, the original
sanctity of Adam, conferred at the time of his creation, is called, in this sense,
natural by some of the Fathers; 2) a gratuitous gift which perfects nature
within the limits of its innate circumstances, for example, immunity from
concupiscence. For the sake of removing equivocation we should carefully
avoid such a manner of speaking.

4C6

CHAPTER ΠΙ

the limits of natural perfectibility, but which perfects any
being in its own species: the gift of bodily immortality, conferred
on Adam, was in itself something natural, a continuation
of natural life, so to speak. But by reason of the subject
on which it was conferred it was supernatural, because
immortality is not at all due to a being which is of itself
corruptible.
The simply or absolutely supernatural is that which goes
beyond the exigencies and faculties of all nature, created
and create-able. It is divided into the substantially super­
natural (supematurale quoad substantiam) and the modally
supernatural (supematurale quoad modum). The first is
intrinsically supernatural, that is, in se, in its entity; it is
a certain participation in divinity. As a matter of fact there
arc only three examples of this : the hypostatic union, grace
and glory. The second, that is, the modally supernatural,
is something entitatively natural but produced in a super­
natural way; for example, the resurrection of the dead; or
ordained in a supernatural manner for a supernatural end,
for example, the act of acquired temperance set in order
for eternal life.
4. The natural order and the supernatural order.
Order is the apt disposition of means to an ultimate end.
For such order four things are required : an agent, namely
man, an end to which the agent tends, a medium through
which the agent tends to an end, a law through which means
are rightly set in order to an end.

661

a. A natural order is the apt disposition of natural means
to a natural end. For man it is thus set up :
1. His end is the possession of God known through reason
in a discursive manner;
2. The first agent is God, the author of nature ; the second
agent is human nature with its own proper faculties;
3. The objective media are created things known by reason ;
the subjective means are the faculties and the exercise of them,
under the influence of God’s natural concurrence;

MAN

407

4. The law :s the natural law, ingrafted in the hearts of
all, with the conclusions which can be deduced from it.
b. The supernatural order, which is the apt disposition of
essentially supernatural means to a supernatural end, is thus
constituted for man :

1. His end is the knowledge of God in a perfect and intuitive
manner, face to face, and a similar love of God, because
love follows knowledge;

2. The first agent is God, the author of grace and of glory;
the second agent is human nature elevated to a higher mode
of operating through sanctifying grace, the infused virtues,
and the gifts of the Holy Spirit ;
3. The objective means are divine revelation and the
sacraments, et cetera; but the subjective means are the light
of faith and the exercise of faculties under the influence
of the supernatural concurrence of God or of actual grace ;

4. The law is the complexus of positive precepts which
God can add to the natural law.
B

The Various States of Human Nature Relative
to Grace and Preternatural Gifts

662 State is here taken for a complexus of all the conditions
or circumstances which set man in order to his end. There
are six states in which human nature can be conceived in
relation to grace and to preternatural gifts :
1. The state of pure nature, when neither grace nor preter­
natural gifts are bestowed; this slate consists of the possession
of any good due to human nature and of the absence of all undue
good. This state is possible, but de facto it never has existed.
2. The state of unimpaired nature includes, besides the perfec­
tions of pure nature, the extension of these perfections in their
own species, beyond the exigencies of nature, namely, immunity
from concupiscence, from ignorance, infirmities and death.
3. The state simply supernatural, in which man would be
destined for a supernatural end, and would be provided with

408

CHAPTER HI

the means for attaining this end, without the privileges of unim­
paired nature.

4. The state of innocent nature, in which grace and preter­
natural gifts are simultaneously bestowed. This state, which
as a matter of fact was Adam's state, is also called the state of
original justice or holiness.
5. The state of nature, fallen and restored, in which we are now
involved, consists of this, that man remains destined for a super­
natural end and at the same time is capable through Christ of
recovering grace, but not the preternatural gifts, at least in this
present life.
6. The state of nature, fallen and not restored, would have been
the same as the preceding, but without any redemption.

C Errors concerning the Supernatural Order

663 There are two outstanding errors : naturalism and pseudosupernaluralism ; to these we can add augustinianism and
itnmanentism.
1. Naturalism rejects or diminishes whatever is supernatural.
Thus the Pelagians deny man’s elevation to the supernatural
state. The Unitarians, the Liberals, and the Rationalists leach
similarly; so also do the Modernists, according to whom the
supernatural is a certain emanation coming forth from some
inmost sense. » The Atheists and the Positivists claim that man
has been evolved spontaneously from something irrational and
they reject any dogma which is concerned with the supernatural.
2. Pseudo-supematuralism admits the slate of original justice
and integrity for Adam and at the same time it states that these
privileges were essential to human nature (.Luther), that these

privileges pertained to a complete or perfect human nature
(Calvin), that they were due to nature (Ratus and Jansenius).
3. Dangerous systems: Augustinianism — Some theologians,
particularly of the order of St. Augustine, declare that grace and
the gifts granted to our first parents and lost through sin are due
to man from the nobility of the Creator. According to some
Catholic adherents to immanence, grace, while supernatural,
is demanded or required by human nature in its present state
wherein it is destined for a supernatural end.
}D. B. 3071 and following.

MAN

II.

409

THE EXISTENCE OF GRACE IN ADAM ’

There are two points to be proved under this heading :
first, that our first parents were established in the state of
holiness and of justice; secondly, that this state is gratuitous
or supernatural.
664 First Thesis : Our first parents were established in a state
of holiness and of justice. This thesis is de fide from the Council
of Trent: " If anyone does not confess that the first man
Adam... lost the holiness and justice in which he had been
constituted... let him be anathema 3 ".
A Proof from Scripture
In the Old Testament wc find arguments which are very
probable and which, with the added interpretation of the
Fathers, become certain. From Genesis it is obvious that
between God and man there was a certain friendship 3 before
the state of misery and of reprobation was incurred; that,
in addition, man had been created in the image and likeness
of God, or, according to the force of the Hebrew text, in
a most similar image4 : from parallel places4 we gather
that this very suitably denotes the state of grace ; in the book
of Ecclesiastes (VII, 30) we read that man was created right —
from the biblical way of speaking · this indicates sanctifjnng
grace.
From the New Testament it is obvious that, since we are
justified by sanctifying grace ’, we are renewed, we are
reconciled, we arc restored to the state in which the first man
1 Major Synopsis, n. 855-863.
» D. B., 788.
* Genesis, II, 18-24; III, 8; refer to A. Mercier, Le surnaturel.
* Genesis, I, 26.
* /I Peter, I, 4; I John, III, 2.
* Psalm, XXXII, I ; CXI, 2, 3, 7; Proverbs, XIV, 2; XXI, xS; Wisdom, X, 10;
Refer to Journ
. el, 1955.
1 Romans, III, 24-25.

