UNIVERSITY RELIGION SERIES

Theology for the Layman
The Christian Virtues

CHARLES E. SHEEDY, C.S.C.

Evidence for Our Faith
JOSEPH H. CAVANAUGH, C.S.C.

God and the World of Man
THEODORE M. HESBURGH, C.S.C.
Redemptive Incarnation
ALBERT L. SCHLITZER, C.S.C.

EVIDENCE FOR

OUR FAITH
by Joseph H. Cavanaugh, C.S.C.

UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME PRESS

Notre Dame, Indiana

Imprimi Potest: Theodore J. Mehling, C.S.C., Provincial

Nihil Obstat: Roland G. Simonitsch, C.S.C., Censor Deputatus
Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, D.D., Ll.D.,
Bishop of Fort Wayne

June 19, 1959

Third Edition 1959

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 59-10456

© Copyright, 1949, 1952, 1959
University of Notre Dame Press
Notre Dame, Indiana

Preface to the Third Edition

THIS textbook was first published in 1948. Despite other heavy
and time-consuming responsibilities, the author prepared a second,
revised edition which appeared in 1952. The work on a third re­
vision was interrupted by his untimely death in 1953.
The present textbook incorporates some of the changes planned
by the author. It is the work of a committee appointed by the head
of the Religion Department, Rev. Roland Simonitsch, C.S.C. The
committee was made up of Rev. George Bernard, C.S.C., Rev.
F. G. Connolly, Rev. Joseph Haley, C.S.C., Rev. James Maguire,
and Rev. Robert Pelton, C.S.C.
The attention of the committee was focused primarily upon
the general makeup of the textbook in accordance with the de­
mands of an undergraduate course. It was deemed advisable to
draw a sharper line of demarcation between the general discus­
sion of the Church’s authority to teach, govern, and sanctify all
mankind and the special discussion of the teaching authority of
the Church than had been done in the preceding editions. This
was accomplished by making them into two parts of the textbook.
To these was added a third part in which the two primary sources
of the Church's doctrines, Holy Scripture and Tradition, are
briefly examined. Time will tell whether and to what extent this
third part should be further expanded.
Two principal changes have been made in the first part of the
textbook which deals with the general authority of the Church,
namely, the authority to teach, govern, and sanctify all mankind.
vii

viii

Preface to the Third Edition

First of all, the chapters on the philosophical presuppositions to
the course were made into an appendix and transferred to the end
of the book. Secondly, at the urging of a number of teachers who
use the textbook, two new chapters were added. In the first, the
present-day "world" religions are briefly described. In the second,
a general picture of the background of Christ’s claims is drawn.
In the second part, which deals with the teaching authority of
the Church, a chapter has been introduced on the infallible teach­
ing authority in action. In it the twofold magisterium of the
Church, ordinary and solemn, and the twofold manner in which
the solemn magisterium is exercised, are examined.
The members of the committee have willingly sacrificed much
time and effort in order to continue the work of the author, Rev.
Joseph Cavanaugh, C.S.C. They did so in tribute to a kindly,
unassuming and devoted priest. This third edition is dedicated to
his memory.
F. G. Connolly
Chairman of the Revision Committee

Notre Dame, Indiana
May 4, 1959

L

Preface to the Previous Edition

THIS textbook is the product of many classes in Apologetics at
the University of Notre Dame. It was written to explain how rea­
sonable it is to believe what the Catholic Church teaches. In other
words, it is an attempt to present the case for Catholicism. The
difficulty has been, not to find sufficient evidence for the case, but
to select the best evidence and to present it convincingly in such
a little book. If a student thinks the evidence for any point is in­
sufficient or the explanation unsatisfactory, he can consult the
books mentioned in the bibliography, for the more he searches
through the evidence, the more reasons he will discover for accept­
ing the Catholic faith. Indeed, the Church welcomes critical re­
search that is sincere.
In this book, the appeal is not to the emotions and prejudices
of the student, but to his intelligence. It is a statement of facts
and reasons and not an expression of feelings. Though I have tried
to avoid the controversial note, I have not hesitated to state the
reasons why Catholic scholars regard their church as the only true
church. Just as a good scientist attempts to present to his students
in a fair and objective manner the facts and reasons for a scientific
conclusion, so I have tried to state fairly and objectively the his­
torical facts and reasons that establish the claim of the Catholic
Church to be the one society founded by Christ and assured of
his divine assistance even to the consummation of the world.
May this book, written in honor of our Blessed Mother at the
University she has blessed so abundantly, bring the reader to a
i*

Pr^lo^Pr^Editian

«

;,oveotourLorOJ«u’C|’"’tandoth‘·

greater knowledge ~
Myair’1 Body.tl,c
Univmuyoi Notre Dame

Joseph H. Cavanaugh, c.s.c.

Acknowledgments

THE author wishes to thank the following publishers for their
kind permission to reprint selections from their publications.
The Atlantic Monthly: "What About Church Unity?," by
Bernard Iddings Bell. Geoffrey Bles Ltd.: Miracles, by C. S. Lewis.
The Bruce Publishing Company: The Question and the Answer,
by Hilaire Belloc. Burns, Oates, and Washboume, Ltd.: The Early
Papacy, by Adrian Fortescue. The Dial Press: Why Rome, by
Selden Peabody Delany. Eyre and Spottiswoode: Difficulties, by
Ronald A. Knox and Arnold Lunn. Fathers of the Church Inc.
for some translations. Harper and Brothers: Our Bible and the
Ancient Manuscripts, by Sir Frederic Kenyon; The Belief of
Catholics, by Ronald A. Knox; Can Protestantism Win America,
by Charles Clayton Morrison; Christian Apologetics, by Alan
Richardson. B. Herder Book Company: The Believer’s Christ,
by Ludwig Koesters; Reason to Revelation, by Daniel J. Saunders:
The Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, by H. J. Schroe­
der. The John Hopkins Press: From the Stone Age to Christian­
ity, by William Foxwell Albright. Longmans, Green and Com­
pany: He Who Is, by E. L. Mascall. The Macmillan Company:
Does God Exist?, by A. E. Taylor; The Catholic Church and His­
tory, and Survivals and New Arrivals, by Hilaire Belloc; Towards
Reunion, edited by Alexander Carlyle; The Case for Christianity,
by C. S. Lewis; ]esus of Nazareth, by Joseph Klausner; The Church
on Earth, by Ronald A. Knox; The Theology of Albert Schweitzer,
by E. N. Mozley; Truths Men Live By, by John A. O'Brien; The

xii

Acknowledgments

Catholic Church and the Appeal to Reason, by Leo P. Ward. The
Newman Press: The Third Day, by Arnold Lunn. G. P. Putnam’s
Sons: Luke the Physician, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic
Gospels, and What Is Christianity?, by Adolf Harnack. Sliced and
Ward: Religions of Mankind, by Otto Karrcr; Broadcast Minds,
by Ronald A. Knox; Now I see and Within That City, by Arnold
Lunn; Catholic Evidence Outlines, by Maisie Ward and F. J.
Sheed; Pascal, by Jacques Chevalier. Time magazine for part of a
story about "Mother Cabrini.” Williams and Norgate: History of
Dogma, by Adolf Harnack. These selections are copyrighted (at
the dates indicated in the footnotes) and may be reprinted only
with permission of the publishers.

Contents

Preface to the Third Edition.......................................... vii
Preface to the Previous Edition..................................... ix
Acknowledgments.............................................................. xi

Introduction............................................................................. i
Part I.

THE CHURCH’S AUTHORITY................................ 5

I. The
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.

Religions of Mankind.....................................................7
HINDUISM................................................................ 7
BUDDHISM............................................................................... 8
TAOISM, CONFUCIANISM AND SHINTOISM
.
g
ISLAM...................................................................... 11
ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM...................................... 12
CONCLUSION................................................................ 14

II. Christ's Background............................................................... 15
I. FROM ADAM TO ABRAHAM............................... 16
II. FROM ABRAHAM TO CHRIST............................... 16
III.

Christ's Claims..................................................................... 26
I. CHRIST'S LIFE AND DEATH..................................... 26
II. IN THE BEGINNING HIS CLAIMSWERE OBSCURE
27
III. IMPLICIT CLAIMS................................................. JO
A. He Perfects the Law of Moses.............................. jo
B. He Is Superior to Prophetsand Kings
3»
xiU

Contents

C. He Claims Utter Allegiance.......................... 31
D. He Will Judge All Men
.......................... 32
E. He Demands the Same Reverence as His Father
Receives
.
.
32
F. He Alone Knows God’s Mind and God Alone
Knows His......................................................... 33
G. He Forgives Sins............................................. 34
H. He Works Miracles.................................................. 34
IV. EXPLICIT CLAIMS........................................................ 35
A. He Has Pre-Existed with the Father
35
B. He Is Equal to theFather........................................35
C. St. Peter's Confession............................................ 36
D. The Transfiguration............................................ 37
E. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen
38
F. His Trial Before Caiphas...................................... 39
G. Confirmation........................................................ 4°
V. conclusion.................................................................... 4’
reading: The Question Concerning Christ
. 41
IV.

The Historicity of the Gospels.......................................... 44
I. THE GOSPEL CRITICS................................................. 44
II. PROOF OF THE HISTORICITY OF A DOCUMENT . 49
A. Tests of Historicity............................................49
B. Evidence........................................................5°
III. THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS
. 51
A. Evidence That the Gospels Are Genuine
51
B. Evidence That the Gospels Are Trustworthy .
55
C. Evidence That the Gospels Are Integral . .
56
D. Conclusion...................................................... 62
IV.
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL 62
V.
appendix: other early documents ...
63
READING: GOSPEL SCEPTICS................................ 65V.

V. Christ’s Claims Are Credible...................................... 71
I. THE PROMISED REDEEMER..................................... 71
Π. THE SON OF GOD
74
A. The First Proof
B. The Second Proof.........................
75
C. The Third Proof................................................. 87

Contents

III.

D. Confirmations
......................... 97
E. Resurrections in Other Religions
conclusion....................................
reading: THE HALLUCINATION THEORY
1O4

VI.

The Testimony of History
I. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT VIEWS
.110
A. The Catholic View.........................
no
B. Protestant Views......................................
1,1
II. THE EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY
113
A. Evidence from Scripture
* *3
B. Evidence from Tradition
.
>'9
1. The General Councils
119
2. The Fathers of the Church
.122
III. PAPAL AUTHORITY......................................................1^5
A. Evidence from Scripture . .
ia5
B. Evidence from Tradition
. .
IV. conclusion
....
.146

VII.

The
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.

VIII.

The
I.
II.
III.

Part II.

IX.

Stamp of God's Approval ....
ITS MARVELLOUS GROWTH .
.
ITS LOFTY HOLINESS
ITS INEXHAUSTIBLE FRUITFULNESS
ITS CATHOLIC UNITY
ITS UNCONQUERED STABILITY ...

.

148
149
>53
»59
162
. 165

Marks of the Church.............................................. 167
OUR LORD'S INTENTION
167
THE CHURCH AND THE MARKS........................... 173
NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
. 176

THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE
CHURCH......................................................................... 179IX.

The Infallibility of the Pope......................................... 181
I. THE INFALLIBILITY OF THECHURCH
.183
A. Antecedent Probability
.1X4
B. Proofs from Scripture andTradition
185

Contents

xvi
II.

III.

X.

The Teaching Authority inAction....................................... 204
I. THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM...................................... 204
II. THE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM...................................... 2θ6
A. The Roman Pontiff............................................ 206
B. The Ecumenical Council......................................208
III. conclusion........................................................................ 210

Part III.

XI.

THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE
. . . .188
A. Scripture
...
18g
B. The Fathers and Councils......................................igo
C. The Infallible Church............................................ 195
D. Alleged Failures................................................... ig6
CONCLUSION................................
... 200
reading: the WEIGHT ofEVIDENCE
.
201

THE SOURCES................................................................ 213

Holy Scripture and Tradition..........................................215
I. HOLY SCRIPTURE........................................................... 215
II. TRADITION........................................................................ 219
III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE............................... 221

Appendix: PHILOSOPHICAL PRESUPPOS11 IONS .
. 225
I. HUMAN REASON AND COD............................................. 225
A. God's Existence................................................... 225
B. God’s Nature and Attributes............................... 229
C. Common Objections............................................ 231
II. REASON AND RELIGION...........................
· 235
A. Reason Tells Us Some Duties Towards God
235
B. The Reliability of Reason Alone as a Guide
in Religion................................................................ 237
C. Evolution in Religion............................................ 240
SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS..................................... 242
The Existence of God............................................ 242
Boys' Philosophies .
244
The Religion of the Primitive.............................. 246

Select Bibliography............................................................................. 250

Index...................................................................................................... 255

Introduction

YEARS ago, shortly after your birth, you were carried to your
parish church for one of the most important events of your life.
For there and then you became a member of the Roman Catholic
Church through your reception of the sacrament of baptism at
the hands of your parish priest or his official delegate. A few years
later, when you had reached the age of reason and had become
personally responsible before God for your conduct, you became
a full-fledged member of the Church through your reception of
the sacrament of confirmation at the hands of the bishop of your
diocese or his official delegate. Since then you have learned much
about the Church and her teachings. Now, as you are approaching
maturity, the time has come when you should examine the foun­
dations of your faith as a Roman Catholic. That is exactly what
we intend to do in this course.1
Unfortunately, many young Catholic men and women do not
see the necessity of making such an investigation. In many cases it
stems from a failure to realize as yet how many-sided and bitter
is the attack upon their faith in the world today. There is, first of
all, the open and relentless opposition of atheistic communism to
all religion and, especially, to the Catholic Church which it looks
upon as the bulwark of religion. And, remember, this drive against
religion and the Church is carried on with all the modem weapons
of propaganda in the hands of an all-powerful State.
I. Thii course is called, in technical language. Fundamental Theology, that
is to say, the study of the fundaments, the foundations, of our faith.

Introduction

Another increasing challenge from outside Christianity comes
from the growth of nationalism in the eastern world. This ferment
has done much to revitalize the religions of eastern origin, Bud­
dhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so on. Their new lease on life is
manifesting itself more and more markedly in a growing opposi­
tion to Christianity, which is often considered as the religion of
the "imperialistic” west, and in an increase of missionary activity
even in the western world.
Besides these attacks from outside, there are other, more subtle
and dangerous conflicts within Christianity itself. On the one
hand, we are faced with a distortion of the Christian message by
the Liberal Protestants because of their re-interpretation of that
message in the light of an extreme rationalist and naturalist phi­
losophy of life. On the other hand, we are confronted with the
equally disastrous re-interpretation of that message by the Con­
servative Protestants in the light of their extreme irrationalist and
supematuralist philosophy of life.
Finally, there is the even more corrosive influence of religious
indifferentism and of secularism to which all too many have al­
ready succumbed in the western world. In fact, it could well be
argued that these insidious errors have done more harm to religion
and to the Church than any of the more open and above-board
attacks of their bitterest enemies.
All in all, it can be truthfully said that the faith of Roman
Catholics has never been so sharply challenged and threatened
since the foundation of the Church two thousand years ago. Such
is the situation facing the young Catholic man or woman who is
preparing to go out into the present-day world. From this chal­
lenge and this threat there is no escape. The only weapon of de­
fense, if we do prize our faith as “the pearl of great price,” is a
careful and thorough-going examination of its foundations.
Such an investigation is carried out in three steps. First of all,
there is the so-called “apologetic" problem,2 which actually breaks
down into two problems. The first is this: Why should I be a
Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ? To one brought up in the
western world and, especially, to one brought up in a thoroughly
Christian environment, that may not seem, at first glance, to pose
much of a problem. But think of it from the broader point of
s. An apology is a defense. This part of Fundamental Theology, in which
we defend our position as Roman Catholics, is often called Apologetics.

Introduction

y

view of a world that grows smaller and smaller as the years roll
by. Many religions claim the allegiance of the peoples of the earth.
Of its 2,600,000,000 inhabitants, only some 820,000,000, or lew
than a third, are Christians. Millions and millions of other men
are just as confirmed followers of other great religious leaders of
the past, of Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius, and so on. Why be a
follower of Christ, not of one or the other of these leaders? And, by
the way, some of these religions antedate the Christian religion by
many centuries.
The second problem arises from the divisions within Christian*
ity itself. Of the 820,000,000 Christians in the world today, some
485,000,000 are Roman Catholics; about 129,000,000 belong to
the Separated Eastern Churches;3 around 206,000,000 are Prot­
estants. The second problem then is this: Why be a Roman Catho­
lic? Why not be a Protestant or a member of one or other of the
Separated Eastern Churches?
In order to defend our position as Christians we must establish
the fact that Christ was not just another great religious leader who
founded a world religion. We must show that he was sent by God
himself to reveal to men what God expected of them and what
they could expect of him. In order to defend our position as
Roman Catholics we must establish the fact that Christ founded
the Roman Catholic Church and gave it authority to teach, gov­
ern, and sanctify all men of all nations down to the end of the
world.
The second part of the investigation of the foundations of our
faith turns our attention to the teaching authority of the Church.
Here two problems face us. One has to do with the quality of her
teaching authority. Does the Church possess an infallible teaching
authority so that she can interpret Christ's message to mankind
without any possibility of error? If so, upon whom did Christ
bestow this infallible teaching authority? Who exercises it in the
name of the Church? As Roman Catholics we believe that Jesus
Christ did bestow infallible teaching authority upon his church
and that he granted this authority to St. Peter and his successors,
the bishops of Rome. Here we have to examine our reasons for so
believing.
Another problem is this: How does the Church actually exer3. Often called also die Dissident Oriental Churches or the Orthodox
Churches.

Introduction
dise hcr infallible teaching authority? As Roman Catholics we be­
lieve that she does so ordinarily through the bishops of the Church
scattered throughout the length and breadth of the world, or
solemnly through the declarations of the Pope or General Coun­
cils. Here we must examine the ways in which the ordinary and
die solemn magisterium of the Church is actually exercised in the
life of the Church.
Thirdly and finally, we meet up with the concluding problem
in our examination of the foundations of our faith. What are the
sources from which the Church derives her doctrines? As Roman
Catholics we believe that there are two primary sources of the
teachings of the Church, Holy Scripture and Tradition. Here, we
must complete our examination of the foundations of our faith
by a study of the sources of divine revelations to which the Church
traces back her doctrines.

PART I

THE CHURCH’S

AUTHORITY
As Roman Catholics we have been taught that Jesus Christ
himself established the Roman Catholic Church, giving to it,
and to it alone, authority to govern, teach, and sanctify all men
down to the end of time. This sweeping claim to exclusive author­
ity in the field of religion has aroused much resentment and, often
enough, bitter resentment in those outside the Church. Here we
intend to examine this claim. Is it justifiable before the bar of
reason?
The problem is somewhat more complex than would appear at
first glance. For in reality it contains within itself two problems.
First of all, a Roman Catholic is a Christian. Here we have our
first problem. Why should I be a Christian, a follower of Jesus
Christ—not a follower of Buddha, of Mohammed, or of any other
of the great religious leaders of mankind? Secondly, a Roman
Catholic is a member of the Roman Catholic Church. This pre­
sents our second problem. Why should I be a member of the
Roman Catholic Church—not a member of one or other of the
hundreds of sects all laying claim to the Christian name? In this
first part of the course we will discuss these two problems.1
i. There is a third, even more basic problem: Why should i be a theist or.
more precisely, a monotheist? But the proofs for the existence of God pertain
to philosophy. A review of the philosophical presuppositions to the course
will be found in an appendix to the book.

CHAPTER 1

The Religions of Mankind

OUR first problem is: Why should I be a Christian? We will begin
the discussion with a study of the non-Christian religions. Apart
from Christianity, five religions claim the allegiance of vast num­
bers of the human race. We will give a brief sketch of each.
I.

HINDUISM

Jw.tic.Me

The religion of India is called Hinduism. It is based on the
teachings of the Vedas which were written thousands of years ago
by holy men who lived on the banks of the Indus and the Ganges.
Hinduism has one God, Brahman, the eternal spirit. But it has
likewise over three hundred million other gods. In fact, the Hindu
supernatural world swarms with gods—some resembling men,
others animals—and along with them a multitude of ghosts, de­
mons, and heavenly dancing girls. While some Hindus consider
these gods to be distinct, Hindu sages, past and present, hold that
they are only different faces of the one infinite Brahman. There
are dozens of sects within Hinduism, each with its own special
god. The most important of the sects worship Brahma, the Cre­
ator, Vishnu, the Preserver, or Shiva, the Destroyer.
The world emanates from but remains rooted in Brahman. It
has no reality apart from him. It will last millions of years and
then be destroyed by fire or water. But it will be recreated by
Brahman the Creator, for the endless cycle of life must go on.
The goal of human life is moksha, a state of peace and quiet
within Brahman in which one escapes from the unreal world and

Evidence for Our Faith

8

becomes merged in the oneness of the Absolute. As this exalted
condition cannot be achieved in one life, Hinduism teaches the
doctrine of reincarnation. When the body dies the meritorious
soul enjoys happiness and the wicked soul is punished. After these
experiences it is once more reunited to a body and begins a new
life, the character of which is determined by the merits of its past
life on earth.
Hinduism claims the allegiance of over 300,000,000 people liv­
ing in the vast subcontinent of India.

II.

BUDDHISM

Buddhism is based on the teachings of a man named Siddhartha
Gautama. The dates of his birth and death are uncertain but his
life-span of eighty years covers die greater part of the fifth century,
B.C. He was born at Kapilavatthu, the son of king Suddhodana.
When he was 29 years old, he abandoned his wife and son and the
princely luxury and splendor to which he had been accustomed
and set out in search of an answer to the riddle of life. He became
the disciple of five Hindu holy men but, dissatisfied, left them. Six
long years of search came to a climax when, after 49 days of con­
tinuous meditation, he achieved the enlightenment for which he
had sought. Thereafter he became known as the Buddha, the En­
lightened or Awakened One.
Buddha made his way to the holy city of Benares, where the
five Hindu holy men became his first disciples. For the remaining
45 years of his life Buddha travelled up and down northern India.
His efforts were crowned with success, for he won from all classes
an ever-increasing band of followers. Buddha retained many of
the ideas he had held as a Hindu. He accepted the age-old idea
that all living beings have to pass through a long cycle of births,
deaths, and rebirths. Again, he taught that good conduct or bad
is rewarded or punished in future reincarnations and that man
can seek and attain freedom from suffering by taming all his
worldly desires. But he rebelled against many of the time-honored
religious and social beliefs of Hinduism, such as the infallibility
of the Vedas, the caste system, and the Vedic sacrifices. Moreover,
while Hinduism presented the soul's release from worldly desires
as a goal to be achieved, it looked upon the world as God's crea­
tion, something to be enjoyed, and was therefore a religion filled
with gay holydays, impressive temple ceremonies and colorful

The Religions of Mankind

9

feasts. Disapproving of this side of Hinduism, Buddha put the
emphasis on ethical conduct, on virtuous living.
During the Middle Ages Buddhism gradually declined in India,
its place of origin, surviving only in Nepal, Sikhim, and Bhutan.
But long before this it had spread eastward to Burma, Siam, Cam­
bodia, Malaya, Sumatra, Java, and even into parts of Borneo and
the Philippines. It had also moved northward into Tibet, China,
Korea and Japan. Today Buddhism is divided into two great
schools of thought: the Hinayana Buddhism of Ceylon and south­
ern Asia, and the Mahayana Buddhism of Mongolia, Tibet,
Korea, China, and Japan. In the Hinayana type the pantheistic
trend is strong; the human character of Buddha is emphasized and
he is represented as an austere manifestation of God. In the Maha­
yana type, which began to develop about the beginning of the
Christian era, the trend is towards theism; Buddha’s divine char­
acter is emphasized and he is presented as a god of infinite light
and mercy who dwells in a heaven known as the "Great Western
Paradise” or the "Pure Land” to which all good Buddhists will go.
Mahayan Buddhism is divided into numerous sects with con­
siderable variations in doctrine. Two of these sects are strong in
Japan. The Shinshu sects is the most powerful, having the greatest
number of temples, monks and teachers. The second largest is
Zen, a sect of stem discipline, having a closer resemblance to the
austere Hinayana Buddhism than to the other Mahayana sects. It
is estimated that there are more than 150,000,000 Buddhists in
the world today.
III.

TAOISM, CONFUCIANISM AND SHINTOISM

In prehistoric times the Chinese believed in a Supreme Being
who rewarded the good and punished the wicked. He presided
over a vast array of inferior gods, of benevolent spirits, shen, who
could bring good fortune, and of evil spirits, kwei, who could dis­
pense bad fortune. Much of the Chinese religion of these earlier
days was concerned with soothsayers and with prescriptions for
pleasing the good spirits and for driving away or, at least, placat­
ing the evil spirits. In the universe, it was said, there are two inter­
acting forces, the yang and the yin. Everything in the universe
possesses the qualities of both in varying degrees. The yang is the
positive or masculine force; it is warm, bright, hard, dry, and
stable. The yin is the negative or feminine force; it is cold, dark.

jo

Evidence for Our Faith

soft, wet and unstable. When there is a state of imbalance between
them, then there is disharmony and evil; when there is a state of
balance between these forces, then there is harmony and good.
How is this harmony to be achieved? Taoism and Confucianism do
not agree on the answer to this problem.
Lao Tzu is credited with being the founder of Taoism and the
author of its bible, Tao Teh Ching. He was born, according to
tradition, on a farm in the Honan province of China in 604 B.C.
After a long career at the court of the emperor, he is said to have
become so disgusted with the corruption and constant warfare
that he resigned his post and became a teacher. It was out of his
teaching that Taoism developed.
Tao, which means a road or way, is a mighty power moving ir­
resistibly on its course. Men are borne along by it like drops of
water in a river so that all human striving is useless. Virtue con­
sists in a quiet submission to the power of the Tao. Riches, fame,
honor and power for which men strive only produce strife and war­
fare. A quiet yielding to the Absolute, the Tao, carries one even­
tually to one’s destined place. The ideal is to retire to a life
of simplicity and contemplation in some isolated corner of the
world.
Confucius was bom into a poor but aristocratic family in the
Shantung province of China in 551 B.C. He wished to be a states­
man but ended up as a teacher. He died in 479 B.C. Confucius
agreed with Lao Tzu that the Tao represented the great law of
life but he disagreed with him sharply as to how one should con­
duct oneself. To Confucius, following the true way did not mean
a life of contemplative retirement but rather an active life of vir­
tue. Accordingly, he set up practical rules for everyday living. He
put the accent on statecraft and ethics. While he considered the
worship of Heaven and of ancestors to be conducive to morality
and social order and, therefore, approved of them, he would not
even discuss the question of life after death. Again, he strongly
opposed the age-old belief in good and bad spirits who could
bring good or bad fortune to man, and the practices growing out
of this belief.
For centuries his teachings were criticized and attacked, espe­
cially by the Taoists. It was not until around 200 B.C. that Con­
fucian moralism began to gain favor. Then, with increasingly
strong support from successive emperors, it became the supreme

The Religions of Mankind

π

system in Chinese history. Taoism lost ground proportionately.
Then Buddhism made its way into China and attracted to itself
large numbers of the more enlightened Taoists. Taoism became
more and more the religion of the masses and catered more and
more to their superstitions. It is estimated that there are about
50,000,000 Taoists and around 300,000,000 Confucians in China
toclay.
Shinto, which means the ‘‘Way of the Gods,” is the native reli­
gion of Japan. It is approximately as old as Christianity. In
modem Shinto there are two main streams: shrine Shinto, which
was the state religion until disestablished in December, 1945, and
sectarian Shinto, which exists in the form of thirteen officially
recognized sects and numerous sub-sects. The deities honored in
shrine Shinto include a number of primitive nature forces, the
spirits of some of the emperors and of certain heros who gave their
lives in the service of the nation and the emperor. The deities
honored in sectarian Shinto include all the gods of shrine Shinto
and others proper to each sect, notably the spirit of the founder
of the sect. The beliefs and practices of the different sects vary
greatly. Some emphasize a mountain worship mixed with primi­
tive rites of spirit possession: others, ancient purification rites:
others, faith healing. It is estimated that there are around
3o,ooo,ooo_Shintoists in Japan.
'« ■··
IV. ISLAM
Islam 1 was founded by Mohammed. He was bom at Mecca in
Arabia in 570 A.D. At the time, Mecca was a prosperous city on
the caravan route between India and Syria. Little is known with
certainty of his early life. Mohammed was a deeply religious man,
much given to prayer and fasting. He became particularly inter­
ested in Jewish and Christian doctrines and practices. At the age
of forty he claimed to have had a revelation from God while at
prayer in a cave outside Mecca and then presented himself to the
people as the last and greatest of a long line of prophets from
Abraham to Christ.
Doctrinally, he emphasized the unity of God (rejecting the
divinity of Christ and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity), the
last judgment, and God's predestination of good and evil. The
religious practices obligatory on the Moslem believer are: the
1.

Islam means submission or surrender <0 the will of Cod.

Evidence for Our Faith

12

recital of the creed (There is no god but God and Mohammed is
his apostle), the performance of divine worship five times a day,
the fast in the month of Ramadan, almsgiving, and a pilgrimage to
Mecca.
Mohammed’s preaching was rejected at Mecca and he fled to
Medina where he succeeded in making many converts and in
organizing a small army. His talents as a leader enabled him to
crush the warring factions in Arabia and to weld it into a formida­
ble military state (630 A.D.). Within ten years of Mohammed's
death, Islam had conquered the Persian Empire, Egypt, Palestine,
and Syria. Fifty years later it overcame Roman Africa, Spain,
and southern France. A decisive battle at Poitiers, France, stopped
its westward advance. Another decisive battle at Constantinople
stopped its advance into Europe from the East. The Golden Age
of Islam was reached with the reign of Harun al-Rashid (786-809
A.D.). Soon after this, the Moslem Empire started to collapse. The
final blow came when the Mongol hordes destroyed Baghdad, the
capital. Fifty years later, the Mongols who had settled in Persia,
embraced Islam. Later, a Mongol founded a great Moslem empire
in India. From there Islam spread eastward into China and down
into the islands of the Pacific.
The Moslem world has become divided into numerous sects, of
which the largest—about nine-tenths of the total adherents—is
the Sunni sect. Today Islam, at least 300,000,000 strong, consti­
tutes around one seventh of the population of the globe.
V.

ATHEISTIC COMMUNISM

In our own times there has emerged another great power over
men's minds and wills, a religion which is at once the denial of
all religion and itself the most potent secular religion ever to
challenge the traditional religions of mankind. This is the athe­
istic communism that dominates Soviet Russia, Red China and
some of the nations allied with them.
Its founder was Karl Marx (1818-1883). Marx was an atheist
before he was a communist; in fact, his communism is deeply
rooted in his atheism. For his first position was that matter is the
only reality. Matter exists and the human mind reflects it. There
is no God and no life after death. His second position is found
in his interpretation of history. From the beginning of human his­
tory man's survival has depended on the production of such things

The Religions of Mankind

r)

as answer his needs. The particular form of production at any
time determines the whole nature of society; the economic factor
dominates everything, including religion. In the past the modes of
production have been imperfect, leaving too many human needs
unsatisfied. Man therefore built up for himself a God and a future
life wherein all his needs would be satisfied. If and when a perfect
mode of production is achieved religion will wither away. It is in
this sense that Marx maintained that "religion is the opium of the
people."
The third position is his explanation of the defects of man's
productivity in the past. It was because men approached the
problem as individuals. Production, to be perfect, must be a
collective act, and the collective, therefore, is the unit to which
the individual must be completely subordinated. His only value
lies in the collectivity to which he belongs.
His fourth position determines how the human race moves in­
exorably towards the perfect mode of production. It is his theory
of class war. At each stage of society, a particular clxss gains the
upper hand and exploits the other classes for its own advantage.
But each ruling class necessarily fosters the development of its op­
posite, the class which will eventually destroy it. Out of this con­
flict a new ruling class arises. But this process leads finally to a
face-to-face conflict between the capitalists and the proletarians.
To carry on the struggle successfully, a dictatorship of the prole­
tariat has to be established. The inevitable result will be a society
in which the capitalist class will be eliminated. Then the dictator­
ship of the proletariat will fade away, leaving a classless society, a
society of free and equal men. And then heaven will be established
on earth.
While many people still look upon Communism as merely a
social, political and economic system different from our own, it
is becoming more and more clearly recognized as a pseudo­
religion. It demands a supreme allegiance to the State as to a
quasi-God. It declares its gospel to be the one hope of all mankind.
It has its own ceremonies, hymns and other ritual. It imposes an
austere, even if perverted, morality of its own. It has, in a way.
its own divinities: Marx, Lenin. Stalin—at present, at least, in
disfavor—and another budding divinity. Khrushchev. The fervor
of the communist devotee is a challenge to every other religion
seeking world acceptance.

Evidence for Our Faith

>4
VI.

CONCLUSION

Christianity is surrounded and outnumbered by several other
world religions. Of these, the most inimical is, quite obviously,
the atheistic communism of Marxism which already controls a
major part of mankind and hopes and strives to extend its domin­
ion over the whole world. The weak spot in our armor against its
attack are the religious indifferentism and secularism which have
made such deep inroads into the life and culture of the western
world. The other world religions do not pose any great threat to
Christianity—at least at the present time. It should be noted,
however, that Islam, after centuries of slumber, is once more com­
ing to life under the impetus of the growing Arab nationalism.
Certain Buddhist sects have become quite active, sending out mis­
sionaries and extending their influence into the nations of the
western world. In the rapidly-changing panorama of world affairs
no one can predict what the future has in store for us.

CHAPTER II

Christ’s Background

WHO was this man Jesus Christ? How did he capture the devo­
tion and allegiance of a major part of the human race in the last
two thousand years? What did he claim to be? Jesus Christ made
two stupendous, breath-taking, almost incredible claims. Before
we can begin to grasp their implications, we must get some idea
of the background of his life. This means, since he was a Jew, that
we must know something of the Jewish people. We will do it by
turning to the first part of the Bible, the Old Testament as it is
called.1 The first five books of the Old Testament are the oldest
literature of the Jews, having been written by Moses between 1460
and 1420 B.C.2 They record the origin of the human race, the fall
of man or, in other words, his loss of the friendship of God, and
the establishment of God’s plan for man’s restoration to union
with himself. The remaining books of the Old Testament tell us
how God began to put his plan into execution through the instru­
mentality of the Jews, his chosen people. From these sources we
will briefly sketch the history of the Jewish people down to the
time of Christ.8
The history of the Jewish people falls into two major periods:
I. From Adam to Abraham, and II. From Abraham to Christ.
1. The Old Testament, the first part of the Bible, is by far the larger part.
It contains 45 books, whereas the New Testament has only 27.
2. These five books are called the Pentateuch. The word derives from the
Greek. It simply means "Five Books."
3. The dates used are only approximate. They conform to the latest esti­
mates of scholars.

j6

Evidence for Otir Faith

Christ's Background
I. FROM ADAM TO ABRAHAM
Little is known of the history of mankind during this period.
We do not even know how long the human race has dwelt upon
this earth. The conservative estimates proposed by scientists
range up to a million years. The Book of Genesis, the first book
of the Pentateuch, gives no details; it limits itself to basic facts.
It records the creation of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman.
It describes them as living in a state of perfect happiness and
union with God. It pictures the trial by which God tested their
fidelity to him and the act of disobedience, instigated by Satan,
which destroyed the bond of friendship between God and man.45
In the very act of condemning Adam and Eve for severing the
bond of union between himself and the human race, God prom­
ised to send a redeemer through whom the human race would
have a chance to regain his friendship. "I will put enmities be­
tween thee (Satan) and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:
she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel"
(Genesis 3, 15). But there is no indication as to the manner or the
time of the fulfilment of this promise. The execution of God’s
plan for man's redemption begins centuries later with Abraham,
the father of God’s chosen people, from whom the redeemer was
to come forth. And so the book of Genesis is only interested in
tracing a line of descent from Adam to Abraham. It chooses Seth,
one of Adam’s sons, and lists his descendants down to Noah. After
the deluge, it continues the line from Sem, Noah’s oldest son,
down to Abraham.6

II. FROM ABRAHAM TO CHRIST
With Abraham the long period of preparation for man’s re­
demption begins to unfold. The probable date of his birth was
2200 B.C. His family, a branch of the Semites, was living in Ur of
the Chaldees at the lower end of the Euphrates valley.® He it was
whom God chose to found a separate people which was to be
4. All these aspects of man's relation to God will be studied in a later
course.
5. For which reason the Jews are called "Semites." Most of the people
who dwell in the Middle-East are of Semitic origin.
6. Present-day Iraq.

77

especially favored by God. At God's command Abraham and his
family migrated to Chanaan (Palestine). There God made a cove­
nant with him and his descendants. They were to worship him in
a special manner and, in return, God promised to bestow special
blessings, both spiritual and material, upon them. And God
changed his name from Abram (high father) to Abraham (the
father of a multitude). The mark of circumcision was to be the
sign of the covenant between God and his chosen people. Later on
God repeatedly made similar promises to Abraham and his seed.
After Abraham's death God renewed these promises to his son,
Isaac. And when Isaac died, he again renewed the promises to
one of Isaac's many sons, Jacob. When doing so God changed
Jacob’s name to Israel (he who wins God’s favor).7 Jacob or Israel
had twelve sons. One of them, Joseph, was sold into slavery by
his jealous brothers and was taken down into Egypt. There he
found favor with the king of Egypt and became his prime min­
ister. A famine broke out in Palestine and Jacob sent his sons
down into Egypt to buy food. There they were reunited with
Joseph. Then Jacob, at God’s command, gathered together all his
tribe and their possessions and journeyed to Egypt. Due to
Joseph’s influence with him, the king of Egypt gave them a section
of the country as their own, and here they dwelt for about four
hundred years. During this period they grew from a family of
some two or three thousand to a large people estimated to num­
ber from six hundred thousand to two million souls. Moreover,
they had been, when they first settled in Egypt, no more than a
nomadic tribe, devoid of any literature, art or culture. Their stay
in Egypt, one of the most powerful and cultured nations of an­
tiquity, had schooled them in agriculture and irrigation, in cattle
raising, in the arts, in architecture and mechanics, in weaving,
dyeing, etc.
The prosperity which the Jews enjoyed in Egypt during the
lifetime of Joseph continued after his death. How long it did so
we do not know. We do know that their numbers, power and
prosperity eventually aroused the fear of an Egyptian king and
a period of bitter persecution set in. The king burdened (hem
with excessive labor of the most exhausting kind. He gave orders
to the Egyptian midwives to kill every male Jew at birth and, in
7.

For which reason the Jews are also called "Israelite·.··

/8

Evidence for Our Faith

case some might escape this law, he ordered all his people to throw
any such male child into the river Nile.8
God chose Moses and his brother, Aaron," to free the Israelites
from the bondage of the Egyptians. Under their leadership the
Israelites crossed the Red Sea somewhere near the Suez Canal and
advanced down the west coast of Sinai Peninsula. Three months
later they came to Mount Sinai. There God renewed his cove­
nant with them and gave them his law, a law whose precepts cov­
ered every aspect of their lives, civil, moral and religious.10 The
Israelites solemnly promised to abide by his law and the pact was
sealed with a sacrifice. After a year of preparation spent at the
foot of Mount Sinai, they began their advance towards the prom­
ised land of Chanaan, moving northward along the Gulf of Akabah. It was a rigorous journey and on several occasions the tribes
almost broke out into open rebellion against the leadership of
Moses. Arriving at Cades, near the northeastern end of Sinai
Peninsula, a scouting party of twelve men, one from each of the
tribes, was sent to investigate the situation in the land of Chanaan.
On their return, all but two—despite God's promise to deliver
the land to them as their own—maintained that it could not be
conquered. It was proposed that Moses should be deposed as their
leader and another man selected who would lead them back to
Egypt. As the mutiny increased, God intervened, threatening to
destroy the rebels with a pestilence. However, at Moses' entreaty,
God announced that the chosen people would be preserved as
such but that none of the present generation, excepting two of
the twelve scouts, would enter the promised land of Chanaan.
Then began thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert of the
Sinai Peninsula at the end of which we find the Israelites again
encamped at Cades at the southern border of the promised land.
Moses decided against a direct advance into Chanaan. Instead, he
8. There is little doubt that this king of Egypt was Rameses II.
g. Aaron and Moses were of the tribe of Levi, the tribe later chosen by God
to be his priests. Aaron was born before the edict of death for male infants.
The birth of Moses was concealed by his parents; later, he was adopted by
a daughter of the king of Egypt.
10. The tribe of Levi was selected by God for the service of his tabernacle.
The sons of Aaron and their descendants, alone were the priests of God, the
rest of the tribe and their descendants (called Levites) were their assistants.
Aaron had the title and dignity of high priest. It was to be hereditary in his
family.

Christ’s Background

19

led the Israelites down the river Arabah to the Gulf of Akabah,
then northward towards Eastern Palestine, that is to say, that part
of Palestine which was east of the Dead Sea and the river Jordan.
During the journey Aaron died and was buried on Mount Hot.
His son, Eleazar, succeeded him as high priest.
Sweeping northward the Israelites quickly conquered eastern
Palestine and then prepared for the conquest of Chanaan. While
encamped on the eastern shore of the river Jordan, Moses died
and God chose Josue, a member of the tribe of Ephraim, to suc­
ceed him as the leader and judge of the chosen people. It was un­
der his leadership that the Israelites crossed the river Jordan, con­
quered western Palestine, and divided up all Palestine among
the twelve tribes, descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob (Israel).
The Israelites had finally taken possession of the land which God
had promised to them.
The subsequent history of the Jewish people down to the time
of Christ falls into three periods: t) the tribal period or the period
of the judges, 2) the period of die monarchy, and 3) the period of
subjection to foreign rule, a period which still endured when
Christ appeared upon the scene.
1) The tribal period. Josue had not completed the conquest
of Chanaan before his death so that, even within the territories
assigned to the different tribes, there were to be found independ­
ent pagan tribes. The consequences were unfortunate but to be
expected. Association with the heathens led to intermarriage and
this in turn to a forgetfulness of their covenant with God and re­
peated falls into idolatry and immorality. Moreover, the settle­
ment of the tribes, each in its own territory, and the death of
Josue without any previously appointed successor, ended even the
semblance of central power that had existed under Moses and
Josue. This left the Israelites, to a great extent, at the mercy of
the surrounding pagan tribes. And God, as a punishment for their
repeated infidelities, allowed the different tribes to be repeatedly
subjugated by their enemies.
From time to time individual tribal leaders were strong enough
to exert some authority over all twelve tribes. Eight such leaders
are recorded in the Book of Judges, of whom Samson is, without
doubt, the most famous. Their appointment seems to have been
by the free choice of the people, with the exception of two, Gedeon
and Samson, who were selected by God for the office.

20

Evidence for Our Faith
Christ’s Background

e) The period of the monarchy. After some years—the common
opinion holds that the tribal period lasted upwards of 400 years—
the Jews felt the need of a united kingdom because of the growing
attacks and inroads of the Philistines from the west and the Am­
monites from the east. They asked the prophet Samuel, the last
of the Judges, to appoint a king. Acting under God’s guidance, he
chose Saul, who became the first of three famous Jewish kings—
Saul, David, and Solomon. They ruled Israel for about a hundred
years. 1050-950 B.C. It was under their leadership that the nation
reached the highest point in its development.
After Solomon’s death, his son Roboam became king. The
northern tribes rebelled against him and two independent king­
doms were set up, the kingdom of Israel in northern Palestine, the
kingdom of Juda in the south.
3) The period of subjection. In 721 B.C. the northern king­
dom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrians and most of the peo­
ple were killed or carried off into slavery in Assyria. They disap­
peared from history.” The conquerors sent colonists into the land
and they, intermarrying with the remaining Jews, produced the
Samaritans, a people of mixed blood, culture, and religion.
For another century and a half the southern kingdom of Juda
maintained a precarious existence despite pressure from east and
west. Then the Babylonians conquered their enemy to the east,
the Assyrians, in 612 B.C. In self-defense the kingdom of Juda
allied itself with their enemy from the east, the Egyptians. But
the Babylonians swept into Palestine, destroyed the holy city of
Jerusalem and carried off most of the Jews into Babylonia, leaving
only the lower class to farm the land for their conquerors. About
seventy years later, the Persians conquered the Babylonians. Their
new masters allowed the Jews in Babylonia to return to Palestine.
In 537 B.C., about 50,000 of them did so. Then they set to work
to restore the nation and the temple, but under the rule of a civil
governor appointed by the Persian king.
In 332 B.C. the Persians were in tum conquered by the Mace­
donians under Alexander the Great. His death, soon after this,
precipitated a struggle for power among his generals. The king­
dom of Juda fell under the sway of Ptolemy, king of Egypt. In 198
B.C. Antiochus III, king of Syria, defeated the Egyptians and took
over control of Juda. Their new masters antagonized the Israelites
11.

These are the so-called "lost" tribes of Israel.

ar

so deeply that a full-scale rebellion broke out under the leader­
ship of Matathias. It was continued by his son and successor.
Judas Machabeus. Soon he, and his two brothers who succeeded
him, Jonathan and Simon, had freed Palestine from Syrian rule.
Under the successors of the Machabees, the kingdom was extended
northward to embrace parts of the former kingdom of Israel. But
the period of independence was short-lived. In 67 B.C. two broth­
ers ruled the kingdom, Hyrcanus as the high priest, and Aristobtdus as the head of the army. Hyrcanus, forced out by his
brother, sought and gained the help of the Arabs. This gave
Pompey, the leader of the Roman army, an excuse to intervene.
He invaded Palestine and made it a part of the Roman province
of Syria.
The Romans, as was their custom with conquered peoples, al­
lowed the Jews to practice their own religion and to follow their
own national customs. Thus, in effect, there were two rulers. The
Sanhedrin or Council, the supreme religious and judicial tribunal
of the Jews, had wide powers which it constantly sought to in­
crease. It was composed of seventy-one members, all of whom had
to be of pure Israelitic descent. They were of three classes: the
high priests, the “ancients” (the aristocracy, both lay and priestly),
and the scribes or lawyers or "rabbis.” It was presided over by the
high priest. At the time of Christ it had its own police force; u
it could impose corporal punishment on offenders *’ and even
inflict the death penalty with the consent of the Roman procura­
tor.14 The Romans even recognized its authority over all the Jew­
ish communities scattered throughout the empire.1*
Two parties or factions exercised an increasingly important
part in the political and religious life of the Jews under Roman
rule, the Sadducees and the Pharisees. It would be well to get an
idea of their character before continuing the history of the Jewish
people under Roman rule. The Pharisees were recruited from all
classes, especially from the lower and middle classes and even
some from the priestly class. They were the conservatives, men
devoted to the Law, to its exact knowledge and observance. By
their devotion they did help to keep the Jewish religion free from
12.
13.
14.
15.

Matt 26, 7; Acts 4, 33; 5, 17.
Acts 5, 40; 2 Cor. 11, 24.
John 18, 30.
Acts 9, 2; », 5.

aa

Evidence for Our Faith

pagan influences but the party, as a whole, became notorious for
two terrible failings. First of all, they were separatists in an
extreme sense. They not only championed the separateness of the
Jewish people from all other nations but, in the case of their own
compatriots, they would only associate with those who observed
the Law in its minutest detail. This position actually separated
them from the multitude of the people. Why? The Law or Torah,
as we have seen already, had been given to Moses by God about
1500 B.C. Since then the teachers and legislators of the Jews had
applied its rules, civic, moral, and ceremonial, to the countless
situations of everyday life. There grew up a body of rules known
as "the tradition of the ancients.” The Pharisees multiplied these
regulations endlessly and, in many cases, to the point of absurdity.
It became impossible for most Jews to know, let alone to observe,
these minute regulations. But ignorance of the law was no excuse
in the eyes of the Pharisees. Therefore they looked down on most
of their compatriots as defiled and would not associate with them.
This attitude engendered another terrible failing, their formal­
ism. Religion became a purely external thing. Its practice con­
sisted above all else in the minute observance of all the external
rites or rules of conduct laid down in the Law and in “the tradi­
tion of the ancients.” The internal spirit animating the faithful
observance of the rules became of secondary or even less impor­
tance.
The Sadducees, on the other hand, were recruited especially
from the priesthood, supported by the aristocracy and the wealthy
landowners. They were the liberals, upholding the written Law
of Moses but rejecting the Pharisaic “tradition of the ancients” as
having a status equal to that of the Written Law. Yet, while they
professed a due reverence for the Law, they were not, as a whole,
religious men. In fact, they were tainted with rationalism and ma­
terialism; they denied the immortality of the soul, the resurrec­
tion of the body and future reward and punishment; they likewise
rejected the existence of God’s providence. Through the priests
in their party they had control over the Sanhedrin and, since this
body had control over the temple and the ritual of public wor­
ship, the Sadducees had a share in the enormous revenues that
poured in from all the Jewish communities in the Empire. While
the priests wished to maintain their position on the basis of the
Mosaic law, they were quite willing to get rid of any customs or

Christ's Background

jj

traditions which would have interfered with their worldly lives.
And, unlike the Pharisees, they were quite willing to assimilate
pagan thought and culture. Each party had its own group of
scribes (lawyers, doctors of the Law, rabbis) to defend its ideas.
And each parly had its own particular impact upon the period
that begins with the rule of the Roman Empire and ends with
the disappearance of Israel as a nation.
Even though the Romans had given the Jews such an extensive
area of independence in their own internal affairs, subjection to
foreigners was a disgrace and a humiliation in the eyes of this
proud and nationalistic people. Riots and rebellions broke out
frequently and their violent suppression only deepened the
hatred of the Jews for their Roman rulers. In 37 B.C., after about
a quarter century of Roman rule, a man named Herod, an
Idumaean by birth but a Jew by religion,1· got himself appointed
the tributary king of Palestine by the Roman Senate. To
strengthen his own hand, Herod immediately changed the old
constitution. The Sanhedrin or Council, previously the highest
deliberative body in the land, was deprived of all executive or
advisory power, becoming increasingly merely an academic and re­
ligious body. Everything possible was done to weaken the influ­
ence of the high priesthood. The occupant of the office was fre­
quently changed, and Herod took over the custody of the sacred
robes, the insignia of the office. When Herod died in 4 B.C. the
kingdom was divided into three parts and given to three of his
sons: Idumaea, Judea, and Samaria to Archelaus; Galilee and
Perea to Herod Antipas; Itrurea and Trachonitis to Philip. Be­
cause of his savage excesses, Archelaus was soon deposed by the
Roman Emperor and his territory was placed under a procurator
or lieutenant-governor who was made responsible to the Imperial
Legate of the Roman province of Syria. He set up his headquar­
ters at Caesarea rather than at Jerusalem and it was from there
that he ruled the nation.11
But the new arrangement did not bring peace to the land. Fric­
tion between the Jews and their rulers increased rather than
diminished. Finally, in 6G A.D., they broke into open rebellion.
16. The Idumaeans had been conquered by the Jews and forcibly converted
to Judaism in the days of the Machabees.
17. The fifth in the series of procurators. Pondus Pilate, who was ap­
pointed in *6 A.D., should be remembered; his name will come up later on.

aj

Evidence for Our Faith

The revolt was temporarily successful. But the Romans sent in
reinforcements and slowly but surely regained control. In 70 A.D.
Jerusalem, the last stronghold of the rebels, was besieged and
finally taken. Jerusalem and the temple were completely de­
stroyed.
The destruction of the temple at Jerusalem marked the be­
ginning of the end of the Jews as a nation. With its destruction
the priesthood itself came to an end and the Sadducees, whose
whole life had been so closely bound up with the temple service,
ceased to exist as a distinct party. The Pharisees were left masters
of the field. The Rabbis, or teachers of the Law, who had long
occupied a prominent place in the national life, now received the
reverence formerly given to those of priestly rank. The Sanhedrin
was reconstituted and eventually regained a semi-official status as
representative of the Jews in their relationship with the Roman
authorities. Courts for deciding legal cases in accordance with
Jewish law were set up in every town with the Sanhedrin at
Jamnia 18 acting as the supreme court. The local synagogue be­
came the center of Jewish life.
For nearly a generation an uneasy peace reigned in Palestine.
Then, in 132 A.D. another rebellion broke out. The Roman
army moved in and laid waste to the country. The Palestinian
Jews were almost wiped out of existence by the three years war
and the wholesale enslavement which followed upon it. The end
was near. When the Roman Empire became divided into two
states during the fourth century A.D., Palestine became a part
of the Eastern or Byzantine Empire. In 425 A.D. Theodosius II
abolished the Sanhedrin. The last vestige of the ancient nation
of Israel had disappeared from the pages of history.19
In the history of the Jewish people up to this point certain in­
dividuals stand out because of the very special office which they
held. These were the prophets of Israel. The Jews were God’s
chosen people through whom salvation was to come to all man­
kind. With them God had made a covenant. The prophets were
intermediaries between God and his chosen people. Their of­
fice was to make known God’s will to the people—whether it
concerned the future or the present. They strove to keep Israel
loyal to its covenant with God and to the practice of its religion.
18. The Sanhedrin was later moved to Tiberias.
19. The nation oi Israel was re established in 1948.