410

CHAPTER HI

was1; this very plainly proves that Adam was constituted
in this same grace.
B

Proof from Tradition

Among the Greeks, St. Irenaeus declares that the first man
was like to God through a participation in the Holy Spirit*
;
but this likeness, says St. Athanasius, was restored to us
through Christ8.
Among the Latins, St. Jerome affirms that through the grace
of the Holy Spirit we receive " the image and likeness into
which we were placed in the beginning 4 ”. St. Augustine
also says this5 : “ The Spirit of grace accomplishes this,
that He restores in us the image of God in which we were
naturally made ”,
The Second Council of Orange defined the matter contrary
to the Pelagians · : “ Even if human nature remained in that
integrity in which it was founded, it would in no way preserve
or save itself without the help of the Creator ”.
665

Corollaries.

1. As to the time at which our first parents were justified,
it is commonly taught, as does St. Thomas, that Adam was created
by God in the state of grace : these texts are forceful : " Let us
make man to... our likeness... who was created in justice and in
the holiness of truth

2. In addition to sanctifying grace, our first parents possessed

the infused virtues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit by means of
which the faculties were disposed to eliciting supernatural
acts and to meriting and gaining their ultimate end.

666 Second Thesis : The state of original justice bestowed on
our first parents was gratuitous and truly supernatural. It is
* Ephesians, IV, 23; Il Corinthians, V, 18-19; Colossians, I, 13-14.
* Adv. Hares, book III, C. 18, 1-2; book V, C. 6, I, P. G., VII, 93a. xi37» Oral. de Incarn., 3, 4, S, 44, P. G., XXV, 101 and following.
* In Ephes., IV, 30, P. L., XXVI, 514.
* De Spir. el litt., C. 27, Journal, 1732.
8 D. B., 192, 175.

MAN

411

de fide, in opposition to the Pelagians ’, that the present order
of grace is above the exigencies of fallen nature. It is certain
that this order is above the forces even of innocent nature —
this contrary to the Protestants. Pains, and the Jansenists :
from the condemnation by Pius V of the twenty-first propo­
sition of Baius : " The sublimation and exaltation of human
nature into a participation in the divine nature was due
to the integrity of its first state, and therefore must be called
natural, not supernatural * ”. Therefore the contradictory
is true, namely, such an elevation is supernatural.
It is commonly taught, contrary to Ripalda and some few
others, that this same state is beyond the forces and faculties
even of a possible creature.

Proof from Scripture.
The grace which is conferred on us is truly supernatural
because by it we are made the adopted sons of God *, partakers
in the divine nature *, and thus we become suited for seeing
and loving God just as the Three Divine Persons know and
love themselves. * But the grace given to Adam was the
same as the grace given to us (section 664).

Proof from Tradition.
The Fathers teach this thesis by openly declaring that the
power of sanctifying is proper to God alone, and thus is above
the exigencies of any nature. So St. Basil °.

Proof from Reason.
It is repugnant that the whole human race, because of the
fault of one, be deprived of the perfection necessary for
1 At Ute Council of Carthage, approved by Pope St. Zosimus, can. 5 ; D. B., 105.
1 The propositions of Baius were condemned in the proper sense of the words
intended by the defenders and assertors as respectively heretical, erroneous,
suspect, temerarious, scandalous, causing offense to pious ears; therefore
none of these propositions may be safely upheld. All of this is also apparent
from the condemnation of proposition 35 of Quesnel and of proposition 16 of
the Synod of Pisioia, D. B., 1385, 15x6.
» I John, III, i.
« II Peter, I, 4.
* I John, III, 2.
• De Spiritu Sancto, C. 16, P. G., XXXII, 136; Jovrnel 950.

412

CHAPTER III

attaining its natural end. Therefore, grace, which Adam
lost for himself and for us, does not belong to human nature
or grace was not due to human nature.
Corollary : Against the teaching of Cardinal Noris, of Berd,
and of the Augustinians we can in practice conclude that the grace
bestowed on our first parents was not so due in conformity with
the nobility of the Creator that God by reason of a power set in
order could not deny this grace. For what is owing from a certain
nobility or decency is not entirely gratuitous and supernatural.

TH. THE GIFT OF INTEGRITY
WHICH WAS GRANTED TO OUR FIRST PARENTS

667 In addition to grace, four gifts were conferred on our
first parents which constitute the state of integrity. These
are, as regards the soul, immunity from inordinate concupiscence
and from ignorance; as regards the body, immunity from
death and from the miseries of this life. To these were added
a certain dominion over the animals and forces of nature.
We shall explain at this time the existence of these gifts and
the gratuitousness of them.
668 First Thesis : Our first parents were constituted in a state
of unimpaired nature, that is, they were immune from
concupiscence, from ignorance, from grief and from death .*
*
A They were immune from unrestrained concupiscence,
or from inordinate inclination to sensible goods either illicit
or licit, but beyond or contrary to reason.

I. Proof from Scripture.
In Scripture * these three points are made clear : first, before
the fall our first parents were not ashamed of their nakedness ;
secondly, after the fall they were observing and thinking of
their nakedness; thirdly, thus it was because of their
disobedience. These three points show that before their
1 Major Synopsis, n. 864-875.
• Genesis, II, 25; III, 7, xi.

MAN

413

sin our first parents were not harassed by the incitement
of concupiscence.

2. Proof from Tradition.
a. In the case of the text just quoted the Fathers testify that
Adam was free from carnal concupiscence. St. Augustine says :
“ They were not ashamed ; for wnat was there to be ashamed
of since they discerned or felt in their members no law that was
opposing thé law of their mind ”? St. Cyril of Alexandria writes :
" The mind (of Adam) was completely and always occupied
with the vision of God, and his body rested in tranquillity and
repose, immune from any shameful pleasure; in him there was no
tumult caused by irrational sensations ”,

b. The Council of Trent declares that concupiscence is called
sin by the Apostle, “ because it is of sin and inclines to sin 1 ";
but if it is of sin, it did not exist before sin.

c. Proof from Reason.
It was fitting that, as long as man, in his state of innocence,
remained subject to God, his lower powers would obey reason,
and the body would obey the soul, that in this way the order
would be complete and perfect; in turn then immunity from
concupiscence was founded on or placed in this subjection of
inferior powers *.