Christ’s Background

aj

They acted as authoritative interpreters of God’s law. They re­
buked the people for their repeated infidelities. Some of the great
names among them were Moses, Elias, Eliseus. Isaias, Jercmias,
and Daniel. The series began with Moses (1500 B.C.) and con­
tinued for about a thousand years down to Malachias (450 B.C.).
One of the functions of the prophets was to reveal, with in­
creasing clarity as the centuries rolled by, what the future Messiah
and his kingdom were to be like. Thus they gradually prophesied
concerning his birth—that he would be of the tribe of Juda and
a descendant of King David, that he was to be bom of a virgin at
Bethlehem. They foretold of his wonderful life, his sufferings and
death, his resurrection and glorification in God's kingdom. At
the time when Christ appeared on the scene, expectation was
running high among the Jews; the kingdom of God was near at
hand; the Messiah, “the One who is to come," would soon appear.
But what was the popular idea of God’s kingdom and of the
Messiah who was to establish it? The popular idea, while basically
religious, was predominantly nationalistic and materialistic. It
identified the kingdom of God with the kingdom of Israel. The
Messiah was to be a Warrior-King who would not only free Israel
from foreign domination but would conquer the world, bringing
it into subjection to Israel and, through it, to the one true God.
From Jerusalem this Warrior-King would come to rule the world.
Thereupon a Golden Age of peace and unlimited prosperity
would begin for the Jewish people. In this nationalistic and ma­
terialistic concept of the Messiah and his kingdom there was no
room for a heavenly kingdom nor for a Messiah who would suf­
fer and die a terrible death, for a Messiah-Priest who would offer
up his life in atonement for the sins of mankind. Although this
aspect of his coming was clearly contained in the prophecies con­
cerning the redeemer who was to come and, above all, in the
prophecies of Isaias,20 it was completely ignored by his Jewish
compatriots. This in brief was the popular idea of the approach­
ing kingdom of God and of the Messiah who was to establish it.
This idea had, as we shall see in a moment, a profound influence
not only upon the reception that the Jews gave to Christ but even
upon the way in which he presented himself to them as the
promised Redeemer.
so. Cf. Iiaias, chapter 53.

CHAPTER HI

Christ’s Claims

WHO was this man Jesus Christ? Who did he claim to be? What
proofs did he present for his astounding claims? For an answer to
these questions we turn to the New Testament. This, the second
part of the Bible, is made up of twenty-seven "books.” First of
all, we have four Gospels, written by four of his followers: Mat­
thew, Mark, Luke, and John; then comes an account of the ac­
tivities of the apostles, the Acts of the Apostles; next we find
twenty-one letters written by some of his apostles and disciples:
and, finally, we have one prophetic book written by John, namely,
the Apocalypse. Our attention is focussed primarily on the
four Gospels. What do they have to say about Christ and his ex­
traordinary claims? Let us examine their account of his life and
death.
I.

CHRIST’S LIFE AND DEATH

Jesus Christ was born into this world almost two thousand
years ago at Bethlehem, a little town in Judea, five miles south of
Jerusalem, the holy city of the Jews. He was, to all external ap­
pearances, the son of Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, and his
wife, Mary.1 Most of his life was passed in the quiet obscurity of
Nazareth. But when he was just past thirty-one years of age, he
came forth from Nazareth and began his public ministry. During
two years and three months he journeyed back and forth through
i. Maith. 13, 55.
»6

Christ’s Claims

vj

Palestine, bringing the good tidings, the "words of God,” to man­
kind.’
Who did this man claim to be? He taught that he was the
Messiah, the redeemer promised to mankind by God. As such, he
laid claim to a threefold office; he was, he said, a king, a prophet
or teacher, and a priest.3 He made an even more startling claim,
one so breath-taking in its sublimity as to be, humanly speaking,
incredible. He taught that in the unity of the Godhead there are
three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that he himself
was the incarnate Son of God, who had come down on earth for
the redemption of the human race.
His Jewish compatriots, God’s chosen people, rejected his
claims. Why? Several reasons can be offered. First of all, the
Jewish people at that time were, for the most part, morally cor­
rupt. Josephus, the Jewish historian, says that, had not the Ro­
mans punished them, some other catastrophe would have struck
them down. Their evil minds were closed to the message of Christ.
Secondly, their leaders, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Christ
vehemently. After he had condemned their pride, arrogance, and
hypocrisy, they bitterly opposed him in every possible way.
Finally, the Jews had misinterpreted some of the prophecies con­
cerning the promised redeemer. Blinded by nationalism and ma­
terialism, they looked for a temporal, rather than a spiritual king,
for a warrior-king under whose leadership they would destroy
their enemies and conquer the world.
Not only did the Jews reject his claims but, for making them,
he suffered death as a blasphemer, a horrible and ignominious
death by crucifixion.

II.

IN THE BEGINNING HIS CLAIMS WERE OBSCURE

The statement that Jesus claimed to be the promised redeemer
has to be qualified in one respect. Jesus did not clearly state that
he was the Messiah at the beginning of his ministry. As you know,
many of the Jews expected the Messiah to be a glorious, victorious
king. They looked for a Deliverer from the yoke of the Gentiles
rather than a Saviour from their sins. This error about the mis­
sion of the Messiah was due in great part to the apocryphal
literature that was widely disseminated during the two cen’· John 8. 34! 8. 473. John 14, 6.

aS

Evidence for Our Faith

tunes prior to the birth of Christ. Moreover, the intensely na­
tionalistic Jews stressed those prophecies which foretold the
triumph of the Messiah and skipped over any reference to his
sufferings.
If Jesus had said that he was the Messiah at the beginning
of his ministry, the Jews would have misunderstood his claim. No
doubt, he would have caused an uproar for the Jews were ready
to make him king (John 6, 15). Thus before he made an explicit
claim, he made clear what sort of a Messiah he was claiming to be.
The progressive manifestation of his claim to be Messiah is evi­
dent in all the Gospels, especially in St. Matthew’s. Note the
following texts: Matt. 3, 14; 4, 17; 7, 29; 9, 6; 9, 27; 10, 22; 11,
1-6: 13, 16-17; 13, 37; 15, 22; 16, 13-20; 17, 9; 17, 22; 19, 29; 20,
17; 21, 9; 23, 10; 24, 5. The proof that Jesus is the Messiah is not
essential to the progression of our argument. Harnack admits
Jesus claimed to be Messiah. He wrote: "To say nothing of any­
thing else, such a story as that of Christ's entry into Jerusalem
would have to be simply expunged, if the theory is to be main­
tained that he did not consider himself the promised Messiah and
also desire to be accepted as such." 3·
Similarly, the statement that Jesus claimed to be God has to
be qualified and indeed in two respects. First of all, he did not go
around loudly asserting that claim. On the contrary, he avoided
any clear statement for a long time (Matt. 16, 15; John 10, 24).
Secondly, he did not claim to be God only; he claimed also to be
man. Indeed, he insisted on that fact. Apparently, it was the only
reason why he told his Apostles of his temptations in the desert;
why he permitted them to witness his human weakness in the gar­
den of Gethsemani. He seemed to fear that they would forget
about his humanity once they realized he was divine.
Why did Jesus avoid any clear statement of his divinity? The
reasons are obvious if you consider what would have resulted from
a premature assertion. Neither the Apostles nor the Jews would
have believed him. Sinners would have been frightened away.
The Apostles would not have been prepared for such a
surprising revelation. For centuries, the Jews had suffered cruel
persecutions rather than deny that God is one. They never
thought that God would become man. As good Jews, they were
3a. H'hat is Chrutianityt, New York (Putnam's), >908, pp. 140-141.

Christ’s Claims

39

filled with profound respect and awe for the majesty of God. In
their minds, God meant the Supreme Being who had made the
world and who was infinitely different from anyone else. Imagine
their amazement if Jesus, who appeared to be only a man, had
asserted in the beginning that he was God. Without doubt, they
would have walked no more with him (John 6, 67). Indeed, their
slowness to believe, after three years of miraculous education, sur­
prised even our Lord (Mark 8, 21).
The Jews would have killed him. Even after they had wit­
nessed innumerable miracles, they refused to listen to his claims.
If he had stated clearly that he was God, they would have stoned
him. In fact, they were ready to do so on several occasions "be­
cause thou, who art a man, dost pretend to be God" (John 10,
M)·
Finally, the sinners whom he came to save would have feared
him. Since the Jews pictured God as a stern and just Master,
they would have dreaded his approach. They had to leant that
God is loving and kind by experimental discovery that Jesus was
loving and kind. They had to leant Christ bit by bit, then bit by
bit realize that he was God.4
Jesus avoided any clear statements until the proper time would
come by closing the mouths of the witnesses and by using the
title "Son of Man.” From the first he silenced the demoniacs
when they hailed him as the Son of God (Mark 1, 23: 3, 11; 5, 7).
This was a strong proof that he thought he was God, for you do
not silence speculation when you can dispose of it more easily
by a denial.
In like manner, he silenced his disciples when they began to
perceive his true nature. Thus, when Peter confessed his faith
at Caesarea Philippi, "he strictly charged them not to tell any­
one about him" (Mark 8, 30; cf. Matt. 16, 20). After the Trans­
figuration, he again warned them, "do not tell anybody of what
you have seen, until the Son of Man has risen from the dead"
(Matt. 17, 9).
Publicly, Jesus often avoided any clear statement by referring
to himself as the “Son of Man." In the Gospels, he used this
4. Cf. Mabie Ward and F. J. Sheed, Catholic Evidence Training Outlinei,
London (Sheed & Ward). 1939, p. 194; Sheed, Theology and Sanity, New
York (Sheed & Ward), 1946, pp. 54-60.

Evidence for Our Faith

jo

title eighty times. Since it aroused the curiosity of the Jews, it
served a useful purpose. It led them to investigate further his
claims. "Who is this Son of Man" (John 12, 34)? Although the
prophet Daniel (Daniel 7, 14) had used this title in reference to
the Messiah, the Jews were never sure what Jesus meant by it.
Not until his trial did he bring out its full significance.®
While Jesus was refraining from any clear-cut claim, he was
carefully preparing his disciples and the Jews for belief in him
as God. At first he made implicit claims. They watched him doing
things, and heard him saying things that only God has a right
to do and say. As the truth slowly dawned upon them, he made
his claims more clear, more explicit. Eventually, they realized that
his way of acting, speaking, thinking was quite natural if he was
God but totally inexplicable, if he were only a man.

III.

IMPLICIT CLAIMS

Jesus claimed to be God by his actions and by his words. When
the Jews suspect he is claiming to be God due to his actions, he
often strengthens their suspicions by his words. He permits the
truth to dawn slowly upon them so that they will have no excuse,
if they reject him. When his disciples fail to grasp the full import
of his actions, he instructs them by his words. After they are bet­
ter prepared he makes his claim clearer. As a great teacher, he
leads them gradually to the point where they perceive the truth.
Ultimately, he publicly and explicitly states his divinity.

A.

He Perfects the Law of Moses

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus perfects the moral law
given by God to the Jews through Moses. “Do not think that I
have come to set aside the law and the prophets; I have not come
to set them aside but to bring them to perfection" (Matt. 5, 17).
Unlike the prophets, he does not appeal to any divine commis­
sion. He speaks as one conscious of his own divine knowledge and
authority. Thus he does not hesitate to perfect the law of Moses
(Matt. 5). "You have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not com­
mit adultery. But I tell you that he who casts his eyes on a woman
so as to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in
5. Cf. M. J. Lagrange, The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Westminster (Newman),
1938, II, SS7-

Christ’s Claims

his heart. . . . You have heard that it was said, Thou shalt love
thy neighbor and hate thy enemy. But I tell you. Love your ene­
mies, do good to those who hate you . ..." 8
If we remember that in the Jewish mind Moses and the Law
were inseparably linked with Jahve, it is difficult to explain the
attitude of Jesus, save in the sense that he considered himself to
be equal to Jahve.
B.

He Is Superior to Prophets and Kings

Jesus is conscious that he is superior to the most exalted proph­
ets and kings. "Then, turning to his own disciples, he said. Blessed
are the eyes that see what you see; I tell you, there have been many
prophets and kings who have longed to see what you see, and
never saw it, to hear what you hear, and never heard it" (Luke
10, 23-24).
He declares that he is greater than Jonah and Solomon whom
the Jews venerated (Matt. 12, 41-42). Indeed, he is the Lord of
the angels whom he calls his servants and whom he surpasses in
knowledge (Matt. 13, 14). Often he implies that he is Son of God.
When he teaches the disciples to pray, for example, he tells them:
"When you pray, you are to say, our Father . . ." (Luke 11, a).
But nowhere else in the Gospels do we find these words. Instead
he always distinguishes between “my Father” and "your Father.”
Evidently, he thought of himself as Son of God in a special sense,
not even shared by the apostles themselves.7

C.

He Claims Utter Allegiance

Without a doubt, Jesus claimed a devotion which no mere
man can demand. A person must be ready to give up father and
mother, brother and sister, for his sake (Matt. 10, 37-39). Indeed,
a person must be willing to give up life itself; to take up the cross
and follow him (Luke 9, 24). Love of him wins forgiveness of sins
(Luke 7, 41-49). Towards him, men cannot be neutral. "He who
is not with me, is against me; and he who does not gather his
store with me, scatters it abroad" (Matt. 12, 30).
He accepts the adoration of men as something perfectly normal
6. Note the repeated emphatic form of address "But I tell you . . ."
7. Cf. Matt. 7, si; to, 3s; 11, 27; is. 50; 15. 13: 16, 17: t8. 10; so. tj: 24. 36;
s6, 29; Mark 8, 38; 13, 3s; 14, 36; Luke s. 49; 9,16; io. st: st. 19; 24, 49.

j2

Evidence for Our Faith

and natural. "And the ship's crew came and said, falling at his
feet, Thou art indeed the Son of God" (Matt. 14, 33; cf. Matt. 8,
»: 15. *5)·
D.

He Will Judge All Men

God alone can judge fairly the thoughts, words, and deeds of
billions of men. Christ declares that he will do this. "The Son
of Man will come hereafter . . . and he will recompense every­
one, then, according to his works" (Matt. 16, 27). He will reward
men according to what they have done for him (Matt. 25, 34-46).
The final judgment for all men will be either "come to me" or
"depart from me” (Matt. 25, 31-46). Although these assertions
may seem ordinary to us, for we are accustomed to think of Christ
as God, it is easy to imagine how they amazed the Jews of his
time. According to Jewish tradition, God alone would judge the
world.
While he warns men of the judgment, he offers them his as­
sistance. "Come to me, all you that labour and are burdened; I
will give you rest. Take my yoke upon yourselves, and learn
from me; 1 am gentle and humble of heart; and you shall find
rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light"
(Matt. 11, 28-30).

£. He Demands the Same Reverence as His
Father Receives
As the months passed, Jesus revealed more clearly the intimate
relationship that existed between the Father and the Son. It
was a revelation which prepared the way for the declaration of
identity of nature in Father and Son. On one occasion, for ex­
ample, when the Jews were displeased because he cured a man
on the Sabbath, Jesus declares: "My Father has never ceased
working and I too must be at work" (John 5, 17). Although he
does not state explicitly his equality with God, for the proper time
had not yet come, his reasoning takes it for granted. The Jews real­
ized this, for they accused him of blasphemy. "He not only broke
the Sabbath, but spoke of God as his own Father, thereby treating
himself as equal to God."
In reply, Jesus urges them to believe that the Father loves the
Son, and discloses to him all that he himself does. "And . . .
just as the Father bids the dead rise up and gives them life, so

Christ's Claims

jj

the Son gives life to whomsoever he will. So it is with judgment:
the Father, instead of passing judgment on any man himself, has
left all judgment to the Son, so that all may reverence lhe Son
just as they reverence the Father . .
(John 5, 21-23).
Jesus goes on to point out the reasons why they should believe
in him. First of all, he recalls the testimony of John the Baptist
to whom the Jews are now favorably disposed. He reminds them
how John had borne witness to the truth by pointing him out as
the one who was to come after him.
Jesus, however, does not depend on human testimony, though
the testimony of this last of the prophets should not be over­
looked. There was a further testimony of a more conclusive char­
acter, namely, the testimony of miracles by which men might
recognize that a person was sent by God. Thus Moses and the
prophets had convinced their forefathers. Now the Jews should
know and believe as a result of his miracles that his Father had
sent him.
Finally, Jesus appeals to the Scriptures, which the Jews studied
so diligently, for they bear witness to him. Because they were more
interested in obtaining a reputation for learning than in the
truth, Jesus concludes that Moses, the very man in whom the
Jews put their trust, will be their accuser before his Father.·
“If you believed Moses, you would believe me; it is of me that he
wrote."
F.

He Alone Knows God's Mind and God
Alone Knows His

When the seventy-two disciples returned from their first mis­
sion, Jesus thanks his Father for opening their eyes to the truth.
At this time, Jesus was filled with gladness by the Holy Spirit, and said.
O Father, who art Lord of heaven and earth. I give thee praise that
thou hast hidden all this from the wise and prudent, and revealed it to
little children. Be it so, Lord, since this finds favour in thy sight. My
Father has entrusted everything into my hands; none knows what the
Son is, except the Father, and none knows what the Father is, except
the Son, and those to whom it is the Son's good pleasure to reveal him
(Luke 10, 21-22; cf. Matt. 11, 25-27; John 10, 15).

In these simple words there is hidden a wealth of meaning.
Jesus alone perfectly knows the Father because he is the Son of
8.

Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., I. 240-243.

y

Evidence for Our Faith

God. Like the Father, he is omniscient. The Son is perfectly
known by the Father alone for he is as incomprehensible as the
Father. All created beings are shut off from his knowledge proper
to God himself—except in so far as the Son communicates
it to them. Because this passage evidently testifies to his divinity,
rationalists have endeavored to throw doubt upon it. Fortu­
nately, "it is so well attested by manuscript tradition and by the
versions that not a single editor of the gospels has ever dared to
alter it." ·
G. He Forgives Sins

Note how Christ forgives sins, not by calling upon God, but
by his own authority. The scribes quickly perceive the fact that
he assumes the role of God, for sin is an offense against God him­
self.
And at this, some of the saibes said to themselves, He is talking blas­
phemously. Jesus read their minds, and said, Why do you cherish wicked
thoughts in your hearts? Tell me, which command is more lightly given,
to say to a man, Thy sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise up, and walk?
And now, to convince you that the Son of Man has authority to forgive
sins while he is on earth (here he spoke to the palsied man), Rise up,
take thy bed with thee, and go home. And he rose up, and went back
to his house, so that the multitudes were filled with awe at seeing it . . .
(Matt. 9, 3-8).
On another occasion, Jesus forgives the sins of Mary Magdalen.
The Pharisee, Simon, was shocked because Jesus permitted a pub­
lic sinner to approach him and kiss his feet. Jesus reads his
thoughts. He contrasts Magdalen's love for him with Simon's want
of love. Because she loves Jesus, her sins are forgiven. “Then he
said to her, Thy sins are forgiven. And his fellow-guests there­
upon thought to themselves, Who is this, that he even forgives
sins?" (Luke 7, 48-50).

H. He Works Miracles

In the next chapter we shall discuss his miracles at greater
length. Here we merely wish to note his manner of working them.
Unlike the prophets and saints of the Old Testament, Jesus never
prays for a miracle. Always the actual word which heals is his own
ipse dixit. On every occasion he gives the impression that this
9.

Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., II, 8.

Christ's Claims
miraculous power is proper to him and that he can use it when
he pleases. In fact, he grants the disciples power to work miracles
in his name (Luke 10, 17-19).
Obviously, some of these implicit claims, which we have been
considering, are clearer than others. But they all indicate that
Jesus’ way of acting and speaking was quite natural if he was God
but totally inexplicable, if he were only a man. By means of the
implicit claims, Jesus gradually prepared his disciples for the
more explicit claims.

IV. EXPLICIT CLAIMS
When the disciples were disposed to believe that he was the
Son of God, Jesus made his claim more explicit.in Eventually, his
claim was so clear that no Jew could plead ignorance of it. In
fact, Jesus warns the Jews on several occasions: “If you were
children of God, you would welcome me gladly; it was from God
I took mv origin, from him I have come” (John 8, 42).

A.

He Has Pre-Existed with the Father

When Jesus tells the Jews that a man who is true to his word
will never see death, the Jews ask him: "Art thou greater than our
father Abraham? He is dead, and the prophets are dead. What dost
thou claim to be?” (John 8, 53).
In reply, Jesus is almost forced to assert his rightful rank. If he
did not do so, he would lead them into error. Thus he confesses
that he is greater than Abraham. In fact, Abraham rejoiced to see
his day. When the astounded Jews asked him: "Hast thou seen
Abraham, thou, who are not yet fifty years old? And Jesus said to
them, Believe me, before ever Abraham came to be, I am" (John
8. 57-58).
Since Abraham had lived over a thousand years before, the Jews
realized that Jesus was claiming to be divine. "Whereupon they
took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went
out of the temple.”

B.

He is Equal to the Father

On another occasion the Jews asked him if he was the Messiah
(cf. John 10, 22-39). Jesus refused to answer by a simple affirma*
10. Evidently this division between implicit and explicit claims i» somewhat
arbitrary.

Evidence for Our Faith

$6

tion. Since the Jews had a false notion of the Messiah, it was a
dangerous confession to make. Moreover, it would be only a par­
tial truth, for he was much more than that.
So he reminds them again of his miracles which prove that the
Father loves him. He promises them eternal life if they will put
their trust in him. Simply he states the greatest truth of all, "My
Father and I are one."
Previously, he had called himself God’s Son who has the same
knowledge and same power as the Father (Luke to, 22; cf. Matt,
it, 27; John 5, 17-20). Here he distinguishes himself from the
Father. They are two distinct persons, yet in some mysterious way
they are one. The Jews are sure he is blaspheming—making him­
self equal to God. They pick up stones to kill him.
But the Master calms their minds by professing his respect for
Scripture and still more for him who gave the Scriptures. Thus
he gives them time for reflection though he has no intention of
withdrawing his declaration. They should know that he does not
wish to diminish the worship due his Father, much less take his
place. Again, he appeals to his actions. From them the Jews should
learn to believe that "the Father is in me, and I in him.” Thus
he reasserts his first statement in all its fullness. The infuriated
Jews tried to lay hold of him but he escaped.

C.

St. Peter’s Confession

Although St. Peter’s confession had occurred before the mission
of the seventy-two disciples, we purposely delayed its considera­
tion, for it was a revelation limited to a few who were requested
not to divulge it until the Son of Man had risen from the dead
(Matt. 16, 13-17)· Prior to his confession, the disciples had fol­
lowed Jesus for over two years. They had seen him doing things
and heard him saying things that only God has a right to say and
do.
Often, they reflected upon what they had seen and heard, "And
they were overcome with awe; Why, who is this, they said to one
another, who is obeyed even by the winds and the sea?" (Mark 4,
40; cf. Luke 8, 49). Slowly, they began to surmise who he was:
"And the ship's crew came and said, falling at his feet, Thou art
indeed the Son of God” (Matt. 15, 33). As a great teacher, Jesus
did not tell them who he was; but he led them to the point
where they told him.

Christ's Claims

yj

When he knew they were prepared, he questioned them about
what men said concerning him. Thus he paved the way for the
expression of their own thoughts. His life and works had been so
marvelous that no person could take him for an ordinary man. So
the disciples replied that some thought he was John the Baptist,
others Elias, still others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. Jesus
said to them, And what of you? Who do you say that 1 am? Then
Simon Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God.”
Had Jesus not been the Son of God, he would have shown a
holy indignation at Peter's bold utterance. At all events, he was
obliged to make some answer. The answer he made still resounds
in our ears, day by day and age after age. "Blessed art thou, Simon
son of Jona; it is not flesh and blood, it is my Father in heaven
who has revealed this to thee."
So certain and spontaneous is Peter’s perception of his divine
nature that Jesus knows it is due to a revelation from God the
Father. Jesus, therefore, in the name of his Father confirms what
Peter had said of him. He is truly the Son of God. His subsequent
words and deeds will strengthen their incipient faith.11
Then Jesus foretells the future role of Simon in his church. As
a sign of his future position, Jesus gives him a new name
"Cephas," the Aramaic word for rock. In Greek the word for rock
is "petros” from which we get the name "Peter.” Later we will
consider the words of Christ in this regard. At present we are con­
cerned only with his claim to be the Son of God.

D.

The Transfiguration

Six days after Peter’s confession, a most extraordinary event in
the life of Jesus, the Transfiguration, took place1’ (cf. Matt. 17.
1-8; Mark 9, 2-8; Luke g, 28-36). The Evangelists note the exact
time between the two events because the Transfiguration was a
miraculous confirmation of the faith Peter confessed.1* As wit11. Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., I, 257-263.
12. Cf. Lagrange, op. cit., I, 268.
13. Relying upon internal evidence alone, Albert Schweitzer conclude» that
the Evangelists were wrong in placing Peter's confession before the Trans­
figuration. Moreover, he says: "What we call the Transfiguration is in reality
nothing else but the revelation of the secret of tnessiahship to the Three."
Most Christians would prefer the testimony of the Evangelists who lived with
Christ to the opinion of Schweitzer. This is a good example of how the so-

jS

Evidence for Our Faith

nesset Jews selected Peter who was the appointed head of the
Apostles, John who was the beloved disciple, and his brother
fames who would be the first Apostle to shed his blood for the
gospel.
Jesus had told the Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would
believe me: it was of me that he wrote." Here Moses comes from
heaven to bear witness to him. Elias also is present. Thus the
greatest representatives of Israel’s past pay homage to Christ and
forewarn the Apostles of his approaching death.
For the first time the Apostles see Jesus in the glory that prop­
erly belongs to him. At Peter's confession, Jesus had accepted the
title of Son of God. "And now, there was a voice which said to
them out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am
well pleased: to him, then listen." This voice could only be the
voice of the Father.
Imagine the tremendous impact this miracle must have had
upon the Apostles. Before their very eyes Jesus was transfigured—
his face shining like the sun and his garments becoming white as
snow. From a shining cloud, they heard the voice of the Father
acknowledging Jesus as his beloved Son. No doubt they wished to
spread the news immediately throughout Israel. But Jesus warned
them to tell no man until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.
E.

The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen

The parable of the Wicked Husbandmen drew back still more
the veil from his Divinity. At the same time it served as a terrible
warning to the Jews. The parable presents no difficulty.
And now he took occasion to tell the people this parable; There was a
man who planted a vineyard, and let it out to some vine-dressers, while
he went away to spend a long time abroad. And when the season came,
he sent one of his servants on an errand to the vine-dressers, bidding
them pay his share of die vineyard’s revenues. Whereupon the vine­
dressers beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. Then he sent an­
other servant; and him too they sent away empty-handed, beating him
first, and insulting him. Then he sent a third; and they drove him away
wounded, like the others. So the owner of the vineyard said, What am I
to do? I will send my well-beloved son; perhaps they will have reverence
called critics of the Gospel do not let historical facts interfere with their
suppositions. Cf. Morley, The Theology of Albert Schweitzer, New York
(Macmillan), 1951, p. j6.

Christ's Claims

39

for him. But the vine-dressers, on seeing him, debated thus among
themselves; This is the heir, let us kill him, so that his inheritance may
pass into our hands. And they thrust him out of the vineyard and killed
him. And now, what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He
will come and make an end of those vine dressers, and give his vineyard
to others. God forbid, they said, when they heard that (Luke 20, 9-19).

It was an unforgettable warning given to men who were ob­
stinately denying his mission and rights. Their forefathers had
persecuted the prophets. Now they were ready to murder his Son.
F.

His Trial before Caiphas

The night before he died Jesus testified under oath before all
the leaders and priests of Judea that he was the Son of God. Grad­
ually, Christ had built up to this dramatic moment. At first, he
aroused the curiosity of the Jews by his life, his wisdom and his
works. Then he made them wonder still more by his implicit
claims to be God and by a number of astounding miracles. When
the Jews accused him time after time of claiming to be equal to
God, he never denied it. In fact, he continued to say and do
things that only God has a right to say and do. Finally, he made
his claim so clear that all the Jews could understand it.
The case of Christ became the question of the hour in Judea.
The common people loved and admired him. But the leaders and
priests, filled with envy and hatred, were determined to put him
to death. They tried to convict him by false witnesses. But since
they could not agree, Caiphas, the high priest, was finally forced
to ask the crucial question.

Then the high priest stood up, and asked Jesus, Hast thou no answer
to make to the accusations these men bring against thee? He still was
silent, still did not answer; and the high priest questioned him again,
Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? Jesus said to him, I am.
And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of God's
power, and coming with the clouds of heaven. At this, the high priest
tore his garments, and said, What further need have we of witnesses?
You have heard his blasphemy for yourselves; what is your finding? And
they all pronounced against him a sentence of death (Mark 14, 60-64;
cf. Matt. a6, 62-67; Luke 22, 66-71).
Thus before all the leaders and priests of Judea, Jesus openly
asserts his Divinity. In the future, no one could be justifiably
ignorant of his claim.

Evidence for Our Faith

(0

In reply to Caiphas' question Jesus, first of all, admits that he
is the Christ (Messiah) foretold by all the prophets. Since the
Messiah was expected to come to earth in great glory, Jesus ex­
plains his answer. In effect, he said: "I am the Christ but it is
not now but hereafter that you will see me come on the clouds
of heaven seated at the right hand of my Father."
Secondly, Jesus asserts that he is truly the Son of God. He who
always had been careful to make distinctions answers the high
priest's question without any qualification. He realized that the
Jews understood by these words that he was making himself equal
to God. Unless he qualified his statement, he knew that he would
be put to death. Evidently, his words stated exactly what he
meant. In testimony to their truth he laid down his life.
In the eyes of the Sanhedrin his reply was blasphemy. He made
himself equal to God. To express his horror and reprobation of
it, the high priest tore his garments. "What further need have we
of witnesses?” he cried. "You have heard his blasphemy for your­
selves; what is your finding?" It only remained to take the vote.
Jesus was condemned to death for blasphemy (cf. Deut. 13, 2-6).
As Ronald A. Knox says:

The force of the foregoing arguments is perhaps best realized if the
reader will put to himself the following question: ‘If Jesus of Nazareth
did not claim to be God, what did he claim to be?* Is it credible that
he did what he did, said what he said, hinted what he hinted, kept
silence where he kept silence, and finally answered the challenge of
Caiphas without a word of qualification, of explanation, or of selfdefence, if all the time he belonged; and was conscious of belonging to
any order of Being less than divine?M
G.

Confirmation

Finally, there is no reasonable explanation for the firm belief of
the apostles and first Christians in the divinity of Christ, except
the fact that Christ had claimed to be God. It is unbelievable that
the first Jewish Christians would have adored Jesus as God unless
he had convinced them of his divinity. This faith of the first Chris­
tians in the divinity of Christ was so strong that they suffered
scourgings and death itself rather than deny it. It is evident in all
their writings.
The Acts of the Apostles, for example, written by St. Luke
14. Ronald A. Knox, The Belief of Catholics, New York (Sheed & Ward),
1940. pp. in-nt.

Christ's Claims

before the year 65, shows this faith. God and Jesus are indiscrim­
inately called "the Lord.” Jesus is regarded as the "author of life."
that is, God (Acts 3, 15). He is worshipped as God (Acts 7, 55, 59;
9. 14, 21 ; 22, 18). In his name, the apostles work countless miracles
(Acts 3, 6; 9, 34). The first martyr, Stephen, sees Jesus, the Lord
of all, ready to welcome him. "Lord Jesus, he said, receive my
spirit; and then, kneeling down, he cried aloud, Lord, do not
count this sin against them” (Acts 7, 58-59).
St. Peter begins his Second Epistle with the words: "Simon
Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who share
with me the common privilege of faith, justified as we are by our
God and Saviour Jesus Christ . , ." St. Peter reminds his readers
that he witnessed Jesus' divine glory at the transfiguration and
heard the voice of God the Father saying: “This is my beloved
Son, in whom I am well pleased; to him, then, listen" (a Peter, 1,
>7)·
V. CONCLUSION
Our conviction that Christ claimed to be God is founded on
ample and clear evidence found in proven historical documents.
As we have seen, Jesus gradually revealed his divinity to his dis­
ciples by his actions and by his words. Eventually, they realized
that his way of acting and speaking was quite natural if he was
God but totally inexplicable, if he were only a man. When they
were properly disposed to believe, Jesus stated his claim explicitly.
Before all the leaders and priests of Judea, he asserts under oath
that he is truly the Son of God. Though he faced death, he refused
to qualify this claim. In testimony of its truth, he laid down his
life. And the first Christians were willing to suffer persecution and
death rather than deny his divinity.

THE QUESTION CONCERNING CHRIST
Supplementary reading from Ludwig Koesters, The Believer’s
Christ, St. Louis (Herder), 1939, pp. 1-4.

This question has aroused the most intense interest in the past
and continues to do so today; no other problem has given rise to
so much speculation or produced so extensive a literature. And

Evidence for Our Faith
small wonder. The question about Christ is not only one of the
most interesting and diflicult problems for the psychologist, the
historian, and the student of religions: it is much more a question
of conscience for millions, a question that engages the earnest
attention of every thoughtful person. Three hundred and eighty,
two million ( atholics profess as an article of faith, that is. they
arc firmly convinced, that Jesus Christ is tnie God, because he has
been announced and confirmed by the Almighty Himself as the
consubstantial Son of God and, therefore, as true God himself.
This faith in the divinity of Christ has for its object the historical
Christ who was "born of the Virgin Mary" in “Bethlehem, the
city of David," under the "Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus"
and "Cyrinus, the governor of Syria”; he "suffered under Pontius
Pilate," the historically known procurator of Judea, was "cruci­
fied, died and was buried." The Church's faith in Christ recognizes
no distinction between the "Christ of history” and the “Christ of
faith.” Of die three hundred and fifty-one million Christians who
are not part of the Roman Catholic Church, the great majority
have preserved faith in the divinity of Christ as a sacred inherit­
ance from their fathers.
Faith in Christ, acceptance of his divinity, is a fact. The indi­
vidual, faced with the question about Christ, has only one of two
choices. Either he embraces this faith or he rejects it. There is no
middle ground. Either Jesus Christ is the consubstantial Son of
God or he is not. But if he is really the Son of God, then Chris­
tianity is the only true religion, the religion revealed by God;
then Christianity is of strict obligation for every man; then
Christ's word is the highest norm, and all contrary points of view
must give way before it; then the Christian's faith and the Chris­
tian's hope for time and for eternity are built upon a strong and
solid foundation.
Or Christ is not true God. In that case, he is merely a man like
any other. In that case, his words and precepts may indeed be
interesting and worth knowing, but they are not of obligation;
for then Christianity is merely one of the many systems which the
history of religions tells of, systems that succeed and supplant one
another, systems that we study but do not profess. Then anyone
is entitled to explain and recast Christianity according to his own
pleasure. But then, also, faith in Christ is a false doctrine, the
deification of a man, not conceived as the caprice of a polytheistic

Christ's Claims

mythology, but in all earnestness as the monotheistic adoration of
the one, eternal God—hence a blasphemy, a terrible mistake or
a shocking deception, whether the blame for this error or decep­
tion lies with Jesus himself or with Christianity. Even though
we choose a vaguer and less severe term, the fact remains. Who­
ever admits a contradiction between the objective truth concern­
ing Christ and the traditional faith in Christ no longer has the
right to call himself a Christian in the sense in which uncounted
millions of those faithful to Christ have used and continue to use
this designation. . . .
There is no other way out; no compromise is possible. The de­
cisive question demands an unconditional Yes or No for an an­
swer. When many call Christ the greatest and wisest of men, they
are not answering the question.

CHAPTER IV

The Historicity

of the Gospels

CHRIST claimed to be the promised redeemer. He made a far
greater claim than this, namely, to be the incarnate Son of God.
These claims were rejected by the chosen people. Since that day
many men have sought, by every conceivable subterfuge, to deny
that Christ even made the claims attributed to him. One of the
most drastic of these attacks was made within two hundred years
after the Protestant Reformation. It was made by the Rationalists
and by their converts within Christianity itself, namely, the
Libeial Protestants. The original, or what is now called the Con­
servative, Protestants had placed the Bible on a lofty pedestal as
the inspired word of God; it was the one and only rule of faith.1
Now the pendulum swings in the opposite direction, and a new
brand of Protestantism comes into being. The Liberal Protestants,
succumbing to the attacks of the eighteenth century Rationalists,
rejected the historical value of the New Testament and, in par­
ticular, of the four Gospels. That is why we must defend their
historicity before we examine the proofs that Christ offered in
justification of his claims.

I. THE GOSPEL CRITICS
The roots of the Liberal Protestant attitude towards the Gos­
pels may be traced back to the Renaissance and the Reformation.
1. Why Protestants believe the Bible is inspired is a mystery. There is noth­
ing in the text itself to prove it is.
11

The Historicity of the Gospels

43

The student who is interested may study this historical back
ground in the first volume of Carleton J. Hayes’ splendid work.
Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe.1 Without
doubt, the Renaissance brought about a change in man's point
of view. In the Middle Ages, men were conscious of this allimportant truth that material creation is subordinate to man and
man is subordinate to God. The Renaissance dimmed this con­
sciousness by centering man's attention upon himself through the
art forms of pagan culture. The beauty of the art and the fine
literary forms made men unaware of the errors which they
clothed. Without directly opposing the faith, the Renaissance
promoted a growing spirit of pride and individualism. In the
sixteenth century, the Protestant revolt from the Church fostered
this spirit. After Luther rejected the authority of the Church,
subsequent reformers denied the authority of Luther and ulti­
mately all authority.
The eighteenth century Rationalists’ presumed as true the
hypothesis that any supernatural intervention of God is impos­
sible. They spoke as if they knew exactly what God can and can­
not do; as if God were unable to change in any way the world
he had created. Eventually, innumerable attempts were made to
bring the traditional faith in Christ into harmony with this false
hypothesis. In other words, the first attacks on the Gospels, after
seventeen hundred years of universal acceptance, did not spring
from a scientific and historical examination of them but from
philosophical prejudices. These futile attacks agreed only in so
î. Carleton J. Hayes, Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe,
New York (Macmillan), 193«, Vol. I.
3. They arc usually referred to as "deists." Deism is a theological term
with two accepted meanings. In a technical sense, Deism refers to a philosophy
that limits divine activity to the creation of the world. It is popularly called
"the doctrine of an absentee-Cod," for it rejects the idea of divine provi­
dence. In a broad sense. Deism means a trend of negative theological thought
that relies upon reason alone. In other words, it û a form of rationalism
consisting primarily in the criticism and denial of the divine inspiration of
Scripture, of miracles and of mysteries. The author of the article on "Deism"
in the Encyclopedia Britannica characterize* the Deists as neither scholars
nor thinkers of more than mediocre ability. Among the leading Deists were
John Toland who wrote Christianity Not Mysterious (1696) and Matthew
Tindale who wrote Christianity as Old as the Creation; or, the Gospel a
Republication of the Religion of Nature (1730). Cf. "Deism.” The Encyclope­
dia Britannica (14th ed.), VII, 144-145.

Evidence for Our Faith

far at they denied the supernatural character of Christ. Often
thev were contradictory and cancelled one another out. This is
evident if you glance at a few of them.
Hermann Rcimarus and Gotthold Lessius, for example, pro­
posed a "deception theory." According to them, Christ was
merely a man. The Gospels were deliberate falsifications of
Christ's life written by Christians in the second century? Some
years later David Strauss'1 changed this theory. According to him,
the authors of the Gospels actually believed what they wrote lor
the followers of Christ had unconsciously accepted more and
more myths about him. Because it would take a long time for
these myths to grow and be accepted as true, Strauss concluded
the Gospels were written in the second or third century. He ad­
mitted, however, that his hypothesis would collapse if any Gospel
was proved to belong to the first century. Today all scholars agree
that at least the first three Gospels were written in the first
century.·
Some modems who follow in the footsteps of Strauss make
Christ the product of Oriental, Babylonian, Egyptian, Syrian, or
Greek myths. Needless to say, no two of them agree. Another
group of "critics” attempted to find a natural explanation for
everything supernatural in the life of Christ.7 The miracle at
Cana, for example, was described as a wedding prank. When Jesus
seemed to be walking on the water, he was really walking on a
rock just beneath the surface. Countless cures were due to fortu­
nate coincidences following mistaken medical analysis. When
Christ fed five thousand men, he merely hypnotized them into
believing they ate and were filled. Even when men permitted
them to alter the Gospel text, it required unlimited faith to accept
their far-fetched suppositions.
4. Rcimarus was a high school teacher in Hamburg. After his death,
Lessing, who was a playwright, published (1774-1778) some of Reimarus' writ­
ings under the title of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments. Although Liberal Protes­
tants today reject this theory, the Communists still repeat it.
5. Strauss was professor of theology at Tubingen. Probably. The Life of
Jesus (1855) is his best-known work.
6. Cf. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore (John Hop­
kins), 1946. p. 292.
7. Cf. Heinrich Paulus. Das Leben Jesu, Heidelburg (Winter). 1828.
Cf. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore (John Hop­
kins), 1946, p. 292.

The Historicity of the Gospels

4η

Even in recent years, many Liberal Protestants have tried to
explain away everything supernatural about Christ by distin­
guishing between the Christ of faith and the Christ of history.'
The latter was merely a man; he did not even claim to be divine.
The Christ of faith is the product of the imaginations of the early
Christians who clothed the human Christ with supernatural qual­
ities. Though the Christ of faith never existed, he is the dynamic
source of the Christian life.
The so-called Critical School aimed to prove by means of lit­
erary and historical criticism that all miracles and mysteries re­
corded in the Gospels were not genuine or were interpolations.·
Most of its members judged the historical value of the Gospels
from internal evidence alone.10 But like their predecessors, they
endeavored to make the Gospel picture of Christ fit into their
preconceived notions.1’ In the beginning their show of scholarship
confused and almost routed the conservative Protestants.
8. The best known exponents of this theory were Loisy and Tyrell. They
were called "modernists."
9. A leader in the early Critical School was Henrich J. Holtzmann. £ pro­
fessor at Strasbourg, who wrote a series on the New Testament. Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament (1889-1890). The leader of the later
Critical School was Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930), who was a professor at
Berlin. In this book, we often refer to his works.
>0. In the past, it has been vitiated under the guise of "higher criticism”
as Pope I.eo XIII pointed out in his Encyclical. Providentissimus Deus.
“There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, digni­
fied by the name of ‘higher criticism,’ which pretends to judge the origin,
integrity and authority of each book from internal indications alone. It is
clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions such as the origin and
handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance,
and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and
that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as con­
firmation. To look upon it in other light will be to open the door to many
evil consequences. ... It will not throw on the Scriptures the light which is
sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to dis­
agreement and dissension, those sure notes of error which the critics in ques­
tion so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them
are tainted with false philosophy and Rationalism, it must lead to the elimi­
nation from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything
else that is outside of the natural order.”
11. In many places Hamack noted how the so-called Critics followed their
preconceived ideas. In regard to the Gospel of St. Matthew, he wrote: “Critics
may call this narrative (story of the infancy in St. Matthew) late, but in saying
this they only express the fact that they find themselves out of sympathy

4S

Evidence for Our Faith

All the critics believed the hypothesis that nothing exists out­
side of the natural order. This dogma of their "faith" compelled
them to deny the possibility of miracles and the divinity of
Christ. Since the New Testament contains miracles, many critics
decided it was not genuine. Others declared the miracles and mys­
teries were interpolations. No two critics agreed on the authors
and dates of the Gospels.
Their scholarship, however, led them towards the truth. Grad­
ually they were forced to set back the date of the composition of
the Gospels until their "high priest,” Adolf Hamack, practically
agreed with the dates assigned by Catholic scholars.12 It is inter­
esting to note the gradual change in Liberal Protestant ideas.
Matthew
Mark
Luke
Strauss (1835) ........... No earlier than the year 150
Baur (1847)............... 130-134
*5°
*5°
Renan (1877) ...........
84
76
a.94
Hamack (1911).........
a.70
a.65
b.63
Indeed, Hamack admitted that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew,
Mark, and Luke) are historical; that they represent Christ as
claiming to be God. He also admitted that St. John wrote the
fourth Gospel. In his opinion, it does not possess the historical
value of the Synoptics. He conceded:
'St John' is also a Jew, and indeed, like ‘St. Matthew,' a Jew of Pales­
tine. If we have called St. John a glorified St. Matthew, because his aim
also is didactic and apologetic, we may with equal justice call him a
glorified St. Mark and St. Luke, for he shares in the aims which domi­
nate both the evangelists. By means of the historic narrative he strives,
like St. Mark, to show that Jesus is the Son of God, and, like St. Luke,
to prove that He is the Saviour of the world, in opposition to the unbe­
lieving Jews and the disciples of St. John the Baptist. Thus the leading
ideas of the synoptists are found in combination in St. John.1’

These were amazing concessions on the part of a Liberal Prot­
estant. Since his death (1930) most Liberal Protestants have made
with it; and to be in sympathy with a narrative of this kind is especially
difficult for us Westerns of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries!" Harnack,
The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, New York (Putnam's Sons),
1911, p. 14t. Cf. Albright, op. cit., p. 293.
is. CL ibid., pp. 124. 162.
13. Hamack. Luke the Physician, New York (Putnam's), igU, p. ιββ, note.

The Historicity of the Gospels

49

similar admissions " though they continue to deny that anything
supernatural belonged to the primitive Gospels. In regard to the
Gospel of St. John, recent discoveries have forced the Liberals to
admit that it was written in the first century.'®
Thus, the Liberal Protestant scholars, contrary to their original
intention, have made the Catholic position stronger than ever be­
fore. Unfortunately these Gospel critics destroyed the faith of
hundreds of thousands in the process. This tragedy has been due
largely to the countless books and pamphlets which popularized
their disbeliefs. Since the conclusions of scholars like Hamack
were not sensational, they were seldom publicized. And ordinary
people rarely questioned the assumptions or noted the contradic­
tions of the earlier critics.

II. PROOF OF THE HISTORICITY OF A DOCL'MExNT
A. Tests of Historicity

Before good historians accept any document as historical, they
examine it to see if it is genuine, trustworthy, and integral.
A document is genuine if it was written by the author whose
14. Sir Frederic Kenyon says: "Since the publication of Harnack's Chro­
nologie der altchristlichen Litteratur in 1897 it has been generally admitted
that, with very few exceptions, the traditional dates of the New Testament
books may be accepted as approximately correct. The doctrines of the school
of Baur, which regarded the earliest Christian books as a tissue of falsifications
of the second century have been exploded. 'That time,' says Harnack, ‘is
over. It was an episode, during which science learnt much, and after which
it must forget much.' Recent discoveries have only confirmed this conclusion."
Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscript!, New York (Harper and Brothers).
1948, p. 98, note.
15. As Albright says: “In view of the extremely late date to which it (the
Gospel of John), has often been assigned, Torrey’s demonstration that it
rests on an Aramaic substratum has been peculiarly resented by many New
Testament scholars, though it has been enthusiastically accepted in principle
by men of the standing of J. de Zwaan (1938). Meanwhile the sensational
publication of a fragment of the Gospel from the early second century
(C. H. Roberts, 1935) and of a roughly contemporary fragment of an apocry­
phal gospel dependent on John (H. 1. Bell. 1935) has dealt the coup de grace
to all radically late dating of John and has proved that the Gospel cannot
be later than the first century A.D. . . . Moreover, the objections to the
authenticity of the Book because of its alleged ignorance of history and
geography have been considerably reduced in recent yean.” Ibid., pp. 198«99·

fO

Evidence for Out Faith

name it bears. A document is trustworthy if the author knew
the facts and told the truth. A document is integral, or com­
plete, if it is substantially the same today as when it was writ­
ten. In other words, nothing very much has been added or taken
away.
Needless to say, a document that has been accepted as genuine,
integral and trustworthy by the contemporaries of the author
should be accorded the same value by succeeding generations
unless sufficient evidence is discovered for rejecting the document.
Moreover, according to the principles of historical criticism, no
part of a genuine, trustworthy and integral document can be re­
jected unless it is proven erroneous.