669 B They were free from ignorance in this sense that from
the beginning they received from God infused knowledge,
both natural and supernatural, in proportion to their state
and to the nature of moral Head of the whole human race;
that is, a knowledge of religious and of moral matters necessary’
for their own instruction and for that of their children; also
a knowledge of physical affairs necessary for functioning
in paradise and for watching over it.
I. From Scripture it is plain that Adam was constituted
the physical and moral head of the human race. (Romans,
V, 12-19; I Corinthians, XV, 21-22). But Adam could not
carry out so great a duty without a special knowledge which
he possessed from the beginning.
1 Session V, can. 5; refer to session VI, can. 5; JZ Council of Orange; D. B.,
174, 1S6.
* Summa theologica, I, q. 95, a. x.
N· 642 (I). — 28

414

CHAPTER HI

2. Many of the Fathers extol Adam’s knowledge. Among
the Greeks, St. Cyril of Alexandria writes : " Our first father Adam
seems to have attained to wisdom, not in time like us, but from
the very first moment of his birth he is shown to be perfect in
intelligence...1*
So also wrote St. John Damascene *. Both
authors refer to Genesis *,

670 C Our first -parents were immune from the necessity of dying,
in this sense, that, on the completion of a period of probation,
they would be transported living to an immortal life. This
statement is de fide from the Councils, from the Council
of Trent 4*
6 in particular, which defines that the first man
through sin incurred " the wrath and indignation of God
and thus death with which God had previously threatened
liim
1. Proof from Scripture.
Directly, where it is stated : “ God created man incor­
ruptible... but by the envy of the devil death came into the
world 8 ”.
Indirectly, from the places wherein it is made clear that
death is a punishment for sin : " For in what day soever thou
shalt cat of it, thou shalt die the death · ”, but that death
of which He is speaking is the death of the body we gather
from the context (Genesis, III, 19), and from St. Paul : " By
one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death ’ ”.

2. Proof from Tradition.
The Fathers insist often and expressly that man, of his
nature mortal, was adorned with the privilege of immortality.
1 In Joan., book 1, c. 9.
* De fide orthod., book II; refer to JouRNEL, 2104, 2360.
* Today, however, it is commonly admitted that this thesis cannot be
proved from Genesis, II, 19-20, where it is related that Adam gave names to
living creatures (refer to Hummelauer); nor can it be proved from Eccli., XVII,
6 since the words, " He created in them the science of the spirit... *' are not
found in the Septuaginl and since, moreover, the Hebrew text is wanting.
Refer rather to Romans, V, 12-19; I Corinthians, XV, 21-22.
* Session V, can. 1, D. B., 788.
* Wisdom, II, 23-24.
* Genesis, II, 17.
’ Romans, V, 12.

MAN

415

Summarizing the teaching of the Latin Fathers, St. Augustine
explains what kind of immortality was granted to our first
parent1 : " He was mortal because of the condition of his
animal body, but he was immortal through the beneficence
of the Creator
He defends this theory in opposing the
Pelagians; against these the Synod of Carthage (418) decreed :
" Whoever says that Adam the first man was created mortal
in such a way that, whether he sinned or did not sin, he would
die in the body, that is, he would go out from the body not
in punishment of sin but by the necessity of nature, let him
be anathema 1 ”.
3. Proof from Reason.
It was fitting that, as long as the soul remained submissive
to God, the body similarly would be perfectly submissive to the
soul and would be preserved incorruptible by it.

(yji D Our first parents were immune from grief and enjoyed
singular happiness.
This thesis is certain.

It is obvious :

1. From the description of paradise; in this three features
in particular express the loveliness of the place : the fruit­
bearing trees, the river divided into four heads, the gold
and the precious stones;
2. From the fact that sorrows and excessive labors are
shown as the punishments for sin ;

3. A certain impassibility seems to follow from bodily
immortality’. This is confirmed by the various traditions
of peoples concerning the golden age.
672

E

To these privileges can be added five others, namely,

dominion over the animals, by reason of which they were subjected

to man not unwillingly; after God created man he said : “ Let
* De Gen. ad lit., book VI, c. 25, n. 36. P. L., XXXIV, 354, refer to
Journcl, n. 23:.

* D. B., 101.

* JOUBNKL, X762.

416

CHAPTER JH

him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls
of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping
creature that moveth upon the earth... ** " it was fitting indeed
that, as long as man was subject to God, those things which are
naturally inferior to man would also obey him.

673 Second Thesis : The gifts of integrity, bestowed on our first
■parents, were gratuitous and preternatural. This is certain.
A

The Argument in general.

1. The following propostions (26, 55)2 of Baius were
condemned : " The integrity of first creation was not an
undue exaltation of human nature, but was its natural state ”
“ God could not have created from the beginning man such
as he now is born
We must note at this point that these
propositions were rejected in the sense intended by their advocates.
However, the words, as he now is born, in the sense of Baius
mean nothing more than man without grace and without the
gift of integrity. The contradictory statement is therefore
a safe one, namely, integrity was not due to human nature,
but God could have created man as he now is bom, that
is, without grace and the gift of integrity, accordingly with
a certain ignorance and concupiscence, infirmities and death.
2. From experience it is clear that the entire human
race lost the gifts of integrity through Adam’s sin. But
it does not appear just that men, through no fault of their
own, lose gifts which are due to human nature itself.
B

I nun unity from Ignorance.

In the order of knowledge that alone is strictly due to man
which will enable him to know his end, namely God, and the
means to attain this end. But man is able to know all this without
integrity of intellect, that is, without special acuteness of under­
standing, facility and correctness of intellect, and also without
infused knowledge : for man is so equipped by nature that step
by step he ascends from sensible things to spiritual matters by

reasoning, by induction, by syllogism.

> Genesis, I, 26-28; refer to Eccli, XVII, 4.
• D. B., J026, X055.

MAN

417

C Immunity from Concupiscence.

This immunity is not due to man because :
1. In itself concupiscence is not repugnant since it is not sin;

2. It is not contrary to freedom for, in spite of concupiscence,
man can still judge rightly and follow the judgment of reason,
with the assistance of divine help which will never be denied;
3. Concupiscence is not inconsistent with man's natural state
for, on the contrary, concupiscence naturally proceeds from man’s
constitution : it cannot but happen that the sensible appetite
sometimes tend to the good which reason rejects and thence
that conflict naturally arise.
D Immortality.
Likewise immortality is not due to man; for death can eventuate
naturally in two ways, either from an extrinsic cause, for example,
from fire, water, the sword, etc., or from an internal cause, namely,
natural corruption.

E Impassibilty.
This is not due to man because his nature, something sensitive,
is subject to various sensations; furthermore, since impassibility’
is a natural corollary of immortality, it is sufficiently apparent
that it is not due to one who is naturally' mortal.

674 Corollaries.
1.

The state of pure nature is possible.

a. This is evident from the condemnation of Baius’
proposition previously' referred to.

b. The state of pure nature consists in this, that man be
destined for a natural end and that he receive the means
sufficient for attaining this. But God is not bound to give
to man anything further, since grace and the preternatural
gifts arc wholly undue to man (sections 666, 673 and follo­
wing).

2. From what has been stated we realize that the goods
bestowed on our first parents were natural, preternatural,
and supernatural.

418

CHAPTER ΙΠ

ARTICLE III.