B. Evidence
To make these tests of the historical value of a document, we
must have evidence. This evidence may be external or internal.
External etidence is obtained from contemporary or later
writers who testify to the historical value of a document. It is
most valuable in establishing the historicity of a document. Eye­
witness accounts, like Caesar's Gallic Wars or St. Matthew's Gos­
pel, are called primary sources because they relate evidence gath­
ered on the spot. Histories written from a study of these documents
are called secondary sources. Strange to say, these may be more
valuable if the author is a good historian who checks, correlates,
and compares the evidence. Part of St. Luke’s Gospel is an exam­
ple, for he diligently questioned those who were “eyewitnesses
from the beginning.”
Internal evidence is derived from the study of the document
itself. Often scholars can determine the author, approximate date,
etc., from tlte persons and events mentioned, the language used,
the idioms and figures of speech employed, and the style of writ­
ing. This involves an examination of meter, parallels, doublets,
as well as correspondence to or divergence from related docu­
ments. From this study they may also ascertain any changes in the
original document. Ordinarily internal evidence is used merely to
confirm conclusions readied by means of external evidence. It is
not used to establish the authenticity of a document unless exter­
nal evidence is lacking. Unfortunately, internal evidence may be
easily vitiated.

TAe Historicity of the Gospels

yi

III. THE HISTORICITY OF THE GOSPELS

We have just seen how the historical value of a document is
established. Notv we must apply the three tests to the Gospels to
determine their historical value. Are they,genuine? In other
words, were they actually written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and
John? Are they trustworthy? In other words, did their authors,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, know the facts and were they
truthful men? Are they integral? In other words, have their writ­
ings come down to us substantially unchanged?
A.

Evidence That the Gospels Are Genuine,

Now we ask the question, who wrote the Gospels? If they were
written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they are genuine.
The best evidence to answer this question is found in documents
written by Christians and non-Christians in the first and second
centuries. These men, from whom we shall quote, were much
nearer to the facts than we are. Many of them either knew the
Evangelists or their immediate successors. Doubt might creep
into our minds if there were any evidence of dispute about this
question among them. But there is none. Evidently, everyone was
convinced that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four
Gospels.18

i.

Testimony

by

Christians

Pope St. Clement, for example, wrote a letter to the Corinthians
(96) to settle a dispute there. In the letter he quotes the Gospels
of Matthew and Luke as authoritative. And he states: "The
Apostles received the Gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ.” ,T
In regard to Pope St. Clement, St. Irenaeus (125-202) writes:
The blessed Apostles (Peter and Paul) having founded and built up the
Church (at Rome), bestowed the episcopal office of administering the
Church on Linus. Paul mentions this Linus in his Epistles to Timothy.
16. In this regard, there is a striking difference between the four Gospels
and the apocryphal gospels. While the latter were attributed by their authors
to St. Peter and other apostles, they were never accepted anywhere as genuine.
Even in the second century, St. Irenaeus points out that there are only four
Gospels, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. CL Against Heretics,
ΠΙ, 1, 1.
17. Letter to the Corinthians, 42.

»a

Evidence for Our Faith

Anaclctus succeeded him and aficr Anaclettis, in the third place from
the apostles, Clement received the bishopric. Since he saw the Apostles
and conversed with them, he would have the preaching of the Apostles
resounding (in his ears), and their Tradition before his eyes. Nor was
he alone in this for there were still many living then who had been
instructed by the Apostles.’»
Papias (65-130) was a bishop in Phyrgia. Although his works
were lost, Eusebius has preserved several valuable quotations from
them. In his History of the Church, he quotes Papias as follows:

The Presbyter also said this: Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down
carefully what he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of Christ,
but not in chronological order. ... So Matthew composed his dis­
courses in Hebrew and everyone interpreted them to the best of his
ability.18
St. Justin (100-164) was a Greek philosopher before his con­
version. In his books he quoted from the Gospels over two hun­
dred and fifty times. Although he does not give the names of the
Evangelists, he speaks of the "commentaries of the apostles which
are called Gospels,"20 and of "the commentaries which I say were
written by his apostles and their disciples." 21
St. Irenaeus (125-202) was a pupil of St. Polycarp who was
taught by St. John the Apostle. Irenaeus states:

Matthew wrote a version of the Gospels for the Hebrews in their own
longue at the time that Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel and
founding the Church at Rome. After their death, Mark, the disciple
and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us the things which were
preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, wrote down in a
book the Gospel that was preached by him. Finally, John, the disciple
of the Lord who had reclined on his breast, published his Gospel while
he was residing in Ephesus. . . . Nor are there more than these, nor
again can you find fewer than these Gospels.22
In his treatise against the heretic Marcion (a. 208), Tertullian
of Africa asserts that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John. He writes:
18. St. Irenaeus, Against Heretics, III, 3, 3. Transi, mine.
19. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. Ill, 39.
20. Apology, I, 66.
21. Dialogue with Trypho, 103.
22. Op. cit., Ill, 1, 1. What a difference between the authority of St.
Irenaeus who dates Matthew's Gospel before 64 A.D. and some rationalists
like Strauss who said (1835) someone else wrote it after 150 A.D.

The Historicity of the Gospels

yj

Of the apostles, John and Matthew impart to us the faith; of the dis­
ciples Luke and Mark renew it. . . . Mark's Gospel is called that of
Peter whose interpreter he was, just as Luke's Gospel is often ascribed
to Paul.23

In respect to the Gospels, the historian, Eusebius, quotes from
the Sixth Hypotyposis of Clement of Alexandria (150-216) the
following passage:

Again, in the same work, Clement also gives the tradition respecting the
order of the Gospels. ... He says that those which contain the gene­
alogies were written first; and that the Gospel of Mark was occasioned
in the following manner; 'When Peter had preached the word publicly
at Rome ... a great number of people requested Mark who was the
companion of Peter and remembered well what he said, to put down
these things in writing.' After Mark completed the task, he gave it to
those who requested it. . . . But John, last of all, thinking that the
references in the other Gospels to the body of Christ were sufficiently
detailed, put in writing, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, a spirit­
ual Gospel.24
2.

Testimony by Non-Christians

According to Hamack, the sources force us to admit that the
heretic Marcion (92-153) considered the Gospels of Matthew and
John to be apostolic.25 Basilides (62-133), another heretic, wrote
23. Against Marcion, IV, 5.
24. Eusebius, op. cit., VI, 14. Daniel J. Saunders points out: "Ironically
enough, Wellhausen, Loisy, Case, and others, who disregard the documents
of the second century, have attempted to make a case against the genuine­
ness of the Fourth Gospel by appealing to the testimony of Georgius Harmartolus (ninth century) and Philip of Side (fifth century), both of whom
hold an early martyrdom for John the apostle. How worthless this testimony
is may be judged from the fact that the document of Georgius which con­
tains the quotation about the early martyrdom also has the tradition about
the long life of John. Secondly, it is by no means clear that Georgius and
Philip are independent witnesses. Thirdly, the latter is well known as a very
poor historian. Fourthly, it is most unlikely that the Church of Asia Minor
would have kept complete silence concerning the glory of John's martyrdom
if he had given up his life for the faith. Finally, there is no evidence of such
a story before the time of Philip; it seems to have been unknown to such
serious investigators as Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian, Origen, and all the
other ecclesiastical writers of the first three centuries." Reason to Revelation,
St. Louis (Herder), 1949, p. 63.
25. Cf. Harnack, "Neue Studien zu Marcion," Texte unit Unterschungen,
XL1V, 4. »9«3· P- »«■ n- »■

Evidence for Our Faith
a commentary on the four Gospels. Although he misinterpreted
them, he acknowledged them to be genuine.
In the second century, Celsus, a pagan philosopher, bitterly
attacked Christianity. But he never questioned the fact that the
Gospels were written by the Evangelists. If there were any reason
to doubt this point, Celsus certainly would have brought it up.

3.

Résumé

Even from the evidence we have mentioned, we may conclude
the Gospels are genuine. First of all, these authors living in the
first and second centuries either name the four Evangelists as the
authors of the four Gospels or presuppose that everyone knows
who they are. The fact that they presuppose this knowledge, even
at this early date, is a strong proof of their genuinity. We pre­
suppose, for example, that everyone knows who wrote the Gettys­
burg Address, for the evidence is so clear that no one questions it.
Similarly, no one in the first two centuries questioned the fact
that the Evangelists wrote the Gospels. Even the pagans and
heretics accepted it, for the evidence was clear and convincing.
Secondly, the fact that the Gospels were held in veneration and
regarded as genuine in all churches, while the contemporaries of
the Apostles were still alive, is conclusive proof of their genuine­
ness. Surely, the friends and contemporaries of the Apostles would
never have permitted forgeries to be palmed off as the authentic
works of the Apostles without violent protests. But there were
never any protests. On the contrary, official teachers like Pope St.
Clement "who had conferred with the Apostles” quote the Gos­
pels as authoritative. Moreover, why should anyone doubt the
words of St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. John’s disciple, when
he explicitly names the authors of the four Gospels?
Thirdly, the Jewish converts would never have accepted them
as equal to the books of the Old Testament if there were any
doubt about their authors. And many of the Gentile converts, like
St. Justin, were highly educated men. Naturally, they carefully
investigated the written sources of the Christian religion.
The contrary notion that the Gospels were forgeries can never
be demonstrated. In fact, there is no shred of evidence to indicate
it. Any suggestion of this falsehood implies that the immediate
successors of the Apostles were foolishly deceived by impious
frauds or else they fabricated these diabolical frauds and cleverly

The Historicity of the Gospels

yy

deceived millions of Christians and non Christians. And what did
they stand to gain except persecution and death?
Finally, the internal evidence confirms these conclusions
reached from external evidence, for a study of the Gospels them­
selves brings to light many facts about their authors.2* Since the
Gospels (except St. Matthew's) were written in the colloquial
Greek of the first century, their authors were apparently men of
that period. Moreover, although the authors were ignorant of
Greek literature and philosophy, they knew the religion, customs,
and practices of the Jews. Indeed, they portray accurately the
political, social, and religious conditions in Palestine at the time
of Christ. They were familiar with Herod's position, with the
topography of Palestine, with the dissensions and antagonisms of
the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the doctors of the Law, with
the complicated coinage systems of the Romans, the Greeks, and
the Jews. Since these conditions were complicated and transient,
some modem scholars have concluded from this evidence alone
that the Gospels were written by contemporaries of Christ. In­
deed, since many non-Catholic scholars like Hamack, who ad­
mitted the Gospels were genuine, relied primarily on this sort of
evidence we may surmise how strong it is. Thus a study of the
internal evidence tends to confirm the conclusions reached from
external evidence. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the four
Gospels. They are genuine.
B.

Evidence That the Gospels Are Trustworthy

The Gospels are trustworthy if the authors knew the facts and
told the truth.
Obviously the Evangelists knew the facts. Matthew and John
were Apostles who were constantly with Christ. Luke, the best
historian of all, was a disciple who diligently questioned those
"who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the
word” (Luke i, 2). Mark was a disciple and a companion of St.
Peter whose words he records in his Gospel.
They told the truth. "No one lies in serious matter without a
reason." There was no reason why the Evangelists should lie. Cerï6. For a more detailed treatment of this point see Leonce De Grand­
maison. Jesus Christ, London (Sheed & Ward). 1930, I, 56-189. We have
omitted any consideration of the Synoptic problem. If a student is interested,
he may consult ibid., pp. 91-116; Saunders, op. cil., pp. 94-105.

Evidence for Our Faith

$6

tainly, they had nothing to gain. As is clear from the Acts, all they
could expect was persecution and martyrdom. Ultimately, they
sealed their testimony with their own blood.
Moreover, they could not have lied even if they wanted to.
Most of Christ’s words and actions were public, seen or heard by
many, and easy to recall. The contemporaries of Christ, who knew
what he did and said, would have exposed them. Anti the Jewish
leaders who hated them would certainly have refuted them. But
although the Jews persecuted them, they never denied the facts
that the Apostles preached. Indeed, Peter appeals to the crowd to
corroborate his statements (Acts 10, 34-43).
The fact that they differ on accidentals is additional proof of
their sincerity. Each Evangelist relates the facts exactly as he re­
calls them. Evidently they never got together and said: "What
shall our story be?” Writing independently they agree on all
important facts although they differ about accidentals as we might
expect. They disagree, for example, about the number and loca­
tion of the angels at the tomb on the first Easter morn. And yet
every one is certain about the fact of the resurrection. Their minor
differences may be easily explained.27
The effects of their preaching proves their trustworthiness.
Within a few years, hundreds of thousands entered the Church.
Among these converts were educated men and many of the (Jew­
ish) priests (Acts 6, 7). Surely, they would not have given up
everything before they investigated the claims of the Apostles.
And they lived at a time when the facts could easily be verified.

C.

The Gospels Are Integral

The fact drat the Gospels were known and reverenced as divine
revelation by Christian communities throughout the world is
strong guarantee of their integrity even before we examine the
actual evidence. Surely no good Christian would deliberately
change the words of God.28 And in those days, Christians knew
«7. Cf. Koesters, op. cit., pp. 301-307; Adam, The Son of God, New York
(Sheed & Ward), 1934, pp. 887-232.
28. The great reverence Christians had tor the words of God is evident
from a letter Irenaeus sent to a boyhood friend who had become a heretic.
The bishop of Lyons wrote: "These opinions. Florinus, to speak mildly, are
not those of sound doctrine. They do not agree with (the teaching of) the
Church. . . . These opinions are not in the tradition of our predecessors who
were disciples of the apostles. While I was still a youth enjoying the com-

The Historicity of the Gospels

yj

the Bible much better than we do. Even minor changes in word
ing caused difficulties. Thus St. Augustine feared to use St. Je­
rome’s new Latin translation.0 In a letter to Jerome, he said:

We have come to this that a brother Bishop (of Oea), having ordered
your translation to be read in the church to which he was accredited,
people were disturbed because you had rendered a passage from the
prophet Jonas in a very different manner from that which had grown
old in all their memories and which so many generations had repeated.
All the people were in an uproar; the Greeks especially, passionately
accusing you of having falsified the text. . . . Our Bishop found him­
self obliged to rectify the passage as being erroneous in order to retain
his people who were on the verge of abandoning him.30
If the early Christians were so disturbed by a new wording of a
passage from the Old Testament, how would they react to a sub­
stantial change in the New Testament? Since many of them knew
the Gospels by heart, any change was practically impossible. More­
over, the official teachers were anxious to teach all that Jesus
taught and nothing more. No doubt, they often recalled the words
of St. Paul: “If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which
you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal. i, 9).
But let us examine the actual evidence for the integrity of the
Gospels. At present we possess approximately thirteen thousand
manuscripts of the Bible.31 Of these, more than four thousand are
in Greek and Hebrew. The rest are Syriac, Latin, Coptic, Ar­
menian, Georgian, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Gothic translations.
pany of Polycarp, in Asia Minor, I saw you trying to win his esteem when
you were at the imperial court. ... So well do I remember it all that I
could tell the place where the blessed Polycarp sat while teaching and his
manner of entering and of going out, ... the familiar conversation which
he had with John and with the others who had seen the Lord, as he has
related and has recalled their words. And what he heard from them con­
cerning the Lord, his miracles, his teaching, the details concerning those who
had seen with their eyes the Word of Life, as Polycarp related it, and all
in conformity with the Scriptures ... 1 listened carefully, and 1 engraved
it, not on papyrus, but in my heart and forever. By the grace of God. I
remember it exactly." Eusebius, Hiitory of the Church, V. 20. 4.
29. The Old Latin versions had been used in Africa for several hundred
years.
30. St. Augustine, £/>., 71, 5.
31. Manuscript comes from the Latin nianu-scriptum which means "written
by hand.”

tjS

Evidence for Our Faith

Needless to say, we do not possess the original manuscripts of the
Gospels. Although some fragments containing parts of the Gos­
pels date back to the second century, the earliest complete manu­
scripts of the New Testament come from the fourth century.
This is not surprising, for the oldest manuscript of Horace
dates from the eighth or ninth century. The manuscripts of Plato,
Cicero, and Seneca are from the ninth century; those of Thucy­
dides, Herodotus, Aeschylus, and Sophocles date from the tenth
and eleventh centuries. The oldest complete manuscript of
Homer belongs to the thirteenth century. Yet no one doubts these
manuscripts are substantially the same as the originals. Therefore
they have less reason to doubt that the Gospel manuscripts are
substantially the same as the originals. Indeed, no other book can
compare, even remotely, with the Scriptures in the number and
antiquity of its extant copies.
The Gospels were probably written on papyrus, the common
writing material at that time. Papyrus has about the same con­
sistency as paper. Since it was not durable, papyrus manuscripts
have been found only in the dry sands of Egypt.32 Since the orig­
inal Gospel manuscripts were probably written on papyrus, schol­
ars do not expect to discover them. In the fourth century, vellum
(or parchment) which is made from the skins of cattle, sheep,
goats, and sometimes deer, became the common material used in
books. Because vellum is qtiite durable, many manuscripts written
on it have been discovered. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex
Sinaiticus, for example, which are the primary sources of modern
texts of the Greek Bible, were written on vellum in the fourth
century.
The Gospel manuscripts have been studied much more care­
fully by far more scholars than the manuscripts of any other work.
Above all, scholars have scrutinized the "various readings” found
in different manuscripts. The phrase, "various readings," means
32. Recently some papyrus rolls which contain portions of the Bible have
been found in Egypt- These are very important for textual criticism, for the
antiquity of many of them place them beyond all rivals in value. The frag­
ment of the fourth Gospel (John 16, 14-30), for example, published in
Oxryhynchxu Papyri (Part XV) by Grenfell and Hunt, London, 192s, be­
longing to the same manuscript as the fragment previously published in Part
11 of the same collection (John >, 23-40; 20, 11-25), dates back to the end
of the third century, and is consequently earlier than many of the oldest.

The Historicity of the Gospels

59

that the same passage may read differently in diverse manuscripts.
While several manuscripts, for example, give the last words of
St. Luke's Gospel as "blessing God," two versions have "praising
God.” Still other manuscripts give the words "praising and bless­
ing God.” To understand how these "various readings” came
about, you must know something about the history of the Bible.”
Before the invention of printing, each separate copy of a book
had to be written by hand. Now no person can copy a long book
without making errors. No doubt, many copies of the Bible, es­
pecial during persecutions, were made hurriedly and without
careful revision. Mistakes were bound to occur.34 These mistakes
were multiplied whenever fresh copies of the faulty manuscripts
were made. If we had the original manuscripts, the errors of later
copies could be easily corrected. But since we do not have the
originals, scholars (textual critics) have to try to determine the
exact text of the original manuscripts by a comparison of later
copies.
The task of the textual critic of the Gospels, however, is not
too difficult because we possess so many ancient manuscripts. Al­
though some mistakes may be found in every manuscript, few
mistakes, if any, will be common to all the manuscripts. Where all
the manuscripts read the same, scholars regard the text as certain.
Where the manuscripts have various readings, scholars have to
decide which reading is correct. Obviously, some manuscripts are
better than others. Today most scholars agree on the dates and
trustworthiness of the important manuscripts. The research of
33. Cf. Sir Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscript}. New
York (Harper and Brothers), 1948. Fourth Edition. This is an excellent book
by the former Director and Principal Librarian of the British Museum.
34. The mistakes of copyists were of many kinds and of varying importance.
Sometimes they confused words of similar sound, as in English, we some­
times write here for hear or assent for ascent. Sometimes they passed over
a word or even lines of a manuscript. Besides such errors of hand and eye.
there were errors of the mind. If the copyist's mind wandered a little, he
could write down words which came mechanically into his head, just as we
do sometimes when we are distracted. Some copyists may have even deliber­
ately altered a few passages. Fortunately, the great veneration in which the
Bible has always been held, protected it against most of these intentional
alterations. Moreover, since many people knew the Bible or major parts of
it by heart, any important change would be immediately detected. Cf. ibid.,
pp. 19-11-

6o

Evidence for Our Faith

scholars, of course, is not limited to the four thousand manuscripts
in Greek and Hebrew which are the languages in which the Bible
was written.
Besides these Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, scholars have
nine thousand manuscripts in seven other languages. Although
these arc translations (or versions, as they are called), some of them
are older than the Greek manuscripts. While the oldest Greek
manuscripts of the Bible were svritten about 200 A.D., the earliest
Latin and Syriac translations date back to 150 A.D. From these
translations scholars are usually able to determine which Greek
words the authors were translating. Consequently, the versions
serve as another source of evidence for determining exactly the
original text of the Gospels. Though the versions have errors pe
culiar to themselves, they were unaffected by the mistakes that
later crept into the Greek. In other words, scholars compare the
various versions with the Greek manuscripts to arrive at a more
perfect text. Note that any addition or omission made in one ver­
sion would be immediately evident from another version.
Still another storehouse of evidence used to establish the orig­
inal text of the Gospels is the works of the Fathers of the Church.
These early Fathers were the successors of the Apostles, the
bishops and official teachers in the primitive church. In their
many works which we still possess, they quote from the Gospels
countless times. From these quotations, scholars can reconstruct
the Gospels which they used. In other words, scholars know, for
example, the important passages of the Gospels which St. Ignatius
used in the year 107.’° Or they can reconstruct all the important
parts of the Gospels which St. Justin and St. Irenaeus used later
in the second century.88 Recently, copies of the Diatessaron, a
35. Dr. Streeter lays: "Ignatius and the author of the Didache stand to
Matthew as the preacher to his text." The Four Gospels, New York (Mac­
millan), 1925, p. 511. And C. F. Burney writes: "The fact which principally
concerns us is Ignatius's knowledge of the Fourth Gospel, which seems to
be proved by demonstration. The manner in which he utilizes its teaching
shows further than his acquaintance with it was not merely superficial, but
dial he has assimilated it through a familiarity extending over many years."
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 1922, p. 191.
36. In his three extant works, St. Justin (100-164) quotes the four Gospels
over two hundred and fifty times. In like manner, St. Irenaeus (125-202)
quotes the Gospels over three hundred times. And Tertullian of Africa (160*S°) gives over nine thousand quotations from the New Testament.

The Historicity of the Gospels

6r

harmony of the Gospels, composed about 120 by Tatian, a Syrian,
have been found.37 From this work, scholars can reconstruct the
Gospels used by the Syrians in the first part of the second century.
Obviously, scholars have a vast amount of evidence—four thou­
sand Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, nine thousand versions in
half a dozen languages, and all the writings of the Fathers. Count­
less scholars, especially in the last century, have devoted their lives
to the study of them.
Today all textual critics agree that no doctrine of the Christian
faith rests on a passage of Scripture that is questionable.3’ Indeed,
passages still disputed constitute an infinitesimal part of the whole
Bible and have no bearing on our faith. A noted British scholar.
Sir Frederic Kenyon, writes:

It is true (and it cannot be too emphatically stated) that none of the
fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which the genu­
ineness is doubtful. ... It cannot be too strongly asserted that in sub­
stance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the
New Testament.8·
After many years of painstaking research (1882), Westcott and
Hort, two of the leading non-Catholic scholars in textual criti­
cism, computed that only one-sixtieth part of the Gospels needs
critical examination if questions merely concerned with orthogra­
phy are left out. Moreover, according to Hort, if we omit all the
37. Of. Kenyon, op. cit., pp. 156-160.
38. "On the basis of our critical editions of the New Testament (Cf. Tischendorf (1869-1872); Westcott and Hort (1881); B. Weiss (1902); Nestle (1927):
H. V. Soden (1913); Vogels, Greek-Latin (1922); Merk, Greek-Latin (1935)).
we can determine in each instance whether other readings must be con­
sidered and, if a well-founded doubt is present, we can refrain from making
scientific use of a passage that is in any way doubtful. For the rest, as far as
contents are concerned, only four passages of the Gospels are disputed: the
concluding verses of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark 16. gff.). the passage about the
agony in the garden (Luke 22, 438 ). the passage about the angel at the Pool
of Bethsaida (John 5, 4), and the pericope about the adulteress (John 8,
1-1 1). All these passages, however, are of no importance at ail in our histori­
cal demonstration of the truth and, moreover, they are acknowledged by
every unbiased critic to be of great antiquity." As Koesters mentions, this is
true especially of the disputed section of St. Mark's Gospel. Some noted
scholars maintain that St. Mark himself added this fitting conclusion to his
Gospel some time after he finished the first edition. Cf. Koesters, The Be­
liever's Christ, St. Louis (Herder), 1939. p. 171.
39. Op. cit., pp. 18, 23.

da

Evidence for Our Faith

variations that are insignificant in themselves, such as the inter­
change of pronouns and proper names, the transposition of words,
and other differences that do not affect the meaning in the slight­
est, then only a thousandth part of the text remains disputed.40
No other ancient work is so authentic. Even the manuscripts of
Shakespeare are less integral, in other words, after one hundred
years of critical examination, the vast majority of scholars con­
clude that the Gospels today are substantially the same as when
they were written. All the recently discovered manuscripts con­
firm this conclusion.
D. Conclusion

All the evidence at our disposal leads us to the conclusion that
the Gospels are genuine, trustworthy, and integral. As we have
said, no other book can compare, even remotely, with the New
Testament, in the number and antiquity of its extant manuscripts.
No document has ever been studied so carefully by so many
scholars. After more than a century of critical examination, the
vast majority of scholars agree that the Gospel manuscripts we
possess are substantially the same as the originals. This conclusion
is the fruit of the study of thirteen thousand manuscripts as well
as thousands of direct quotations found in the works of the Fathers
of the Church.
Similarly, the Gospels are almost universally recognized as gen­
uine today. This conclusion is founded primarily on the testimony
of the early Fathers of the Church who lived in the first and sec­
ond centuries. It is confirmed by non-Christian writers of that
period, by the later Fathers of the Church, and by the respect paid
to the Gospels from the beginning. While some Liberal Protes­
tants are still reluctant to admit that St. John’s Gospel is authentic,
recent discoveries have weakened their opposition. If the Gospels
are genuine, they are evidently trustworthy. The authors knew
the facts and told the truth. Thus all the evidence leads us to the
conclusion that the Gospels are reliable historical documents.