MAN’S FALL1

Under this heading we consider : first, the fall of our first
parents or original sin at its origin or by way of origin ; secondly,
original sin in the human race or original sin reproduced.
I.

THE SIN OF OUR FIRST PARENTS

OR SIN AT ITS ORIGIN

We treat of the existence, the effects, and the nature of this
sin.

675

A

Its Existence.

Our first parents transgressed the order given to them by God
and therefore they sinned gravely. This is de fide from the
Council of Trent'-: " If anyone does not confess that the first
man, Adam, when he transgressed the commandment of God
in paradise immediately lost the holiness and justice in which
he had been constituted, and through the offense of that
prevarication incurred the wrath and indignation of God,
and thus death with which God had previously threatened
him and, together with death, captivity under his power
who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say,
the devil, and that the entire Adam through that offense
of prevarication was changed in body and soul for the worse,
let him be anathema”. In this way Adam’s sin and its
special effects are defined.

I. Proof of the first part of 675 : Our first parents transgressed
the order given them by God.
Proof from Scripture. From Genesis it is clear that our
first parents received a real order and that they freely
transgressed it by eating the forbidden fruit. In addition,
1 Major Synopsis, n. 882-8S8.
* Session V, can. x; D. B., 788.

MAN

419

the fall of our first parents is mentioned in Wisdom, in
Ecclesiasticus, in Tobias, in Sf. Paul1*
.
Proof from Reason. Reason asks only how could Adam
have sinned since he was immune from concupiscence. He
alone is by nature impeccable whose rule is his own will :
but this is proper to God because He is not ordained to a
superior end. Also it was better that men and angels be
both free and peccable in order that they might attain their
end freely and not coercively. Nor was confirmation in grace
something that was due to man; not perchance something
fitting and accordant — that is, if we view the question
broadly.
2. Proof of the second part of 675 : Our first parents sinned
gravely.
a. This is obvious from the seriousness of the precept,
shown first, in the end of the precept, imposed that the tribute
of subjection and of obedience be paid to God, secondly,
in the threat of a grave punishment such as is the penalty
of death for body and for soul.
b. That Adam’s transgression was a grave sin is clear also
from the effects of the sin on our first parents and on their
posterity : through sin our first parents lost grace or the intimate
and supernatural friendship with Goda; they lost also the
preternatural gifts, as we see in the mosaic narrative 3.
676

B The Effects of Our First Parents, Sin.

Through sin they lost :
1. Supernatural gifts or grace (they had sinned gravely) ;
2. Preternatural gifts, that is, immunity from concupiscence,
immortality, and happiness, which were joined to the
sanctifying grace bestowed on Adam. As to grace and
immortality the teaching is de fide from the Council of Trent
1 Wisdom, II, 24; Eccli., XXV, 33; Tobias, IV, 14; Romans, V, 12-19;
I Corinthians, XV, 21-23; ? Timothy, II, 13-14.
• Genesis, III, 9-23.
* Genesis, III, 7-19; 16-20.

420

CHAPTER ΠΙ

(already quoted in section 675); as to the other gifts the
teaching is certain.
677 C

The Nature of Our First Parents’ Sin.

According to the decision of the Biblical Commission
(section 593), both the entirely allegorical or mythological
explanations of Clement of Alexandria and of Origen, of
the liberal Protestants and of Loisy, and the completely
littéral explanations of the old Commentators on Genesis*1*
must be rejected. The opinion of St. Thomas 1 appears more
probable to us; according to this the first man sinned
through pride, by inordinatelj1, seeking after divine likeness,
-principally in regard to a knowledge of good and of evil,
wishing to determine for himself, through the power of his
own nature, what was good to be done and what was bad;
but secondarily in regard to his own power of acting, so
that by virtue of his own nature he was working for the
purpose of attaining happiness.

Then disobedience resulted from pride8. Furthermore,
Adam committed the sin of inordinate love for his wife;
Eve, on her part, was guilty of the sins of scandal and of
unfaithfulness 4*.
As to the question of the conversion of our first parents, the
common opinion is that they attained salvation a. In the Greek
Church the feast of Adam and of Eve is celebrated on the Sunday
which precedes the Nativity of Our Lord
* Declarations of Biblical Commission, June 27, 1909.
* Summa theologica, 2*, 2·, q. 63, a. 1, 2.
1 According to St. Thomas, therefore, the eating of the forbidden fruit was
something entirely secondary; thus the difficulty disappears which results,
according to the Rationalists, from the lack of proportion between the command
and the punishment. Indeed, according to St. Thomas, i», 2“, q. 81, a. 2,
and de Malo, q. 4, a. 8, the sin of Adam infected the entire human race, in
as much as it was the first grave sin; to this degree that if Adam had not sinned
but any of his posterity had sinned, this one would have brought original
sin into his posterity. L. Billot also teaches this. Original Sin, 1910, p. 13-14.
4 I Timothy, II, 14.
4 Wisdom, X, i.
* Refer to X. Le Bachelet, Adam, in D. T. C., I, 379.

MAN

II.

421

ORIGINAL SIN IN ADAM’S DESCENDANTS

We divide this topic into four sections: first, its existence;
secondly, its effects; thirdly, its nature ; fourthly, the agreement
of this dogma with reason.
A

The Existence1 of Original Sin in Adam's Descendants

678 Errors : This the Pelagians, the Unitarians, and the Liberals
deny; also, the Rationalists hold that it is inconsistent with
reason.
Thesis : All men and every man naturally born of Adam,
with the exception of the Blessed Virgin, in their conception
contract a sin which is rightfully called original sin. This
is de fide from The Council of Trent2 ; “ If anyone asserts
that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not­
his posterity, and that the holiness and justice which he received
from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not
far us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience,
has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the
whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of
the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle
who says : By one man sin entered into the world, etc. ”

I. Proof from Scripture.
a. In the Old Testament the transmission of Adam’s
sin is inferred 3 from certain texts, and in particular from its
entire economy which was the manifestation of a fallen state
from which the Messiah alone could free the human race.
b. In the New Testament original sin is affirmed implicitly
in the Gospels, very clearly by St. Paul in his Epistle to the
Romans*
*.
Treating explicitly of justification (or of the
1 .Major Synopsis, n. 889-904.
! Session V, can. 2; D. R., 789.
* " Who can make him clean that is conceived of unclean seed? Is it not
thou who only art? ” Job, XIV, 4.
” For behold X was conceived in iniquities (Hebret.-, deformity), and in sins
(Hebrtxs, sin) did my mother conceive me ”.
Psalm, L, 7. Refer to Ecdi., XXV, 33; Wisdom, II, 23-24.
‘ Romans, V, 12-19.

422

CHAPTER III

infusion of grace) he sets up a parallelism between Christ
and Adam and shows that all men die because all have sinned,
in truth through Adam, — just as all are reborn through Christ:
" W herefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and
by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom 1
all have sinned... death reigned from Adam unto Moses even
over them also who have not sinned after the similitude
of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who
was to come... For as by the disobedience of one man, many
were made sinners ”. From these words we see that through
Adam a certain sin entered into this world, that is, into all
men. But this sin is original sin : for first, it is a real sin,
because it is opposed to justice or grace (verses 18, 19) and
is " to condemnation ” ; but secondly, it is not actual sin because
it is even in those " who have not sinned after the similitude
of the transgression of Adam ”, (verse 14) ; thirdly, it is
a special sin, however, which, committed by Adam alone,
passes over into all his descendants as an inheritance by
reason of the solidarity through which all men are united
with Adam (the head of the human race, who is a figure
of him who was to come), just as all are united with Christ.

679 2. Proof from Tradition.
We must distinguish two periods : before and after the
Pelagian heresy. In the first of these periods belief in original
sin was explicit and strong, but it was not expressly proposed;
in the second or latter period it was proposed more frequently
and more explicitly and finally it was defined.
1 Whether in quo (Greek’s'b'to) means in Adam or by the fact that, because,
is disputed among the Commentators. The first opinion, stating that t« quo
means in Adam, is supported by the Latin Fathers whose authority, however,
in the question of Greek philology is not so great as that of the Greeks; it is
supported, too, by many ancient Catholic scholars and some modern scholars.
The second opinion is backed up by syntax and the manner of speaking of the
Greeks; it is supported by Greek Fathers most skilled in their language, by
many versions, and by several outstanding modern scholars. Whatever
interpretation is accepted, it does not refer to the proving of this thesis; for
even if in quo means the same as quia, because, or quatenus, seeing that, the
whole context insists on this, that death and sin have passed over into us
through Adam, both because it is stated : " by one man sin entered into this
world ", and because it is later added : " by the offence of one many died...
as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation ”.

MAN

423

a. Before the Pelagian heresy, throughout the first four
centuries, belief in the transmission of original sin was affirmed
in a two-fold way : First, through the practice of the Church,
which administrée! the sacrament of baptism even to infants,
and in truth unto the remission of sins — this we learn from
the actual rite of immersion, from the symbols, from the
various exorcisms at baptism, from the Fathers who in common
corroborate this truth as early as the third century, and from
the text of St. Cyprian, who, together with sixty-six African
bishops, wrote in Epistle LIX, 5 : “ A newly bom infant
has committed no sin except that, having been born in the
flesh according to Adam, he has contracted from the first
moment of his birth the contagion of ancient death, he who
comes forward more easily in order to receive the remission
of sins because of that very fact that not his own sins, but
sins of another are being remitted to him ”.

Secondly, from the testimony of the Fathers as they set forth
Catholic dogma incidentally. Thus, in the second century St. Ire­
naeus 1 wrote : In the first Adam we have offended, God by not
carrying out his command, but in the second Adam we have
been reconciled, having become obedient even unto death. For
we were debtors to no one else but to him whose precept from the
very beginning we had transgressed ”. In the third century,
besides St. Cyprian whom we have previously quoted, we find
Origen over and over again affirming the transmission of original
sin : “ Whatever soul is born in the flesh, is defiled with the
uncleanness of iniquity and of sin »
In the 4 th century Didymusa stated: “All contract (sin) in succession from Adam;”
and among the Latins St. A nibrose *
* wrote : “ We have all sinned
in the first man, and through the succession of nature there is a
succession of fault also transfused from one into all
Rightfully
therefore did St. Augustine oppose the Pelagians with the autho­
rity of the Fathers : “ I have not fashioned or invented original
sin which the Catholic faith has believed in from ancient times,
but you, who deny it, without doubt you are the new heretic... *
1 Adv. Hares., book V, c. 13, n. 3, P. G., VII, 1168, Journel, 255. Refer
to St. Justin, Dial, with Trypho, n. 88, P. G., VI, 686, Journel, 140; Theophil.
Antioch, Ad AuMyc., II, 25, P. G., VI, 1092 Journel, 183.
* ht Levit., VIII, 3, P. G., XIII, 1334, Journel, 496. Refer to Tertullian,
De Testimonio anima, c. 3, P. L., I, 613, Journel, 286.
* Contra Manich., 8, P. G., XXXIX, 1096, Journel, 1077.
« A pol. prophète David. P. L., XVI, 915, Journel, 1291.
* De nup. ei concup., book II, c. 12, n. 25, P. L., XLIV, 45©·

424

CHAPTER III

On account of this Catholic truth, in their treatment of
sermons on divine matters, the holy, blessed and famous priests,

Irenaeus, Cyprian, Reticius, Olympius, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory,
Innocent, John Chrysostom, Basil, to whom I add the priest
(elder), whether you are unwilling or willing to list him, Jerome
(and) to pass over those who have not died, (these famous priests)
preach against you their opinion about the original sin of all
men in its hurtful passage from generation to generation *1 ”,

680 b. In opposition to the Pelagians * St. Augustine very express­
ly defended the existence of original sin by means of Scripture
of Tradition, and of reason : ho confirmed the Catholic thesis
from the miseries of this life which affect infants themselves and
which cause such disturbance within us that, unless we admit
a certain original fault, they seem to stand out in opposition to
the holiness and justice of God

Furthermore, St. Augustine combined the provincial councils
for the purpose of condemning Pelagianism. The Council
of Carthage (418) stated, canons 1 and 2 : “ Whoever says
that Adam the first man was created mortal in such a way
that, whether he sinned or did not sin, he would die in the
body, that is, he would go out from the body not because
of punishment for his sin but by reason of the necessity of
nature, let him be anathema. Likewise, whoever denies
that children newly bom from the womb of their mothers
must be baptized, or says that these are baptized indeed
unto the remission of sins but that they contract from Adam
nothing of original sin, which is atoned for by means of the
1 Centra Julian., book II, c. xo, n. 33, P. L., XLIV, 697, Journel, 1899.
1 Pelagias taught that Adam, created as a mortal, was not adorned with
grace, that his sin harmed himself alone but not the human race, that all
infants are bom in the same state in which Adam was before his sin, and that
they are able, without receiving baptism, to enter eternal life although they
would remain exiles from the kingdom of heaven. He made a distinction between
life eternal or beatitude and the kingdom of heaven for entrance into which
baptism was necessary according to St. John, III, 5. According to Pelagius,
by nature we arc good, but by baptism and grace we become better : in baptism
are conferred a spiritual illumination, the adoption of sons of God, citizenship
in the heavenly Jerusalem, sanctification and a transferring into the members
of Christ, and possession of the kingdom of heaven.
» Contra Jul., VI, 67 and following, P. L., XLIV, 863 and following; Cont.
Jul. op. imper/., I, I, 27, 29, 49; II, 87, xxp; V, 48, 64; VI, 36; P. L., XLV,
ro6r and following; De Civil. Dei, book XXII, c. 22, 1-3, P. L., XLI, 784-783.