IV. ACTS OF THE APOSTLES AND EPISTLES
OF ST. PAUL
It is possible to prove the historicity of the Acts and the Epistles
of St. Paul in the same manner. But it seems unnecessary. Because
40.
11, »,

CL Hon, The New Testament in the Original Greek, London, 1882,

The Historicity of the Gospels

6)

the evidence is so clear and convincing many Rationalists and
Liberal Protestants admit they arc historical documents.” No one
else has ever doubted it.
In regard to the Acts, they acknowledge Luke as their author.
Harnack, for example, held that opinion. Even the sceptic, Renan,
said: "A thing beyond all doubt is the Acts have the same author
as the third Gospel and are a continuation of it."
In regard to the Epistles of St. Paul, all modem scholars admit
that the Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, I Thessalonians, and Philemon arc genuine.
Since these are amply sufficient for our purposes we need not dis­
cuss the others in Apologetics.

V. APPENDIX: OTHER EARLY DOCUMENTS
REFERRING TO CHRIST
A.

Apocryphal Gospels

Among other early documents referring to Christ there are a
number of spurious or apocryphal Gospels ascribed to Sts. James,
Thomas, Peter, and others. They were ‘'never” accepted as au­
thentic by the Church. Even in the second century St. Irenaeus
points out: "Nor are there more than these, nor again can you find
fewer than these (four) Gospels.”
All historians agree that the apocryphal Gospels have no his­
torical value, since their authors and dates are unknown. While
the Evangelists and St. Paul were official teachers in the Church,
the authors of the apocryphal Gospels obviously were not. No
doubt, some of them were written by orthodox Christians who,
41. Harnack says: "Paul is the most luminous personality in the history of
primitive Christianity, and yet opinions differ widely as to his true signifi­
cance. Only a few years ago we had a leading Protestant theologian asserting
that Paul's rabbinical theology led him to corrupt the Christian religion.
Others, conversely, have called him the real founder of that religion. But in
the opinion of the great majority of those who have studied him, the true
view is that he was the one who understood the Master and continued his
work. This opinion is borne out by the facts. ... As we cannot want to be
wiser titan history, which knows him only as Christ's missionary, and as his
own words clearly attest what his aims were and what he was. we regard him
as Christ's disciple, as the apostle who not only worked harder but also ac­
complished more than all the rest put together." What Is Christianity/, New
York (Putnam's). igo8, pp. 189-190.

Evidence for Our Faith
unfortunately, gave free rein to their imagination. Others were
written by Jews or heretics to confuse or to mutilate the message
of Christ.
B.

Talmud

The "Talmud” is a collection of rabbinical literature published
about 500 A.D. No historian takes seriously the vile and scurrilous
references to Christ found in its second part. But the work does
serve as a source of information about the customs, practices, and
beliefs of the Jews.

C.

Jewish War

In his "Jewish War" (79), Josephus, a Jewish historian wrote:
Now there appeared about this time Jesus, a man of wisdom, if he
is to be called a man, for he was the doer of wonderful works. He drew
over to himself many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the
Christ.
Scholars dispute the genuineness of this passage. Without
doubt, part of it is an interpolation, for Josephus, as a Jew, would
hardly have praised Jesus so highly. Many scholars regard the
whole passage as an interpolation for it appears only in a Slavic
version, not in the Greek versions of the book. A similar passage
in his later book, "Antiquities of the Jews” (94), is generally con­
sidered to be an interpolation.

D.

Roman Historians

The great Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, in his “Annals"
(a. 116 A.D.) speaks of Christ when he recalls the great fire of
Rome. After the rumor spread that Nero was the guilty party, he
attempted to shift the blame upon the Christians. Tacitus relates:
To suppress the rumor that he set fire to the city, Nero fastened the
guilt and inflicted the most severe tortures on a group hated for their
abominations, called Christians, by the populace. This name comes
from Christus who was put to death by the procurator, Pontius Pilate,
during the reign of Tiberius. Though checked for a moment, this de­
testable superstition broke out again not only in Judea, where it origi­
nated, but also in Rome, where everything hideous and shameful from
every part of the world finds a home and becomes popular.
Historians agree that this passage was written by Tacitus. The
precise designation of time and place, the reference to the pro-

The Historicity of the Gospels

6y

curator Pontius Pilate, and to the Emperor Nero rule out any
assumption that Tacitus got his information from popular legend.
Either he took it directly from the Senatorial records or, as is
widely held, he got it from the Consul Cluvius.
Another Roman historian, Suetonius, who wrote about the year
120, also mentions Christ. Unlike Tacitus, he is unreliable. Ac­
cording to him, "in the time of Claudius, there were disturbances
among the Jews under the impetus of Chrestus.” Evidently, this
is a vague and superficial reference.
E. Pliny

the

Younger

The letter of Pliny the Younger (i 12) to the Emperor Trajan is
better known. Pliny was the propraetor of the Provincia Pontica
or Bithynia. In the letter, he asked the Emperor how he should
treat the Christians. "This superstition,” he wrote, "has spread
widely, not only in the cities and villages, but also in the country.
The temples are deserted, and for a long time now no sacrifices
have been offered in them.” Pliny said that he learned through an
investigation that members of this new sect assemble at dawn to
chant the praises of a certain Christ whom they adore as God.
No philologist questions the genuineness of this passage. In­
deed, its authenticity has always been admitted.

GOSPEL SCEPTICS
Supplementary reading from Arnold Lunn. The Third Day, West­
minister (Newman) 1945, pp. 23-29. Mr. Lunn is a convert from
the Anglican Church.
The positive arguments for Christianity are more than sufficient
to support the Christian conclusion, but it is only when we con­
sider rival theories that the full strength of our case emerges, and
for this reason the Christian apologist should never be content
merely to answer the objections of the sceptic, he should challenge
the sceptic to defend his solution. We believe, for instance, that
St. John wrote the Fourth Gospel not only because the evidence
for his authorship is very strong, but also because no sceptic has
ever succeeded in producing a plausible theory to account for the
acceptance by the second-century Church of a second-century
forgery bearing St. John's name.

66

Evidence for Our Faith

The trouble with most sceptics is that they are defective in his­
torical imagination. They approach the problem of the Gospels as
if the solution could be found by juggling with texts. Ί hey never
visualize the conditions under which the Gospels were written
and distributed. They never emerge from the valley of dry bones,
and the dry bones of their arguments are never clothed with flesh
and blood. They fiddle about with texts, rejecting this passage or
that as an “interpolation,” but never envisage the "interpolator”
as a human being, or produce a plausible theory to account for the
success of the "interpolator” in imposing his forgery on the faith­
ful. You cannot "coerce” belief. Lunacy, as Chesterton points out,
has its own water-tight logic. The fact that a man is in a lunatic
asylum does not disprove his thesis that he is the King of England,
for if he were the King of England the usurper might be tempted
to immure him in a lunatic asylum. His explanation fits "some”
facts as well as yours, but it fits far fewer facts.
Similarly, the faddists who object that the “Matthew” and
“Mark” mentioned by Papias are not necessarily the same works
as the Gospels which we now attribute to those Apostles, is as
proof against probabilities as the lunatic. His position is as im­
pregnable to direct assault as would be that of a critic who main­
tained that the works of Virgil and Horace, referred to by Juvenal
—who tells us that these works were in the hands of the schoolboys
of his time—were not the works which we now ascribe to those
authors. And yet, as Salmon justly says, it would be infinitely
easier to alter secular works in private circulation than to effect
revolutionary changes in sacred books read Sunday by Sunday in
the Churches. We are asked to believe not only that the old Gos­
pels which Papias ascribed to Matthew and Mark disappeared
without trace, but also that no Bishop, Presbyter or layman ob­
served that new Gospels have been substituted in their place. It
would be easier to believe that Soviet Russia could have substi­
tuted the new national anthem for the old “International” with­
out a single Russian being aware of the change.
The theory of new Gospels substituted for old is not only in­
herently improbable, but is not supported by a shred of evidence.
We know from Eusebius that there was controversy in his time,
the first half of the fourth century, about the Epistle to the He­
brews and the Epistle to the Corinthians, but Eusebius never dis­
cusses the authorship of the four Gospels, for the good reason that
he had never heard the traditional authorship challenged. The

The Historicity o/ the Gospels

fq

absence of any tradition as to the manner of the first publication
of the Gospels is in itself proof of their antiquity, but more im­
pressive—at least to those who see this problem in terms of human
beings rather than of manuscripts—is the fact that the missionary
activities of the early Church would have been impossible without
some authorised record of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.
We know from Justin Martyr's account of the Sunday meetings of
Christians that the reading of the story of Jesus Christ was an
established tradition at the weekly meetings of the Christians. So
long as a Church was presided over by Apostles, their personal
recollections would suffice, but the first requirement of the elders
ordained by the Apostles to preside over the churches entrusted
to their care was a written and authoritative record of our Lord's
life and teaching.
But once we admit the necessity for Gospels in the primitive
Church, we have gone a long way to prove that the Gospels which
we now possess are the Gospels which were in use in the early years
of the Church, for it is impossible to produce a plausible explana­
tion for any substantial alteration of or addition to these Gospels.
Nobody has explained how a forger could have obtained credence
for a forgery. Theophilus of Antioch, writing about A.D. t8o,
says: “Writers ought either to have been eye-witnesses themselves
of the things they assert, or at least have accurately learned them
from those who had seen them." "The feeling here expressed is
so natural," writes Salmon, “That I cannot believe that those who
were in possession of narratives, supposed to have been written
by men of such rank in the Church as Matthew, Mark, and Luke,
could allow them to be altered by inferior authority. Little do
those who suppose such an alteration possible know of the conser­
vatism of Christian hearers. St. Augustine, in a well-known story,
tells us that, when a bishop, reading the chapter about Jonah’s
gourd, ventured to substitute St. Jerome's 'hedera' for the estab­
lished 'cucurbita,' such a tumult was raised, that if the bishop had
persevered he would have been left without a congregation. The
feeling that resents such a change is due to no later growth of
Christian opinion. Try the experiment on any child of your ac­
quaintance. Tell him a story that interests him; and when next
you meet him tell him the story again, making variations in your
recital, and see whether he will not detect the change, and be in­
dignant at it. I do not believe, in short, that any Church would
permit a change to be made in the form of evangelical instruction

68

Evidence for Our Faith

in which its members had been catechetically trained unless those
who made the change were men of authority equal to their first
instructors. ... If a bishop of the age of Papias had presumed to
innovate on the Gospel as it had been delivered by those 'which
from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,'
I venture to say that, like the bishop of whom St. Augustine tells,
he would have been left without a congregation."
The sceptic begins his study of the Gospels by making an act of
faith in the impossibility of the supernatural. His verdict on the
authorship and dates is an unscientific "deduction" from an un­
proved and false premise. The Christian conclusion is, on the
other hand, a scientific "induction” from the facts. The sceptic
begins with dogma, the dogma that miracles do not occur, and
adjusts the facts to that dogma. The Christian begins with the
facts and ends with the dogmas which are alone consistent with
and imposed by the facts. The sceptic begins with a pre-judgment
that miracles do not occur. The Christian ends with the post­
judgment that miracles have been proved to occur. The conflict
between the Christian and the sceptic is a conflict between postjudice and prejudice.
If it were not for the unscientific prejudice against miracles,
nobody would waste time attempting to disprove that the Gospels
were written by the Apostles and disciples of the Apostles whose
names they bear. “If we were to apply," writes Salmon, "to the re­
mains of classical literature the same rigour of scrutiny that is used
towards the New Testament, there are but few of them that could
stand the test.”
The Jesuit Hardouin tried to prove that the Odes of Horace
and other classical books were written by Benedictine monks in
the dark ages, but it would be easy to refute this theory de­
cisively by producing quotations from the Odes by any writer who
lived within two centuries of the poet’s death, and later testimony
would not be thought worth looking at in the case of a New Testa­
ment book. "The Roman History of Velleius Paterculus," writes
Salmon, "has come down to us in a single very corrupt manuscript,
and the book is only once quoted by Priscian, a grammarian of
the sixth century, yet no one entertains the smallest doubt of its
genuineness. The first six books of the Annals of Tacitus are also
known to us only through a single manuscript which came to light
in the fifteenth century. Not long ago an elaborate attempt was
made to show that all the books of Annals were forged in that

The Historicity of the Gospels

6g

century by an Italian scholar, Poggio. And it was asserted that
‘no clear and definite allusion to the Annals can be found until
the first half of the fifteenth century.’ The latest editor of the
Annals, Mr. Furneaux ... in answer to the assertion just
quoted, can only produce one allusion by no means ‘clear and
definite' and that of a date 300 years later than the historian . . .
where external proof is most abundant in the case of the profane
authors, it falls considerably short of what can be produced in
support of the chief books of the New Testament."
That the Gospels were "written” in the fourth century is a
popular error due to a confusion between date of "authorship''
and date of the earliest complete "manuscripts.”
In the early centuries of our era manuscripts were still, for the
most part, written on papyrus, a frail material compared to vellum
which began to take the place of papyrus in the third century.
Fragments of papyrus have been recovered from the dry Egyptian
soil, many areas of which are virtually rainless, but hardly a con­
temporary papyrus survives from Greece, Italy, Gaul or Spain.
There are many other reasons why the earlier papyrus Gospels
should have disappeared. A special effort was made by the perse­
cutors of the Church to search for these manuscripts and to de­
stroy them. The Christians themselves, in so far as they were
influenced by the expectation of an immediate second coming,
would have made no special efforts to preserve them for the bene­
fit of posterity. And even in more modem times the guardians of
priceless manuscripts have often been incredibly careless trustees.
Thus we owe the preservation of the famous Codex Sinaiticus of
the New Testament to pure chance. A German Professor. Tischendorf by name, discovered forty-three leaves of an ancient manu­
script in a basket full of paper intended for the stove to which
the monks of Mount Sinai consigned their debris. Tischendorf
obtained these for the asking and secured the rest of the Codex
some years later.
The case for tradition has been immensely reinforced in recent
years by the discovery of the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri in
1930. The papyri found in a Coptic graveyard, enclosed in one
or more jars, near the Nile, include fragments of the Gospels, writ­
ten in a small hand which palaeographers assign to the first half
of the third century. More recently a small fragment of a papyrus
containing parts of St. John xviii, 31-33, 37, 38, were discovered
by Mr. C. H. Roberts among the papyri in the John Rylands Li­

•jo

Evidence for Our Faith

brary at Manchester. Palaeographers assign this fragment to the
first half of the second century, a conclusive proof of the early
date of the Fourth Gospel, a Gospel which, as we shall see, has
been the object of sustained attack. Sir Frederic Kenyon of the
British Museum sums up the result of these discoveries in his
book 'The Story of the Bible.' "It will now be realised," he writes,
"what an epoch-making addition to our knowledge of the history
of the Bible has been made by this discovery. Instead of our evi­
dence for the text of the Greek Bible beginning with the fourth
century, we now have several witnesses from the third century,
and one even from the beginning of the second. . . .
"For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on
manuscripts written long after their original composition. The
author who is in the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the ear­
liest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some
350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval
between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript
of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for
Horace goo, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600. On the
other hand the great vellum uncials of the New Testament were
written perhaps some 250 years after the date when the Gospels
were actually composed, while we now have papyrus manuscripts
which reduce the interval by a hundred years. And while the
manuscripts of any classical author amount at most to a few score,
and in some cases only to a few units, the manuscripts of the Bible
are reckoned by thousands."
The case for the traditional authorship and dates of the four
Gospels is indeed so overwhelmingly strong that there would be
little scope for controversy but for the fact that the Gospels record
miracles.
Had the Rylands fragments been discovered a century ago we
should have been spared libraries of book, all of which can now
be relegated to the limbo of exploded theories . . . shortly before
these papyrus fragments were discovered Loisy had decided that
the Fourth Gospel was written between >35 and 140 and that
Couchod had suggested A.D. 150 as the date when St. Luke's gos­
pel was written. Pcre Lagrange writing in 1936 in La Revue
Biblique remarked drily that critics such as these “ont mal sou­
tenu cette année même le choc d’un petit fragment de papyrus." 1
1. This phrase may be translated: "This very year (die critics) have been
badly shocked by a small fragment of papyrus."

CHAPTER V

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

CHRIST claimed to be the incarnate Son of God who came down
on earth in fulfilment of God’s promise to redeem mankind. The
Rationalists and their Christian converts, the Liberal Protestants,
reject his claims by denying the historical value of the documents
in which they are recorded. We have seen that the historicity of
the Gospels cannot be reasonably doubted or denied. Now the
problem is this: What proofs did Christ offer to substantiate his
truly astounding claims?
For his claim to be the promised redeemer we have the proof
from the complete fulfilment in his life and death of all the Old
Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. For his even more
astounding claim to divinity we have: j) the proof from his hu­
man perfections considered in the light of this claim; s) the proof
from his miracles; and 3) the proof from his resurrection.
I. THE PROMISED REDEEMER
Jesus himself fulfilled the prophecies about the Messiah found
in the books of the Old Testament.1 In fact, many Jews were
converted on this very account. For the religion of the Jews was a
religion of expectation centered around a belief in a Messiah or
a Deliverer to come. We presuppose that you remember from
reading the Gospels how perfectly Jesus fulfilled these messianic
prophecies. Here we merely wish to recall a few of them to mind.
1, Read again St. Matthew'· Gospel.

ya

Evidence for Our Faith

ORIGIN
He will be from the seed of Abraham (Gen. 22, 18); from the tribe of
Juda (Gen. 49, 10); from the root of David (Ps. 88, 36-38; Is. 11,1; Jer.
23, 5-6; 30, 9; Excch. 34, 24; 37, 24); his Mother will be a virgin (Is. 7,
14).

Christ was a son of Abraham (Matt. 1,1; Luke 3, 34); of the tribe of
Juda (Matt. 1, 2; Luke 3, 33; Hebr. 7, 14); and the family of David
(Matt. 1, 1; Luke 1, 32-33; 2, 4; 3, 31; Rom. 1, 3). He was born of the
Virgin Mary (Matt. 1, 18-20; Luke 1, 26-24).
PLACE AND TIME OF BIRTH
He shall come forth from Bethlehem (Mich. 5, 2)—at tire time Daniel
foretold (9, 24-27).

Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2, 1-5; Luke 2, 4; John 7, 42)—at
the very moment when expectation, it would appear, was at its highest.
ATTRIBUTES
The Messiah will be begotten of God (Ps. 2, 7). He will be called "God
the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace” (Is.
9, 6). He will work many miracles (Is. 35, 4-6).

According to historical documents (Gospels) Jesus perfectly fulfilled all
these prophesies (Matt. 3, 17; Mark 1, 11; Luke 4, 17-30). We have
studied already his miracles (cf. Matt. 11, 2-6).

FUNCTIONS
The Messiah will be a teacher and prophet (Is. 11, 2-9; 61, 1-3)—a
spiritual king and a legislator (Zach. 9, 9-10; 13, 21; Ps. 2, 6; Jcrem. 23,
5; 1. 31-84îIs· *· 7; 9· 7; l1· 10-16; 33, 20; 59, 21; 62, 11; Joel 2, 28)—a
priest and victim (Ps. 109, 4; Malach. 1, 11; Is. 53, 4-10; 66, 21).
Christ was a teacher and a great prophet as we have proved (Luke 4, 16;
Matt. 3, 16; Mark 1, 11). He perfected the old law (Matt. 5). He is a
spiritual king (John 18, 33-37). He is a priest who offered himself to
God the Father (Luke 22, 15-20; Hebr. 7, 20-28).
PASSION AND DEATH
He will be dishonored, scourged, and spit upon (Is. 50, 6). He will be
bruised and wounded for our sins (Is. 53; Ps. 54, 506). The wicked will

Christ’s Claims Are Credible
pierce his hands and feet and cast lots for his vesture (Ps. ai, 17-19). He
will die for sinners (Is. 53, 7; 50, 6; Zach. 11, ia; 12, 10; 13, 1; Ps. 21, 7;
68, 22).

From all the gospels it is clear that Jesus suffered and died for sinners
(Matt. 26, 47-75; 27, 3; 27, 35; 28, 57; Mark 14, 43-72; Luke 22,47-^71;
23, 1-56; 24, 25-26; John 18, ig).

RESURRECTION
Through his passion and death, he shall enter into his glory (Zach. 11,
12; Is. 50, 6; Ps. 21, 7; 68, 22). He shall rise again (Ps. 5, 10). His church
is for all nations (Mich. 4, 2; Ps. 21, 28; 109, 2; Is. 60, 1; 66,19).

After his resurrection, Christ himself showed the disciples how the
prophets had foretold his sufferings (Luke 24, 25-27). All the Evange­
lists record his resurrection. When the Jews reject the Gospel, the
apostles turn to the Gentiles (Acts 14, 46).

These texts were not chosen at random but constitute an in­
tegral part of the Messianic tradition. Although the Jews of that
time did not think of the sufferings and death of the Messiah,
they were clearly foretold by Daniel and Isaias. In all other re­
spects, the texts reflect ideas current among the Jews.
Jesus so perfectly fulfilled all the prophecies that an honest
student is forced to admit a providential coincidence between the
Messianic prophecies and the life of Christ. Surely the fulfillment
of all thesg_piQ.phecies in one-individual could not have been
due to chance or human contrivance, but must have been God's
work. Jesus was, therefore, the promised Messiah.
Some object that the Jews, the guardian of the prophecies, did
not recognize their fulfillment in Christ. This objection is easy
to answer. First of all, it was by Jews—his first followers—that he
was recognized as the Messiah. The Gentile Christians only
learned of the prophecies and their meaning from the Jewish
Christians. Secondly, the Jewish people at that time were, for the
most part, morally corrupt. Josephus says that, had not the Ro­
mans punished them, some other catastrophe would have struck
them. Their evil minds were closed to the message of Christ.
Thirdly, their leaders, the Scribes and Pharisees, hated Christ
vehemently. After he condemned their pride, arrogance, and

Evidence for Our Faith

hypocrisy, they bitterly opposed him. Finally, the Jews had mis­
interpreted some of the prophecies. Blinded by nationalism and
materialism they looked for a temporal king rather than a spiri­
tual king. Jesus tried in vain to correct their false notions.
II. THE SON OF GOD
j

A. The First Proof

This first proof may be summarized in four statements. Christ
claimed to be God. Either he was God or, if not, he was either
insane or, if sane, a blasphemous liar. But he was not insane or a
blasphemous liar. Therefore, he was (and is) God.
We have proved that Christ claimed to be God. Now we are
faced with this alternative. Either Jesus Christ is true God as he
claimed to be, or the Christian religion is a blasphemous decep­
tion and its founder an insane man or a blasphemous liar. He
was insane, if he himself was deceived: a blasphemous liar, if he
intended to deceive his fellow men.2
From reading and listening to the Gospels you should have
some appreciation of the incomparable character of Christ. In­
deed, anyone who has read the Gospels will never assert that
Jesus was insane or a blasphemous liar for, considered from a
merely human viewpoint, he was the most perfect man and the
finest teacher who ever lived. In fact, such ideas are absolutely
contrary to all we know about him; his humility, his love of re­
tirement, his sincerity, his hatred of sham and hypocrisy. More­
over, they are entirely incompatible with his breadth of vision
and originality of thought.·
2. Koesters remarks: 'Our whole human nature protests violently against
the assumption that all the blessings and happiness which have come to man­
kind from faith in Christ have had their source in such a monstrous de­
ception. ... A serious refutation of those views is surely unnecessary: they
are flatly opposed to the unique spiritual majesty and calm of His thinking,
to the clarity and consistency of His teaching, as these qualities are revealed
to us in the pages of the Gospel. For that reason these views are now re­
jected by theologians of all faiths. Catholics, conservative and liberal Protes­
tants, Jews, and whoever has any sort of claim to a scientific reputation."
The Believer's Christ, St. Louis (Herder), 1939, pp. 256-258.
5. A Jewish scholar, Klausner, writes: "In his ethical code there is a sub­
limity, a distinctiveness and originality in form unparalleled in any other
Hebrew ethical code; neither is there any parallel to the remarkable art of
his parables. The shrewdness and sharpness of his proverbs and his forceful

Christ's Claims Are Credible
Even the Rationalists are quick to note all his good qualities;
his ability, his strong personality, his superb courage, and his
stainless character. Even they describe him as affable, intelligent,
courteous, and humble. Rousseau, for example, said: "Yes. the
life and death of Socrates are those of a philosopher, but the life
and death of Jesus are those of a God."* Renan wrote: The
Christ of the Gospels is the most beautiful incarnation of God in
the most beautiful form. His beauty is eternal; his reign will
never end."
The Rationalists and the Liberal Protestants profess to admire
Christ as a very great man, a model humanitarian. They extol
him as the greatest moral teacher of all time, yet they ignore or
reject his claim to be God. Such an attitude is unreasonable.
A man who was merely a man and claimed to be God would
not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a consummate
fool or a demon of hell. Thus a sincere man will either laugh at
Christ as a fool; spurn him as a demon; or fall at his feet and
worship him as Lord and God. The Rationalists and the Liberal
Protestants, however, are too cowardly to face the facts. And so
they babble patronizing nonsense about Christ being a great
moral teacher. It is like "praising" an ordinary man by describ­
ing him as a “magnificent beast.”
We are, then, face to face with the great alternative. Either
Christ was God as he claimed to be or else he was a madman or
something worse. All the evidence indicates that he was not a
madman or something worse. Therefore, we should conclude that
he was and is God.®
B. The Second Proof

Christ performed many miracles while he was on earth. Al­
though we are primarily concerned with his physical miracles, we
shall also consider his prophecies (intellectual miracles) as well,
epigrams serve, in an exceptional degree, to make ethical ideas a popular
possession. If . . . this ethical code be stripped of its wrappings of miracle*
and mysticism (sic.'), the Book of the Ethics of Jesus will be one of the choicest
treasures in the literature of Israel for all time." Klausner. Jesus 0/ Nazareth,
New York (Macmillan), 1915. ρ. 4·4·
4· Jean J. Rousseau. Ouevres Complete), Pari* (Hachette). 1905, p. »80.
5. Cf. C. S. Lewis. The Cate for Christianity, New York (The Macmillan
Co.). 1948. pp. 44-45- Knox. Miracles, New York (The Paulin Preu). 1918.
pp. 14-15·

76

Evidence for Our Faith

1. His Physical Miracles
Whatever Jesus said was guaranteed by God to be true by his
physical miracles. But he said that he was God. Therefore he
was (and is) God.
These physical miracles could have been worked only by the
power of God. Therefore, even if they do not prove in themselves
that Christ is God, they do prove that God was working through
him; that God was guaranteeing his message. His own divinity
was a part of that message.
Now if Christ was God and wanted to prove it, he would expect
some manifestation of Almighty Power. By this we do not mean
the inference, "Christ did miracles, therefore Christ is God,”
is a true one, since the saints also performed them. But we do
mean that God would not have vindicated his career by such
prodigies of nature, if Christ had been either a deceiver or de­
ceived as to his mission.11
a. The Historical Fact

But did Christ really work miracles? This is a question about
historical facts. And what does history tell us? First of all, it tells
us that for five hundred years before the coming of Christ, pagan
and Jewish historians mention very few miracles. The pagan au­
thors connected their stories of the miraculous with antiquity.
The Jewish writers record hardly any. In fact, Josephus says there
were none. Evidently the people of that age were not gullible;
they did not see miracles everywhere.7 Yet suddenly not merely
ignorant peasants but rich men like Zachaeus, educated men like
Nicodemus, medical men like Luke, testify that Christ worked
countless miracles.8
The least you can possibly say is that Christ’s lifetime was
crowded with amazing events that even his bitter enemies termed
"miracles." "So the chief priests and Pharisees summoned a coun­
cil; What are we about? they said. This man is performing many
6. Ci. Knox. op. cit., p. 122.
7. William F. Albright writes: "The civilization of that day was in many
respects comparable to what it is today." Op. cit., p. 311.
8. In this regard. Monsignor Ronald A. Knox says: "When the moderns
say that 'ignorant people are always expecting miracles to happen,’ what they
really mean is that ’ignorant Christians are always expecting miracles to
happen.' But there were no Christians till Christ came.” Knox, op. cit., p. >23.