MAN

425

washing of regeneration... let him be anathema 1*”. This
decree was approved by Zozymus who wrote an explanatory
epistle in winch he correctly explained the Church’s beliefs.
Later at the Council of Ephesus (431) ’ he again condemned
Pelagianism. St. Celestine, confirming the decrees of Innocent
and of Zozimus, rejected the errors of the Semi-pelagians *.
B

The Effects of Original Sin on Adam’s Descendants
*
I*

IN THE PRESENT LIFE

We shall consider what is certain and what may be freely
discussed.
681 What things are certain.
The first effect is the loss of sanctifying grace. This is de
fide, the Council of Trent declaring that Adam lost holiness
or original justice not only for himself but also for us ·. This
loss of grace is at the same time a sin and a punishment for
sin : since it is an habitual aversion from God, it is a sin or
a sinful state; as a deprivation of a gift previously granted,
it is a punishment.

The second effect is the loss of preternatural gifts. This
is clear from the decree of the Council of Trent which states
that “ the entire Adam was changed in body and soul for
the worse 7 ”, and that this condition passed over to his
descendants. Through the loss of these gifts man is called
wounded, that is to say, the powers of his soul, formerly
perfectly united, have been, as it were, divided and sepa­
rated 8.
1 D. B., 101-102.
1 P. L., t. XLV in appendix, p. 1750.
* D. B., ia6.
* Ep. 21 al Ep. GaUiarum, 431 — D. B., 129-142.
8 Major Synopsis, n. 005-918.
* Session V, can. 2; D. B., 789.
1 Session V, can. 1, D. B., 793.
8 Summa theologica, ια, a*, q. 85, a. 3.

426

CHAPTER HI

The wounds of fallen man are : in relation to his body,
passibility and mortality; in regard to his soul, the following
four :

a. The wound of ignorance, through which the intellect
is so debilitated by comparison to the state of original justice
that with difficulty it recognizes what is true, especially,
practical and moral, truth, that it easily falls into error,
and is more inclined to consider temporal things than eternal
things;

b. The wound of ill-will, because of which the will is prone
to evil and with difficulty overcomes vices and cultivates
the virtues;
c. The wound of infirmity, through which the irascible
appetite labors under sluggishness when difficulties arise and
at the same time is prone to becoming inordinately angry :

d. The wound of concupiscence, through which the
concupiscitote appetite is immoderately moved to sensible
good, even in opposition to reason and order.
We must realize, however, that the force of concupiscence
is not the same in all, as the spiritual directors of souls know :

for once the bonds are broken by means of which original justice
held the passions in check, these passions arc then so much the
more violent by reason of the fact that they were stronger by
force of natural temperament*
l.

The third effect of original sin in Adam’s descendants is
the tyranny of the devil over the human race — according
to the words of St. Peter 1 : “ By whom a man is overcome,
of the same also he is the slave

682 What things arc controverted.
Among theologians there is the discussion as to whether
man is weaker in the state of fallen nature than he was in the
state of pure nature.
1 Stemma theologica, 1*, 2*, q. 82, a. 4, ad I.
1II Peter, II, 19.

MAN

427

Following S7. Augustine, some theologians have taught that
the natural forces of man have been made intrinsically weaker
towards good because of original sin. However it appears that
such an opinion should be rejected because :
1. Tt is not just that one be despoiled of the natural gifts
due to him without his own personal fault.
2. It is not fitting that God infuse into our souls a positive
habit that inclines us to evil.
Suarez, Bellarminc *, many Jesuit theologians, and several
others, going further, teach that the natural forces of man were
diminished neither intrinsically nor extrinsically, and that man
ts now in the same state as he was in the stale of pure nature. This
opinion is actually probable, but it seems that it does not suffi­
ciently explain the words of the Fathers and of the Councils
which assert that fallen man, although free, has been impaired
in his forces or faculties; nor does it explain our moral impotence
for knowing what is true, for accomplishing the good that is
difficult, and for over-coming grave temptations.
Many Thomists, among them Goudin and Billuart ·, contend
that the natural powers of man have been diminished not indeed
intrinsically but only exlrinsically, since there are in our present
state extrinsic obstacles which were not present in the state
of pure nature, namely, the tyranny of the devil, aversion from God
as our natural end, a withdrawal of helps, and other things of
this kind.
This opinion seems more probable to us : both as regards the
tyranny of the devil which would not exist in the natural order;
and as regards the loss of aids. In the state of pure nature God
would have owed it to himself to grant to man the natural helps
by which he could have morally conquered grave temptations,
while in the present state, with supernatural helps withdrawn,
we are involved in a certain moral impotence of conquering
all the grave temptations collectively taken and of accomplishing
the good which is very difficult. ’ However, it is not evident
that Adam’s descendants have been turned away from God as
a natural end because of original sin. Man naturally tends toward
God and there is nothing to prove that this natural tendency has
been changed by original sin ·.
1 Refer to Suarez, Grace, Prolegomenon, IV’, c. 9; Bellarmine, grace of
the First Man, c. 5.
■ Refer to Goudin, Grace, q. II, a. 4, concl. 3; Billuart, Grace, Diss. II,
a. 3.
’ When, in this connection, we are called the children of u-rath by nature,
the enemies of God, we must understand these terms as of the supernatural
order, not of the natural order. It can hardly be conceived how God can
create a soul that is naturally alienated from Him.

428

CHAPTER ΠΙ

2° IN THE LIFE TO COME
*

683 Thesis : Little children or the feeble-minded who die with
original sin only do not enjoy the intuitive vision of God. This
is de fide from The Council of Florence which defined : “ The
souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or in original
sin only directly descend into hell to suffer punishments of
different kinds 2 ”. But in hell there is no beatific vision :
therefore —

Proof of Thesis.
a. Scripture states that baptism is necessary for salvation
(St. John, III, 5; Si Mark, XVI, 16).
b. Innocent 111 very accurately makes a distinction between
punishment for actual sin and punishment for original sin :
" The penalty for original sin is the privation of the vision of
God; but the penalty for actual sin is the torment of eternal
hell3 ",
c. Besides, the Council of Trent decreed that baptism is
necessary for little children to attain eternal life .*
684 There is some controversy as to whether those dying with
original sin only are sorrowful because they arc deprived
of the beatific vision.
Some, with Bellarmi ne, answer in the affirmative because these
souls know, at least in judgment, that they have been deprived
of the greatest good; however, these theologians acknowledge
that the grief of these souls would be most rriild ·. But others.
Si. Thomas * included, say that much more probably these souls
are not in sorrow. Little children are not sad because they are
without the supernatural blessedness which they cannot know
about without faith. Also, some of these theologians believe
’ St. Thomas, De Malo, q. 5; Dioior, Morts sans BaptBne.
1 D. B., 693.
’ Book III Decretal., tit. 42, c. 3., D. B., 410, 102, 175.
4 Session V, can. 4, D. B., 791.
4 Bellarmine, previously quoted, hook VI, c. 6 and 7.
• In II Sent., dût. 33, q. 2, a. 2.

MAN

429

that these souls will not be present at the general judgment
because that will bring together only the adults.

There is also discussion as to whether those dying in the
state of original sin will suffer
of the sense or fire.
Some Latins, St. Augustine1 in particular, taught that these
little ones experience the pain of the senses, but in a very gentle
form. They descend into hell, to be sure; but in hell there is
the pain of fire.

The most common opinion, defended by the Greek Fathers
and bj' nearly all the Scholastics, holds that these children
experience the punishment of the senses in no way. That this
opinion can be maintained safely is apparent :

1. From the condemnation of proposition 26 of the Synod
of Pistoia, which rejected this opinion as a Pelagian fable ·;

2. From the decree of Innocent III previously referred
to (section 683) ;
3. From theological reasoning: it does not seem proper
that divine justice impose a positive punishment on those
who in their own will have not sinned a.
Finally, the question is asked : do those departing this
life with original sin only on their souls enjoy a natural
happiness.
Many theologians deny that they do because, according to
the Council of Florence, they descend into hell to be punished
with different penalties; because they remain estranged from
God also as their natural end.

Along with Sfondraii, Suarez, and Lessius *, there are some
who give an affirmative answer to this question because to
them it seems too hard to deprive these souls of natural
goods because of a fault which is not voluntary and personal.
* Sermon 294.
3 D. B., 1526.
3 Refer to St. Thomas, On Evil, q. 5, a. 2.
4 Refer to Suarez, De Vitiis et peccatis, disp. IX, s. 2, η. i8; Lessius, de
Divinis perfectionibus, XIII, 22 and following.
N® 642 (I) — 29

430

CHAPTER III

St. Thomas1 favors this opinion : “ Although the unbaptized
children are separated from God so far as that union is
concerned which is a union through glory, they are not, however,
completely separated from Him. In fact, they are joined
to Him through a participation in natural goods : and so they
will be able to take pleasure in Him through natural knowledge
and love
Today this opinion has become more common.
Nevertheless, it must not be stated that these little ones
have attained their end. They were destined for a supernatural
end; of this they are deprived and so, in this way, they are
in a state of damnation.
A practical consideration in tliis connection — parents
should be urged to have their infants baptized as soon as
possible lest these children be deprived of eternal supernatural
blessedness.
Nature of Original Sin in Adam’s Descendants *
*
685

I. Explanation of errors concerning this question.

The Protestants, with the exception of the Socinians, the
Unitarians and the Liberals, contended that original sin :
a. Essentially consists of an overwhelming concupiscence
which is so great that it destroys free will (thus Luther and Calvin) ;
b. Further, that it wholly corrupts the very substance of man
(Flaccius Illyricus). The heresy of Luther, for so long a time
moderately retrained, the Jansenists renewed in strength; they
also taught that there is present in concupiscence the guilt of
fault and that, because of it, free will is so much weakened that
it is necessarily drawn and attracted by worldly pleasure unless
it is helped by efficacious grace.

2. Solutions of these Errors.
The Council of Trent defined against the Protestants : through
baptism " all that which has the true and proper essence
of sin is taken away ”, but not concupiscence; original sin
is death to the soul, proper to everyone, one in origin, continued
and spread by propagation, cleansed by regeneration.
1 In II Sent., dist. 33, q. 2, a. 2, ad 5.
* Major Synopsis, n. 919-940.

MAN

431

The same council declared1 : the holiness and justice received
from God he (Adam) lost for us also and he has transfused· into
the whole human race sin, which is the death of the soul, — the
sin of Adam which in its origin is one, by -propagation transfused
into all, is in each one as something that is his own, — infants
derive from Adam original sin which must be expiated by the
laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life in order
that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed
away by regeneralion, — in baptism the guilt of original sin
is remitted, the whole of that which belongs to the essence of
sin is taken away, and is not only canceled or not imputed;
but in those baptized there remains concupiscence, which truly
and properly in those born again is not sin.

This doctrine is in agreement with Scripture; according
to Scripture the essence of original sin consists not in concu­
piscence alone but in the deprivation of supernatural justice.
686 3. Various Opinions of Theologians.
a. Before the Council of Trent. St. Augustine 2*
4recognized
original sin in concupiscence, especially in carnal concupiscence,
but in a sense other than that of the Protestants; he made
a two-fold distinction in the matter of concupiscence : namely,
the guilt of blame and the punishment for sin. He taught
that the guilt of blame is taken away by baptism, but that
concupiscence, as it is the punishment for sin, remains in
those baptized. Therefore, not expressly indeed but really,
nevertheless, he included the deprivation of justice and of
grace in the nature of original sin ’. St. Anselm * taught
that original sin is founded in the deprivation of original
justice or of the rightness of the will, that is, more probably 5
in the loss of grace and of the preternatural gifts.
1 Session V ; D. B., 787-792.
1 Tixf.ront, II, 436.482.
* Portalié, S. Augustin, in Did. de thiol., I, 2393, 2395-96; Tixeront,
II, 463-465.
4 De Conceptu virginali et originali peccato, P. L., CLVIII, 433-464.
8 R. M. Martin, La question du pdchi originel dans S. Anselme, in Repue
des Sc. Philos, et thiol, t. V, 1911, p. 735-749.
N® 642 (1). — 29*

432

CHAPTER III

According to St. Thomasl*, who united and improved the
theories of St. Augustine and of St. Anselm, original sin
consisted essentially in the loss of original justice; because this
comprised two features, namely, grace and the gift of integrity,
the sin consists of a two-fold element, one formal, the privation
of grace, and one material, concupiscence ·.

687 b. After the Council of Trent. The Tridentine teaching
concerning original sin was set forth in a diversified manner.
1. Some thought that this sin is the sin of Adam imputed
to his descendants, or persevering morally in them. Thus,
somewhat before Trent, A. Catharinus and A. Pighius taught
that original sin formally is the actual sin of Adam extrinsically
imputed to his posterity. This can hardly be reconciled with
Trent which declared that this sin is proper to everyone
and is really blotted out through baptism. Wherefore,
certain others3, trying to correct Catharinus' theory, said
that original sin is the very sin of Adam in as much as, morally
committed by his descendants and continuing morally in them,
it renders them hateful to God, so that the loss of grace is only
the effect of original sin. But it is nor apparent how the sin
is proper to each one.