Christ's Claims Are Credible

77

miracles, and if we leave him to his own devices, he will find
credit everywhere” (John 11, 47; cf. John 9, 1-34).
Josephus, the greatest Jewish historian, describes Jesus as "a
man of wisdom ... a doer of wonderful works." Though the
authors of the Talmud attributed his miracles to the devil, they
admit that Jesus worked them. In their sermons, the Apostles re
ferred to them as facts known to all. St. Peter declared: "Men of
Israel, listen to this. Jesus of Nazareth was a man duly accredited
to you from God; such were the miracles and wonders and signs
which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves well
know” (Acts 8, 22; cf. Acts 10, 37—39; Rom. 15, 19; I Cor. 15,
13-21).
In the Gospels, we find conclusive evidence of his miracles.
Since we have proven that they are genuine, trustworthy, and in­
tegral documents, no part of them may be omitted, according to
the principles of historical criticism, unless it is proven erroneous.
Now it is impossible to omit the miracles from the Gospels· with­
out destroying not merely a part but practically the entire histori­
cal documents. A few observations will make this clear.
In the Gospels, the Evangelists explicitly enumerate forty-one
distinct miracles or groups of miracles.9
10 These miracles are dis­
tributed throughout the four Gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke
each mention twenty-two or more. Though John, who presup­
posed the other Gospels, records only nine, he explicitly states:
"There are many other miracles Jesus did in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written down in this book; so much has
been written down, that you may learn to believe Jesus is the
Christ, the son of God . .
(John 20, 30-31).
9. A person has to prove the existence of an interpolation either by showing
that the text in question is not found in an earlier document, or that it
differs in linguistic style from the rest of the manuscript. or that it implies
knowledge of event* later in date than the accepted date of authorship.
10. Cf. Felder, Christ and the Critics, London (Burn*, Oates. Washbourne).
1924. II, 279-286. A Protestant scholar, Alan Richardson, states: "The evi­
dence that Jesus worked miracle* is just as suong, and is of precisely the
same quality and texture, as that He taught that Cod is Father and that
His disciples should forgive one another. We cannot on historical grounds
alone accept the evidence for the one and reject that for the other. The evi­
dence that Jesus healed a dropsical roan on the Sabbath day is jutt as good
as the evidence that He told the story of the Good Samaritan or the Prodigal
Son.” Christian Apologetics, London (S.C.M. Press). 1947, p. 170.

j8

Evidence for Our Faith

These miracles are interwoven into the very context of the
Gospels. On many occasions they stirred up controversies and led
to further instructions (Mark 3, 1-6; John 10, 22-39). Often Jesus
worked them to illustrate or confirm a point (Mark 2, 5-12). In­
deed, there is a natural, logical connection between the miracu­
lous and non-miraculous passages. Since the miracles are so nu­
merous and so evenly distributed, they form an integral part of
the Gospel documents. Consequently, if a person rejects the
miracles, he logically must reject the Gospels. If he attempts to
remove the miracles, he destroys the whole Gospel narrative.
The diversity of these miracles is amazing. Note how Christ
cured lepers, paralytics, and the blind by a mere word or touch
or even when they were not present (Matt. 8, 2-13: 9, 1-8; g, 2022: 9, 27-31; 11, 4-5; 12, 13; 20, 29-34). He raised the daughter
of Jairus (Matt. 9, 23-26), the widow’s son (Luke 7, 11-17), and
Lazarus (John 11) from the dead. He changed water into wine
(John 2, 1-11). On two different occasions, he multiplied loaves
and fishes (Matt. 14, 15-21; 15, 32-38; Mark 6, 32-34; 8, 1-10;
Luke 9, 10-17; J°lin θ> >-45)· One night he walked on the water
(Matt. 14, 26-33; Mark 6, 49-56; 6, 19-21). Another day he
calmed a tempest (Matt. 8, 23-27; Mark 4, 36-41; Luke 8, 23-25).
He himself tells the disciples of John the Baptist: "Go and tell
John what your own eyes and ears have witnessed; how the blind
see, and the lame walk, and the lepers are made clean, and the
deaf hear; how the dead are raised to life, and the poor have the
gospel preached to them” (Luke 7, 22).
These miracles were the cornerstone of the faith of the disci­
ples. They were not the results of faith. They effected faith. Nico­
demus, for example, believed on account of the signs that he had
seen (John 3, 2). Without the miracles you cannot explain the
zeal of the people to see and hear Christ (Mark 6, 14-16; John
11, 47-48) nor the hatred of the Scribes and Pharisees. These
crafty enemies of Christ were forced to admit that he worked
miracles, for they were facts impossible to deny. These extraor­
dinary works happened before their very eyes. Jesus performed
them openly before large crowds in all the principal cities and
towns of Judea.
When they come to the Gospels, a few modern historians aban­
don their role as historians,—"presenting facts and nothing but
facts,”—and try to force their philosophy on us under the guise

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

yg

of history. Happily, their number is small. Even the Liberal
Protestant scholar, Harnack, has admitted that the miracles are
genuine parts of the Gospel narrative.11 This is not too surprising,
since all the historical evidence at our disposal bids us to acknowl­
edge these historical facts in the life of Jesus. As a historian, a
person cannot reject his miracles, for, according to the cardinal
principle of historical criticism, his miracles must be considered
historically certain since they are integral paru of genuine, com­
plete and trustworthy documents.
b. The Supernatural Fact

No doubt, it is possible to suggest a natural explanation for
some of the miracles of Christ. But the prudent Pharisees real­
ized that the vast majority were beyond the realm of natural
causes. Thus the investigation into the cure of the man bom
blind ended in utter confusion.

And Jesus saw, as he passed on his way, a man who had been blind from
his birth. Whereupon his disciples asked him. Master, was this man
guilty of sin, or was it his parents, that he should have been born blind?
Neither he nor his parents were guilty, Jesus answered; it was so that
God’s action might declare itself in him. While daylight lasts, I must
work in the service of him who sent me; the night is coming, when there
is no working any more. As long as I am in the world, I am the world's
light. With that, he spat on the ground, and made clay with the spittle;
then he spread the clay on the man's eyes, and said to him. Away with
thee, and wash in the pool of Siloe (a word which means, Sent out). So
he went and washed there, and came back with his sight restored. And
now the neighbours, and those who had been accustomed to see him
begging, began to say, Is not this the man who used to sit here and beg.'
Some said, This is the man; and others, No, but he looks like him. And
he told them, Yes, I am the man. How is it, then, they asked him, that
thy eyes have been opened? He answered, A man called Jesus made clay,
and anointed my eyes with it, and said to me. Away with thee to the
pool of Siloe and wash there. So I went there, and washed, and recovered
my sight. Where is he? they asked; and he said, 1 cannot tell.
11. Hamack says that the miracles of Jesus "cannot be eliminated from the
historical reports without fundamentally ruining these reports.” Of course.
Harnack will have this understood only of the miracles of healing which he
thinks can be explained naturally. Harnack. Dogmingeschichle (jrd «!.).
Freiburg (Mohr). i8y8, I, 64.

So

Evidence for Our Faith

And they brought him before the Pharisees, this man who had once
been blind. It was a sabbath day, you must know, when Jesus made clay
and opened his eyes. And so the Pharisees in their turn asked him how
he had recovered his sight. Why, he said, he put clay on my eyes; and
then I washed, and now I can see. Whereupon some of the Pharisees
said, This man can be no messenger from God; he does not observe the
sabbath. Others asked, How can a man do miracles like this, and be a
sinner? Thus there was a division of opinion among them. And now
they questioned the blind man again, What account dost thou give of
him, that he should thus have opened thy eyes? Why, he said, he must
be a prophet. The Jews must send for the parents of the man who had
recovered his sight, before they would believe his story that he had
been blind, and that he had had his sight restored to him. And they
questioned them, Is this your son, who, you say, was born blind? How
comes it, then, that he is now able to see? His parents answered them,
We can tell you that this is our son, and that he was blind when he was
born; we cannot tell how he is able to see now; we have no means of
knowing who opened his eyes for him. Ask the man himself; he is of
age; let him tell you his own story. It was fear of the Jews that made his
parents talk in this way; the Jews had by now come to an agreement
that anyone who acknowledged Jesus as the Christ should be forbidden
the synagogue; that was why his parents said, He is of age, ask him
yourself.

So once more they summoned the man who had been blind. Give God
the praise, they said; this man, to our knowledge, is a sinner. Sinner or
not, said the other, I cannot tell; all 1 know is that once 1 was blind,
and, now I can see. Then they asked him over again, What was it he did
to thee? By what means did he open thy eyes? And he answered them,
I have told you already, and you would not listen to me. Why must you
hear it over again? Would you too become his disciples? Upon this,
they covered him with abuse; Keep his discipleship for thyself, we are
disciples of Moses. We know for certain that God spoke to Moses; we
know nothing of this man, or whence he comes. Why, the man answered,
here is a matter for astonishment; here is a man that comes you cannot
tell whence, and he has opened my eyes. And yet we know for certain
that God does not answer the prayers of sinners, it is only when a man
is devout and does his will, that his prayer is answered. That a man
should open the eyes of one born blind is something unheard of since
the world began. No, if this man did not come from God, he would have
no powers at all. What, they answered, are we to have lessons from thee,
all steeped in sin from thy birth? And they cast him out from their
presence (John 9, 1-34)·

Christ's Claims Are Credible

Hi

If the Pharisees had tried to propose natural explanations for
all of Christ's miracles, they would have become the laughing
stocks of Judea. Evidently, there was no proportion between the
natural means Jesus used and effects obtained. For example,
Lazarus, the daughter of Jairus, and the widow's son were
raised from the dead by his words.
Were these people actually dead or, as some Gospel critics sug­
gest, were they merely in some sleep or stupor? If they were not
dead, then we have to make three incredible suppositions. First
of all, Jesus, who was not present when they died, is the only
person who perceives that death is only apparent. Secondly, the
dead person in each case recovers just as Christ speaks. Thirdly,
Christ deliberately gives the erroneous impression that he has
raised them from the dead. Is it reasonable to accept these
hypotheses of nineteenth century Rationalists when they contra
diet the unanimous testimony of reliable eyewitnesses?
The attitude of the Rationalists and the Liberal Protestants
towards the other miracles of Christ is no more reasonable. Even
when men permit them to alter the Gospel text, it requires al­
most unlimited faith to accept their farfetched suppositions.
Since many critics hesitate to reject all the historical facts in the
Gospels, they admit the cures were factual. Many of the cures,
however, they attribute to fortunate coincidences following mis­
taken medical analyses. Usually they ask men to believe in a host
of "unknown forces” which suddenly produced in Judea for some
unknown reason through this man Christ effects out of all propor­
tion to their apparent causes. In their efforts to explain away
the Gospel miracles, these Rationalists repeatedly contradict one
another. Indeed, their confused, diverse, and contradictory sup­
positions merely serve to emphasize the truth.
Some critics, for example, assure us that Jesus did not multiply
the loaves and fishes. Since he had always taught a doctrine of re­
nunciation, his listeners who wished to fast refused to accept the
loaves and fishes which the Apostles offered them.” Other critics
suggest that the Jews came prepared. When Jesus blessed his
loaves and fishes, the people brought out their supplies.11 Still
12. Cf. Felder, op. cit., II, 357. Felder gives many more examples on pages
5»>-369.
13. Ibid., pp. 356-357· K. Furrer, for example, says: "How simple is die

β»

Evidence for Our Faith

others think that the crowd refused to accept any loaves and fishes
from the Apostles because they knew Jesus did not have many
provisions on hand.1* St. Mark, however, tells us:
So, when he disembarked, Jesus saw a great multitude there, and took
pity on them, since they were like sheep that have no shepherd, and
began to give them long instruction. And when it was already late, his
disciples came to him and said, This is a lonely place, and it is late al­
ready. give them leave to go to the farms and villages round about, and
buy themselves food there: they have nothing to eat. But he answered
them, It is for you to give them food to eat. Why, then, they said to him.
we must go and spend two hundred silver pieces buying bread to feed
them. He asked, How many loaves have you? Go and see. When they
had found out, they told him, Five, and two fishes. Then he told them
all to sit down in companies on the green grass; and they took their
places in rows, by hundreds and fifties. And he took the five loaves and
the two fishes, and looked up to heaven, and blessed and broke the
loaves, and gave these to his disciples to set before them, dividing the
fishes, too, among them all. All ate and had enough: and when they
took up the broken pieces, and what was left of the fishes, they filled
twelve baskets with them. The loaves had fed five thousand men
(Mark 6, 34-44; Matt. 14, 14-21; Luke 9, 10-17; John 6, 1-14).

The supernatural fact of the miracles of Christ is clear. Ob­
viously, there is no proportion between the natural means, if any,
he employs and the eSects achieved. Christ makes the blind see,
the lame walk, the lepers clean, the deaf hear, and the dead rise
again by a simple command or gesture. Always, the effects follow
according to his will. At times he demands faith before a cure. On
many occasions, he does not. Sometimes the cured person is not
picture! When Jesus had given out the last morsel of bread, then those who
had bread did not wish to be backward, but also joyfully distributed from
their own provisions, and the others showed themselves modest in taking it,
so that all were fed. Some have wanted to poke fun at this interpretation,
but that is a very cheap jest."
14. Ibid., p. 357. Albert Schweiuer concluded: “He celebrated, therefore,
a sacred cultus-meal the meaning of which was clear to Him alone. He did
not count it necessary to explain to them the meaning of the ceremony. The
memory, however, of that mysterious supper on the lonely seashore lived on
vividly in the tradition and grew to the account of the miraculous feeding."
His devoted disciple, E. N. Merely observes: “Of this there can of course be
no proof, but it is a guess of genius.” Apparently. Mozcly's faith depends
upon the guesses of Schweitzerl Op. cit., p. 53.

Christ's Claims Are Credible

8)

even present. After several embarrassing experiences, the Phari­
sees learned that his miracles could not be explained away. In the
twentieth century, most Rationalists seem to have reached the
same conclusion. They find it simpler to deny the historical fact
of the miracles than to "explain" them as natural occurrences.

c. The Apologetical Fact
Once a person is intellectually honest enough to admit the
historical and supernatural facts, our major is self-evident. The
only reasonable explanation for these miracles is the power (as­
sistance) of God. Surely no one today will dare to attribute them
to the Devil. The character of Jesus, his purpose, and his teaching
positively exclude that possibility (cf. John 9; Matt. 12, 24; Luke
I·. 15)·
Evidently, Jesus received his miraculous power from God. God
was working through him. "The works which I do, give testimony
of me that the Father has sent me" (John 5, 36). God was guaran­
teeing his message. Obviously, God would never give miraculous
power to a liar to confirm his lie. Now, as we have proven, Jesus
said that he was God. His divinity was a part of his message.
Therefore Jesus Christ was (and is) God.
In speaking to the Jews, Jesus emphasizes this point. “Will you
call me a blasphemer, because I have told you I am the Son of
God? If you find that I do not act like the Son of my Father, then
put no trust in me; but if I do, then let my actions convince you
where I cannot; so you will recognize and learn to believe that
the Father is in me, and I in him" (John 10, 37-38).

2. Thf. Prophecies

of

Christ

Besides physical miracles, Jesus performed intellectual miracles,
commonly called prophecies. In a strict sense, a prophecy is a
certain prediction of future events that are naturally unknow­
able because they are contingent events, that is to say, events
which depend upon the free will of God or of one or more men,
or they depend upon chance. Although prophecies in themselves
are true miracles, they do not have as great an effect upon the
modern mind as physical miracles because it is more difficult to
ascertain their miraculous character. When the prophecies of
Jesus are considered together, however, they appear as clear-cut
miracles.

84

Evidence for Our Faith

HIS PASSION. DEATH, AND RESURRECTION
Although no mere man could have foreseen his Passion, Death, and
Resurrection, Jesus clearly foretells them. "And now Jesus was going
up to Jerusalem, and he took his twelve disciples aside on the way, and
warned them. Now we arc going up to Jerusalem; and there the Son of
Man will be given up into the hands of the chief priests and scribes,
who will condemn him to death. And these will give him up into the
hands of the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified; but on
the third day he will rise again" (Matt. 20, 17-19; cf. Mark 10, 33-34;
Luke 18, 31-34; John 2, 18-22; Matt. 16, 21-24; *7» 21-28; Mark 8, 3133; 9· 3°-32; Luke 9, 22-23; 9.44-45)·

"And those who had arrested Jesus led him away into the presence of
the high priest, Caiphas, where the scribes and the elders had assem­
bled. . . . And they answered, The penalty is death. . . . And they
led him away in bonds, and gave him up to the governor, Pontius Pilate.
. . . After this, the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the palace . . .
and mocked him . . . and spat upon him . . . and with him they
crucified two thieves. ... He is not here; he has risen, as he told you,"
(Malt. 26, 57—28,6; Cf. Mark 14-16; Luke 22-24; J°hn 18-21).

HIS DISCIPT.ES FLEE
"After this, Jesus said to them. Tonight you will all lose courage over
me; for so it has been written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep
of his flock will be scattered. But I will go on before you into Galilee,
when I have risen from the dead" (Matt. 26, 31-32; cf. John 16, 32).

"And now all his disciples abandoned him, and fled. . . . And now the
eleven disciples took their journey into Galilee, to the mountain where
Jesus had bidden them meet him" (Matt. 26, 56; 28, 16).

PETER'S DENIALS
"Peter answered him, Though all else should lose courage over thee,
I will never lose mine. Jesus said to him. Believe me, this night, before
the cock crows, thou wilt titrice disown me. Peter said to him, I will
never disown thee, though I must lay down my life with thee" (Matt.
2θ· 33-35)·

Christ's Claims Are Credible

gj

"And he made denial again with an oath, I know nothing of the man.
But those who stood there came up to Peter soon afterwards, and said.
It is certain that thou art one of them; even thy speech betrays thee.
And with that he fell to calling down curses on himself and swearing,
I know nothing of the man; and thereupon the cock crew" (Matt. 26.
7«“75)·

THE BETRAYAL BY JUDAS
"While they were at table, he said. Believe me, one of you is to betray
me. . . . Then Judas, he who was betraying him, said openly. Master,
is it I? Jesus answered, Thy own lips have said it” (Matt. 26, 21-25).

"And all at once, while he was speaking, Judas, who was one of the
twelve, came near; with him a great multitude carrying swords and
clubs, who had been sent by the chief priests and the elders of the
people” (Matt. 26, 47).

THE DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
He promised to send the Holy Spirit. "Enough for you, that the Holy
Spirit will come upon you, and you will receive strength from him; you
are to be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and throughout Judaea, in Samaria,
yes, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1, 8).

“And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in
strange languages, as the Spirit gave utterance to each" (Acts 2, 4). The
apostles preached in Judaea, Samaria, Europe, and Asia.

HIS CHURCH
His Church will grow like a mustard plant (Matt. 13, 31-32)- It W>H be
a leaven to all mankind (Matt. 13, 33). It will be persecuted. "Do not
put your trust in men; they will hand you over to courts of judgment,
and scourge you in their synagogues; yes, and you will be brought be­
fore governors and kings on my account. . . . (Matt. 10. 17-18). But
it shall never fail. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
(Matt. 16, 18). The Gentiles shall be converted. “And this I tell you,
that there are many who will come from the east and from the west,
and will take their places in the kingdom of God with Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob, while that kingdom’s own sons are cast into the dark­
ness without. .
(Matt. 8, 10-11; Cf. Matt. 21, 33-46; 24, 14; Luke 13,
28-29).

86

Evidence for Our Faith

The fufillmcnt of these prophecies is evident. Even the apostolic church
suffered persecution. "So they sent for the apostles and, after scourging
them, let them go with a warning that they were not on any account to
preach in die name of Jesus" (Acts 5, 40-41; 4, 1-8). The Gentiles have
taken the place of the Jews. "Whereupon Paul and Barnabas told them
roundly, We were bound to preach God's words to you first; but now,
since you reject it, since you declare yourselves unfit for eternal life, be
it so; we will turn our thoughts to the Gentiles” (Acts 14, 46).
JERUSALEM AND THE JEWS
On several occasions, Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.
"The days will come upon thee when thy enemies will fence thee round
about, and encircle thee, and press thee hard on every side, and bring
down in ruin both thee and thy children that are in thee, not leaving
one stone of thee upon another; and all because thou didst not recog­
nize the time of my visiting thee.
"It will be a time of bitter distress all over the land, and retribution
against this people. They will be put to the sword, and led away into
captivity all over the world; and Jersualem will be trodden under the
feet of the Gentiles, until the time granted to the Gentile nations has
run out. Believe me, this generation will not have passed, before all
this is accomplished" (Luke 19,43-44; 21, 20-24, 32; cf. Matt. 23, 36-38;
Mark 13, 1-2).
How accurately this prophecy was fulfilled will be understood by all
who read the History of the Jewish War, by the Jewish historian, Flavius
Josephus (37-98). After the death of the Emperor Nero, the Jews re­
belled against the Romans. Within a few months a Roman army in­
vaded Galilee. The Christians, mindful of our Lord’s words, fled from
Jerusalem. Soon afterwards Titus surrounded the city. After a pro­
longed siege that caused great suffering, the city was entirely destroyed.
Since the Romans ordinarily preserved conquered cities, and especially
their temples, its complete destruction was totally unexpected. Many
of the Jews were killed. Others were led away captives. Josephus who
was taken prisoner by the Romans witnessed its fall. He wrote: “When
they (the Roman soldiers) went in numbers into the lanes of the city
with their swords drawn, they slew those whom they overtook without
mercy, and set lire to die houses whither the Jews were fled. . . . (They)
made the whole city run with blood, to such a degree indeed that the
fire of many houses was quenched with . . . blood." 15
15. Josephus, De liello Judaico, VI. Cf. Eusebius, History of the Church,
III, v. In the fourth century, the Emperor, Julian the Apostate (361-363),

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

87

Once we study these prophecies and their perfect fulfillment
we perceive their miraculous character. The number and nature
of the events foretold and their exact fulfillment excludes any
possibility of chance or guess work. Thus we cannot give any
reasonable explanation for such prophecies without postulating
special divine assistance. In other words, Jesus must have received
miraculous intellectual help from God. God was working through
him; guaranteeing his message. His divinity was a part of that
message. Therefore he is God. (Note that since prophecies are
just another kind of miracle, this addition merely confirms and
supplements the preceding proof.)