2. Many of the moderns * teach that original sin is the
loss of original justice by which we are turned from God as our
supernatural end, since in some way this loss is voluntary on
our part because of our union with Adam. In diverse manners
they explain how this deprivation is voluntary on our part
not by an act of our own will, but causally from the sinful
act of Adam.
1 Summa theologica, 1», 2·, q. 81, a. 1; De Malo, q. 4, a. 1.
» St. Thomas, however, retains St. Augustine’s way of speaking, especially
when he asserts that original sin is taken away by baptism in regard to guilt,
but that in its effect it remains as far as the excitement or desire, which is the
disorder and irregularity of the inferior parts of the soul and also of the body.
(1», 2·, q. 81, a. 3, ad 2).
» Salmeron, Toletus, Card. De Lugo, Wiceburgenses.
« Suarez, De Vitiis et peccat, disp. IX, sect. II, η. χ8, Pesch, η. 2.|8.

MAN

433

688 3. Along with many others, the Thomists say that original
sin essentially consists in the loss of original justice since this
loss rests on the voluntary act of the first parent who was the
source and beginning of nature. Today this teaching is common.
According to it, original sin is not an act, but rather a sinful
slate which directly infects nature (a sin of nature) >, and
indirectly the person : original justice was conceded by God
to Adam not only to be retained for himself, but also to be
imparted to his children and to his descendants as a specific
gift of human nature and an accident pertaining to the nature
of the species. Therefore, because of his sin which cost him
tliis justice, Adam transmitted to us a nature deprived of
the grace, which according to the positive ordering of God,
would have to be present within us1; consequently, in this
sense we arc bom hateful to God, the children of wrath and
sinners, in the state of spiritual death. According to Trent,
original sin consists of the deprival of justice, which was
received from God, which Adam lost not only for himself
but also for us. But this justice includes habitual grace
and the gift of integrity. Thus original sin is comprised of
the privation of both, principally of grace and secondarily
of integrity.
COROLLARIES

i. Original sin is transmitted through generation to all those
who are born of the seed of Adam.

689

a. All those and only those contract original sin who receive
human nature from Adam. But human nature is transmitted
through generation to those who are bom of his seed.
b. The Council of Trent*
* corroborates this: "This sin of
Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by
imitation transfused
Those words lend themselves to a two­
fold understanding : first, in the sense that generation is, so to
speak, the instrumental cause of original sin; secondly, in that
it is only a condition sine qua non. This second interpretation is
1 Gonbt, Clypeus, tr. VIII, disp. I, a. 5; Billot, De peccato originali.
* St. Thomas, De Malo, q. 4, a. 1.
’ Session V, 3; D. B., 790.

434

CHAPTER ΙΠ

sufficient for preserving faith. Refer to the words of the Council

of Trent ».

690 2. In regard to what is a matter of one's own free will, original
sin has the smallest claim on us. From what has been written
we see that this sin is not voluntarily in us by reason of our own
will, but by reason of the will of our head. Si. Thomas * declares :
“ Original sin is least of all among all the sins in this way that it
embraces very little of what is voluntary. For this sin is not
voluntary according to the free will of the person, but according
to the free will of the beginning of nature only ”,
3. If Eve alone had sinned, probably the descendants would
not have contracted original sin, for this sin is transmitted through
generation. But the active principle in generation is the father,
namely Adam, and not the mother, Eve.
4. If Adam had begotten sons before his sin, these would
not have contracted original sin because grace, once possessed,
cannot, it seems, be lost unless through one’s own will.

D

The Agreement or Consistency of the Dogma
of Original Sin with Reason 3

Under this heading there are two topics to be proved :
that there is nothing inconsistent or repugnant about the
fact of original sin; that, once original sin is admitted, the
present condition of the human race is more readily and
better explained.
691 I. There is nothing inconsistent or repugnant about original
sin :
a. In itself :
I. Not on the side of divine justice, since it is a depriving
of grace and of supernatural gifts or of something which is
not due, but it assumes the essence of sin only in that thus
we are deprived of grace, contrary to God’s will and because
of a fault committed by our head. Truly God could have
1 Session VI, chap. 3; D. B., 795.
* In II Sent., dist. 33, q. 2, a. 1, ad 2.
• Major Synopsis, η. 941-948.

MAN

435

given grace to the human race on condition that Adam, our
head, would not sin and thus could have extended the
inheritance and solidarity which naturally flourish between
a father and his descendants in regard to natural gifts into
the gratuitous and the supernatural.
2. Nor on the side of divine wisdom : in conferring on our
first parent the power to hand down grace to us, He provided
sufficiently for us a means to attain our supernatural end.
But furthermore, after Adam’s fall He provided a more
wonderful and more efficacious means in the Redemption.
3. Nor on the side of divine goodness : original sin
notwithstanding, man keeps entire his natural gifts, in fact
through Christ he is once more provided with superabundant
helps of grace for his supernatural end : " 0 happy fault
that merited our having such and so great a Redeemer

692 b. There is nothing inconsistent in the matter of transmission.
For :
1. When God creates a soul, He infuses into it neither
stain nor vicious habit but He brings it forth in such a condition
as it would have been in the state of pure nature. But if
He does not infuse sanctifying grace into it, this is to be
attributed to Adam alone who did not keep the stipulation
under which such a grace was to be communicated.

2. As long as parents beget children, they are doing a work
which is of itself good, and if the children of them arc bom
deprived of grace, that situation is neither intended nor
effected by the parents themselves, but it comes about per
accidens not from their fault, but from the fault of Adam.
2. Once the existence of original sin is admitted, the present
circumstances of the human race are better explained.
a. In this present life man is involved in and, as it were,
overwhelmed by so many and such great difficulties, he is
so easily turned away from God, he is so violently attracted
to what is wrong, he appears so fickle in the face of problems,
so prone to evil inclinations that, although it can correctly be

436

CHAPTER ΙΠ — MAN

said that defects of this kind proceed from man’s constitution,
nevertheless, (once we accept the existence of divine provi­
dence) they certainly are better explained if they are viewed
and meditated upon as penalties and expiations. Thus we
conclude that “ the human race has been infected at its origin
with some sin 1 ". Or at any rate the present state of man
appears as man’s impotence and indigence without grace,
so that the present economy (according to this through Adam’s
sin, man, gratuitously despoiled and wounded in his natural
gifts, in the sense previously explained, can attain salvation
and happiness only by the grace of the Redeemer) is a much
sounder thesis than any other hypothesis.
b. That the existence of original sin better explains the
present state of the human race is confirmed by the various
traditions of people as recorded by the pagans, by poets and
by philosophers. In these the existence of the fall is more
or less explicitly acknowledged. Among the Greeks, for
example, Hesiod describes the fate of Prometheus who, after
taking away the fire from heaven, not only undergoes cruel
punishments himself but also becomes the cause of the diverse
evils which are spread throughout the world.

1 Contra Gentiles, book IV, C. 52.

Primed in Belgium by D8SCLÉE & Ck, Edit SUas, S. A. Tournai — W-S40