C. The Third Proof
The miracle of the Resurrection could only be worked by the
power of God. Even if it does not prove in itself that Christ is
God. it does prove that God was working through him—approv­
ing his message. But his divinity was a part of his message. There­
fore Christ was (and is) God.
Of all the miracles of Christ, his physical resurrection was the
greatest. Consequently, it was the most certain sign of God’s ap­
probation. for he would never work such a miracle to confirm a
lie. Indeed, Christ appeals to it as the supreme and final proof
of his divine mission.18
attempted to rebuild the temple in order that he might falsify Christian
prophecy. The Jews enthusiastically prepared for the work. Ammianus
Marcellinus, a pagan historian, who was an imperial bodyguard, tells of the
result which is one of the most remarkable yet one of the best attested events
in ancient history: "(Julian) committed the accomplishment of the task to
Alypius of Antioch who had before been Lieutenant of Britain. Alypius
therefore set himself vigorously to the work, and was seconded by the gover­
nor of the province; when fearful balls of lire breaking out near the founda­
tions, continued their attacks until the workmen, after repeated scorchings,
could approach no more; and thus, the fierce elements obstinately repelling
them, he gave over his attempt." Newman, Essay on Miracles, London
(Pickering), 1870, Second Edition, p. 337. Newman also mentions the testi­
mony of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Chrysostom. Rufinus, Soc­
rates, Sozomen, and TheodoreL Ibid., pp. 335-336.
16. Christ speaks of it three times to the Jews: Matt. 1*. 39-40; 16. 1-4.
John 2. 18-22; six times to his disciples: Matt. 16, 11-17; 17. 9, ti-tt; to.
17-19; 26, 32; Mark 8. 31-38: 9, 9; 9. 30; 10. 32-40; 14, t7; Luke 9, si-sh.
18, 31-31; John 10, 17-18. On three occasions, his enemies indicate their
knowledge of it; Matt. »6, 61; (Mark 14, 58), Matt. 17. 39-40 (Mark 15, *9),

SS

Evidence for Our Faith

Since the Apostles realized its great importance, they preached
it first and foremost.17 St. Peter, for example, declared that by it
the Jews were to "know most certainly" that Jesus whom they
crucified was "both Lord and Christ.” In his First Epistle to the
Corinthians (15, 14). St. Paul did not hesitate to say: "And if
Christ has not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
vain. Yes, and we arc found false witnesses as to God, in that we
have borne witness against God that he raised up Christ. . . ."
The Resurrection itself, however, is not a question of faith as
opposed to evidence. On the contrary, the evidence is clear and
convincing. We have the testimony of the holy women, the twelve
apostles, the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, the five hun­
dred mentioned by St. Paul, and St. Paul himself. "We have, too,
the negative witness of the Jews and Romans, who saw him dead
and, unable to explain away the fact of the empty tomb, invented
the clumsy falsehood of theft by the disciples, which even the
most hostile critics today do not accept.18
This evidence comes to us primarily in the Gospels and Epis­
tles.1· They are not merely "our” documents but valid historical
documents which are almost universally accepted. In fact, they
are called into question today only when they record the miracu­
lous. The objection to them, therefore, is not based on grounds
of history but on a denial of the possibility of a miracle.
Let us follow the natural sequence of events as we consider the
evidence.

1.

Jesus Truly Died

Unbelievers have sought in every possible way to evade the
challenge of Christ's resurrection from the dead. Some have pro­
posed what is called the coma theory according to which Christ
did not really die but only lapsed into a deep coma because of his
Matt. 27, 63-66. Our Lord appeals to it as a conclusive proof of his mission:
John 2, 16-22: Malt. 12. 38-40; Luke 11, 29-30.
17. St. Luke writes: "Great was the power with which the apostles testified
to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ . .
(Acts 4, 33). The apostles
thought of themselves as "witnesses of the resurrection" (Acts 1, 22; 2, 32:
S· >5’· 5· Sri18. Ward & Sheed, op. cil., p. 218.
19. Matt. 28, 1-20; Mark 16, 1-20; Luke 24, 1-53: John 20, 1-31; ti, 1-15;
Acts 1, 3-10: 13, 33-37; Romans 1, 4; 4. 24; 6, 4-9: 8. 11-34; 14. 9; I Cor. 6,
14; 15. 1-48; Π Cor. 4, 14; 5, 15: 13. 4: Gal. 1, 1: Eph. 1, 20; Phil. 3, 10; Col.
2, 12; 3, 1; I These. 1, 10; 2, 13; II. Tim. 2, 8.

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

89

intense sufferings and was entombed alive. Awaking early Easter
morning he came forth from the tomb and deceived hi» follower»
into believing that he had risen from the dead.
There can be no doubt about the fact that Jesus died. If his
prolonged suffering and the manifest signs of death are not suf­
ficient proof, we have the testimony of his friends, his enemies,
and the indifferent executioners. All the Evangelists state that he
died. His own mother and friends buried him. On Sunday
morning the holy women came to anoint his body. When they
found the tomb empty, they immediately supposed that someone
had stolen the body, since they were sure he was dead.
Similarly, the Jewish leaders who hated Christ svere confident
that he died (Matt. 27, 63). For years they had waited to kill him.
Never would they have permitted his friends to take down the
body, if they suspected any spark of life remained. Later, when the
Jews tried to explain away the empty tomb, they never even sug­
gested that Jesus did not really die.
Finally, the indifferent executioners (Roman soldiers) would
have risked their own lives, if they failed to do their job. Besides,
when the Jews asked Pilate to take down the bodies, since the
following day was the Sabbath, he made certain that they were
dead: "And so the soldiers came and broke the legs both of the
one and of the other that were crucified with him: but when they
came to Jesus, and found him already dead, they did not break
his legs, but one of the soldiers opened his side with a spear;
and immediately blood and water flowed out” (John 19, 32-35).
(It is interesting to note that scientists today tell us that, after a
person’s death, blood and water (lymph) will flow out separately
from a deep wound.)
After Pilate had made sure that Jesus was dead, he gave Joseph
of Arimathea permission to bury the body. "And Joseph taking
the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his new
tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock. Then he rolled a large
stone to the entrance of the tomb and departed” (Matt. 27, 59,
61; cf. Mark 15, 42; Luke 23, 50; John 19, 38; 1 Cor. 15, 4).
2.

Christ Truly Rose

from the

Dead

a. The Tomb Was Found Empty
The chief priests and Pharisees were uneasy, however, and so
they came to Pilate saying: "Sir, we have recalled it to memory

ço

Evidence for Our Faith

that this deceiver, while he yet lived, said, I am to rise again after
three days. Give orders, then, that his tomb shall be securely
guarded until the third day: or perhaps his disciples will come
and steal him away. If they should then say to the people, He has
risen from the dead, this last deceit will be more dangerous than
the old. Pilate said to them, You have guards; away with you,
make it secure as you best know how. And they went and made
the tomb secure, putting a seal on the stone and setting a guard
over it” (Matt. 27, 63-66).
On the third day, the tomb was found empty. There can be no
doubt about the fact.
Early in the morning of the first day of the week, while it was still
dark, Mary Magdalen went to the tomb, and found the stone moved
away from the tomb door. So she came running to Simon Peter, and
that other disciple, whom Jesus loved; They have carried the Lord away
from the tomb, she said to them, and we cannot tell where they have
taken him. Upon this, Peter and the other disciples both set out, and
made their way to the tomb; they began running side by side, but the
other disciple outran Peter, and reached the tomb first. He looked in
and saw the linen cloth lying there, but he did not go in. Simon Peter,
coming up after him, went into the tomb and saw the linen cloths lying
there, and also the veil which had been put over Jesus’ head, not lying
with the linen cloths, but still wrapped round and round in a place by
itself (John 20,1-10; cf. Luke 24, 1-8; Mark 16, 1-7; Matt. 28, 1-7).

For the last hundred years Rationalists have been trying to
invent some explanation. "They have traced the disappearance
of the body to Pilate, as if Pilate might have arranged its removal
‘in order to prevent a disturbance'—it is obvious, of course, that
this would have been the worst possible way of securing his end;
it would be precisely the disappearance of the body which would
create a disturbance. As Ronald Knox says:
They have traced it to the Jews, who, of all people, were most inti­
mately concerned to see that the Body was not stolen; who, of all peo­
ple, would most willingly have produced the Body if it had been in their
power to do so. They have told us that the holy women must have gone
to the wrong tomb by mistake, as if it was likely (apart from what John
tells us) that their amazing report was never verified! The palpable
futility of all these theories reflects admirably the bankruptcy of the
criticism which produced them.
Only one plausible theory of the kind has ever been devised, and it

Christ's Claims Are Credible

9*

was devised immediately after the event; the Jews maintained that the
Body had been secretly carried off by our Lord's own followers. Yet this
is an explanation which no scholar has dared to adopt, for obvious rea
sons. Neither the psychology of the Apostles at the time of the Passion
nor their psychology after the Resurrection, lends any color to the idea
that their whole story was a gigantic imposition, deliberately foisted on
the world by a band of desperate devotees.20

All these attempts to explain away the empty tomb have
failed miserably. When you think it over, the last one. the socalled "deception theory” is the weakest of all. For after
the guards were bribed (Matt. 28, 13) they said that while they
slept the Apostles stole the body. But if they were asleep, how did
they know what had happened? At most, they could say that when
they awoke the tomb was empty; the Apostles probably stole the
body. But can we imagine the dejected Apostles, who were scared
to death during the Passion, risking their lives to steal his dead
body in order to institute a fraud? And why perpetuate such a
fraud? If Christ did not rise, he deceived them and was not God.
They had nothing to gain except persecution and death. More­
over, such an “explanation" makes all the Apostles consummate
liars. And how account for all the good resulting from this
diabolical fraud? The utter absurdity of this "explanation"
will become more evident as we proceed. Today, it is rejected by
all scholars.
Ultimately, the "critics" were driven to the only possible ex­
planation. Our Lord’s body left the tomb alive, for the empty
tomb was a fact impossible to deny. But instead of admitting the
obvious truth—that our Lord rose from the dead—they as­
serted that he had not died on the cross. Apart from the fact that
it contradicts all the historical evidence (see above), note what
the theory implies. It means that Jesus of Nazareth, after he es­
caped death, had then and there set about deluding posterity into
the belief that he had died and risen again.21 Can anyone "swal­
low" that? Not if they know anything about Jesus of Nazareth!
ao. Knox, op. cit., pp. ia6-is7ai. Even Strauss says: "Λ person who had crawled from the tomb half­
dead, a gravely ill person just managing to drag himself along, a person in
need of medical care, of bandaging, of nursing, a person who even after such
treatment might in the end still die of his wounds, could not have made
upon the disciples the impression that he was the victor over death and the

ça

Evidence for Our Faith

b. The Resurrection Appearances

The empty tomb, however, is not their only difficulty. Indeed,
the resurrection appearances pose a greater problem for them.
These appearances have not been recounted by any Evangelist in
full chronological order for the Evangelists were primarily con­
cerned with the fact of the Resurrection and not with the facts
of his various appearances. Although each Evangelist enumerates
a number of them, no one gives an exhaustive list. In fact, it seems
from a study of the Gospels that they mention only those appear­
ances when Jesus convinced them of the physical reality of his
body, or when he taught them some new truth. We have no idea
how often he appeared to his mother or the Apostles simply to
converse with them.
Evidently, the records are incomplete. From two sources, for
example, we hear of a meeting between our Lord and St. Peter
that is not recorded elsewhere (Luke 24, 34; I Cor. 15, 5). St. Paul
alone recounts his appearance to five hundred people at one
time (I Cor. 15, 6). But as Ronald A. Knox says: "The fact that
the reminiscences preserved to us are preserved to us in so frag­
mentary a form is all the better proof of their authenticity.
Plainly, the Apostles never met and said, ‘We must have a story;
what shall it be?' Plainly, no later editor with historical instincts
has been through the evidence and tried to work up a brief. We
arc left with the naked testimony, such as it is, of first-hand wit­
nesses." 22
This is confirmed by the extreme sobriety of the gospel ac­
counts. The Evangelists relate merely the bare, historical facts.
They never go beyond their own experience. Humbly, they ac­
knowledge their own incredulity and hesitancy. Though the
various narratives are incomplete, they are not incompatible.
The historical evidence for the real and bodily resurrection
of Christ is most convincing for two reasons. First of all, the
Apostles never expected the resurrection. Secondly, when Christ
did appear, they feared it was a vision or spirit until he proved
that he had a physical body. Let us consider these two points.
grave, that he was the prince of life; yet, it was precisely this impression
that lay at the bottom of their later life." Strauss, Das Leben Jesu, 1864,
p. »98.
si. Knox, op. cil., p. 1x8.

Christ's Claims Are Credible
93
After Jesus was seized by the Jews, the Apostles fled in tenor.
As St. John admits (John 20, 19) "for fear of the Jews, they
had locked the doors of the room in which they had assembled.''
There, "they mourned and wept" (Mark 16, 11). Although Jesus
had clearly foretold his resurrection, the Apostles never expetted
it. Frankly, they admit their fault. They offer no excuses. St. John
says: "They had not yet mastered what was written of him, that
he was to rise from the dead" (John 20, 9). Since they had refused
to think of his death (Matt. 16, 22), they apparently never thought
of his resurrection. Even if they had, the dreadful spectacle of
the crucifixion would have blotted out all their hopes. Like us,
they seemed too earthly minded—measuring success by material
prosperity and power.
By their actions, they clearly manifested their lack of hope. On
the third day, Mary Magdalen and the other holy women set out
to anoint his body (Mark 16, 1). Evidently, they were not think­
ing about his resurrection—much less expecting it. When they
found the tomb empty, their first thought was that someone
had stolen the body. "So she came running to Simon Peter, and
that other disciple, whom Jesus loved; They have carried the
Lord away from the tomb, she said to them, and we cannot tell
where they have taken him" (John 20, 2).
According to St. Luke, "this story seemed to them (Peter and
John) nonsense and they did not believe the women. But Peter
arose and ran to the tomb; and stooping down, he saw the linen
cloths laid there; and he went away wondering to himself at
what had come to pass" (Luke 24, 11-12).
Surely the discovery of the empty tomb does not have the ef­
fect we would naturally expect, if the Apostles were anxiously
awaiting the resurrection. Notice how its discovery precedes any
belief in the resurrection. It merely causes Peter to "wonder."
The attitude of the Apostles is reflected well by the two disciples
leaving Jerusalem. St. Luke writes:

It was on the same day that two of them were walking to a village
called Emmaus, sixty furlongs away from Jerusalem, discussing all that
had happened. They were still conversing and debating together, when
Jesus himself drew near, and began to walk beside them; but their eyes
were held fast, so that they could not recognize him. And he said to
them. What talk is this you exchange between you as you go alone,
sad-faced? And one of them, who was called Cleophas, answered him.

94

Evidence for Our Faith

What, art thou the only pilgrim in Jerusalem who has not heard of
what happened there in the last few days? What happenings? he asked;
and they said. About Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet whose words and acts
had power with God, and with all the people; how the chief priests,
and our rulers, handed him over to be sentenced to death, and so cruci·
Red him. For ourselves, wc had hoped that it was he who was to deliver
Israel; but now, to crown it all, today is the third day since it befell.
Some women, indeed, who belonged to our company, alarmed us; they
had been at the tomb early in the morning and could not find his body;
whereupon they came back and told us that they had seen a vision of
angels, who said that he was alive. Some of those who were with us went
to the tomb, and found that all was as the women had said, but of him
they saw nothing (Luke 24, 13-24).

From the evidence, it is clear that the Apostles did not expect
to see the risen Christ. Even the discovery of the empty tomb
merely caused Peter to "wonder." Since the Apostles were so slow
to believe, they are most reliable witnesses.
Secondly, when Christ did appear, the Apostles at first feared
it was some sort of a vision. Our Lord had to demonstrate the
reality of his physical body.
The experience of the holy women should have prepared the
Apostles. According to St. Matthew (28, 9), the holy women "em­
braced his feet and worshipped him.” Since they embraced his
feet, he must have been physically present. In like manner, the
two disciples should have perceived the nature of his body when
"he took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and offered it to them”
(Luke 24, 30). We do not know whether they did or not because
St. Luke is anxious to give a better proof. After the two disciples
hurried back to Jerusalem, they were told:

The Lord has indeed risen, and has appeared to Simon. And they too
told the story of their encounter in the road and how they recognized
him when he broke bread. Now while they were talking of these things,
Jesus stood in their midst, and said to them, “Peace to youl It is 1, do not
be afraid.” But they were startled and panic-stricken, and thought that
they saw a spirit. And he said to them, ‘Why are you disturbed, and
why do doubts arise in your hearts? See my hands and feet, that it is 1
myself. Feel and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you
see I have.' And having said this, he showed them his hands and his
feet. But as they still disbelieved and marvelled for joy, he said, 'Have
you anything here to eat?’ And they offered him a piece of broiled fish
and a honeycomb. And when he had eaten in their presence, he took

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

qy

what remained and gave it to them (Luke «4, 35-48; d. John 10, »0;
Mark 16. 14).
Because the Apostles never expected the resurrection, they are
"startled and panic-stricken" when he appears. They fear it is
an apparition until Christ proves the reality of his physical bodv
If any further doubts remained, the proof given to Thomas dis­
pelled them.
There was one of the Twelve, Thomas, who is also called Didymus,
who was not with them when Jesus came. And when the other disciples
told him, We have seen the Lord, he said to them. Until I have seen the
marks of the nails on his hands, until I have put my finger into the
mark of the nails, and put my hand into his side, you will never make
me believe. So, eight days afterwards, once more the disciples were
within, and Thomas was with them; and the doors were locked. Jesus
came and stood there in their midst; Peace be upon you, he said. Then
he said to Thomas, Let me have thy finger; see, here are my hands. Let
me have thy hand; put it into my side. Cease thy doubting, and believe.
Thomas answered. Thou art my Lord and my God. And Jesus said to
him, Thou hast learned to believe, Thomas, because thou hast seen me.
Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet have learned to believe
(John 20, 24-29).

After reading carefully these Gospel accounts, no honest man
can find a good reason for doubting the physical resurrection of
Christ. By physical resurrection, we mean that his human body,
which was dead, was restored to life. It is clearly the conviction of
all the witnesses that our Lord, after his resurrection, had a physi­
cal body. The holy women "embraced his feet." Because the
Apostles fear that he is merely a spirit, our Lord commands them:
"Feel and see; for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you
see I have." Later, he offers the same tangible proof to the scepti­
cal Thomas. For forty days the Apostles often saw. heard, touched,
walked, ate, drank, and carried on conversations with him. Al­
though they do not intend to give a complete list of his ap­
pearances, the Evangelists do mention eleven or more. At first, he
appears to them to make known his physical resurrection. After­
wards, he comes to give them final instructions. After he physi­
cally ascends into heaven, they see him no more for his physical
body is in heaven.
In the light of these historical facts, the "hallucination" theory
of the Rationalists and the Liberal Protestants appears in its

q6

Evidence for Our Faith

true colors. According to them, the Apostles had hallucinations.
By a hallucination, they mean a perception of an object to which
no reality corresponds. In other words, the Apostles were "seeing
things." Though Jesus was not really present, they “thought" he
was. This was due to their "overwhelming desire to see him, to
a state of tense, nervous excitement as they awaited the resur­
rection." Since normal men do not have hallucinations, the
Rationalists and the Liberal Protestants must suppose these or
similar dispositions2’ in the Apostles to account for their halluci­
nations. Obviously, they are groundless suppositions fabricated
by men with an “overwhelming desire" to reject the resurrection.
The plain historical facts are that the Apostles never expected the
resurrection; that they feared they were having a vision until
Christ demonstrated the reality of his physical body. Moreover,
the "hallucinationists" conveniently forget about the empty tomb
and other historical facts.
In every age, sceptics have asked why Christ did not show him­
self publicly after his resurrection to his enemies and to all the
people. Though it is one of their best objections, it is easy to
answer. For God does not ordinarily use superabundant means
to convert the evil-minded. As a rule, he is content with giving
men clear and amply sufficient proofs. In fact, Christ taught us
this in one of his parables. A rich man in hell begged Abraham to
send a messenger from the dead to warn his five brothers. Abra­
ham refused, saying: "They have Moses and the prophets; let
them listen to these. They will not do that, father Abraham, said
he, but if a messenger comes to them from the dead, they will
repent. But he answered him, If they do not listen to Moses and
the prophets, they will be unbelieving still, though one should
rise from the dead (Luke 16, 19-31). . . . Even if Christ had ap­
peared publicly, after his resurrection, depraved men would have
found "reasons" to deny him. And today unbelievers would ask:
"If Christ appeared to all men after his resurrection, why doesn’t
he appear to all men now?" Christ himself refused the Pharisees a
special sign from heaven (Mark 8, 11-13) and did not come down
from the cross (Matt. 27, 40). Although he does give extraordinary
graces to some like Paul, they are exceptions to the rule. Remem­
ber his words to Thomas: "Thou hast learned to believe, Thomas,
sj. A man dying of thirst in the desert, for example, may see a mirage of
water.

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

97

because thou hast seen me. Blessed are those who have not seen,
and yet have learned to believe” (John 20, 2g).

D. Confirmations
Everywhere we turn we find new confirmations of the truth of
this great historical event. The conversion of St. Paul is a good
example. By the words of the risen Christ, Paul was converted
from a violent persecutor of the Church into its greatest mis­
sionary 24 (Acts 9, 1-26). And no "critic" today doubts Paul's ac­
count of his miraculous vision. In fact, no "critics" challenge the
authenticity of his epistles, yet Paul constantly presupposes that
the resurrection is a known fact. (In his Epistle to the Romans, for
example, he refers to it in 1, 4; 2, 16; 4, 24; 6, 4; 8, 11; 8, 34; 10,
9; 14, 9). Now it is inconceivable that a man of his strict honesty,
high intelligence and learning, would have joined a gang of liars.
It is inconceivable that he would have been completely deceived
by them. The only reasonable explanation for the conversion of
St. Paul is his encounter with the risen Christ.
The conversion of St. Paul was hardly a more remarkable
miracle than the change wrought in the Apostles themselves.
From dejected, discouraged, fearful men,25 they are transformed
into courageous, inspired, fearless Apostles. On the day of Pente­
cost, they come forth boldly in the very city where Christ was
crucified to preach the gospel. By his first sermon, St. Peter con­
verted three thousand to belief in Christ “whom God has raised
up, and we are all witnesses of it,” and five thousand more were
added a few days later, when he spoke again of “the author of
life whom God raised up from the dead” (Acts 10, 34-43)·
For after the resurrection, the Apostles and disciples had real­
ized fully for the first time that the man Jesus was also "their
Lord and their God.” "The Lord has indeed risen and has ap­
peared to Simon," was the cry of the Eleven as they greeted the
two disciples returning from Emmaus (Luke 24, 34). "Thou art
my Lord and my God," answered Thomas after he felt the wounds
of Jesus (John 20, 28). “It is die Lord." St. John shouted when
24. St. Paul's conversion occurred at the latest from three to five yean after
the death of Christ. Harnack thought Paul was converted either in the year
of Christ's death or in the year following it.
25. Subconsciously we seem to think that the zXpostles and martyrs feared
suffering and death less than we do. This mistaken impression is corrected,
however, by considering their conduct during our Lord's passion.

aS

Evidence for Our Failli

he recognized Christ on the lake shore (John si, 7). Jesus himself
answers Saul’s “Who art thou, Lord?" ”1 am Jesus whom Saul
persecutes" (Acts 9, 5).
By the resurrection the Apostles were convinced that God had
put his divine seal on the life of Jesus. Thus Peter tells the Jews:
", . . God had made him Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you
crucified" (Acts i, 36). Again and again, they assert "God raised
Jesus from the dead" (Acts 2, 32; 3, 15; 4, 10; 10, 40: 13, 30, 37).
Though many futile efforts were made to silence them, not even
one denial of the facts they narrated is recorded during the first
hundred years of Christianity. In their judgment, God had mani­
fested by this tremendous miracle his unmistakable approbation
of the claims of Jesus (Acts 10, 33-43).
For them his resurrection was a cosmic event since it guaran­
teed the resurrection of all men (I Cor. 15, 21). In his new life,
they found the positive assurance of their own eternal life (Phil.
3, 10). By living and conversing with the risen Christ, their hearts
and desires were raised above this world of time and space. The
things of this earth no longer seemed important. After the
descent of the Holy Spirit, they feared no man. Thus when they
were forbidden to speak, they replied: “It is impossible for us to re­
frain from speaking of what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4, 20).
Scourging did not deter them. “And they left the presence of the
Council, rejoicing that they had been found worthy to suffer in­
dignity for the sake of Jesus' name" (Acts 5, 41). And the dauntless
courage of the Apostles was found, too, in disciples like Stephen
(Acts 7, 51-59). Indeed, the history of the early Church, recorded
in the Acts of the Apostles, is a story of courageous men, men of
strong faith and burning love (II Cor. 11, 23-33). The resur­
rection of Christ alone explains the great change that took place
in the Apostles.
In Palestine and beyond its borders converts of every rank and
race multiplied rapidly. Within a few centuries they constituted
a majority in the Roman Empire. As St. Augustine said, if the
resurrection had not been a fact, then the conversion of the
world to belief in it by a few Galilean fishermen would have been
as great a miracle as the resurrection itself.
Among the first converts, there were “many (Jewish) priests"
(Acts 6, 7). Prior to their conversion, they belonged to the very
class that hated Christ and had condemned him to death. Now

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

gg

they broke away from their leaders who were still refusing to con­
sider the evidence (Acte 6, 33-42). Voluntarily, they gave up the
privileges of their priesthood for a life of unmitigated persecu­
tion. Before they made such a great sacrifice, they must have been
completely convinced of the truth of the resurrection.
Apparently, the evidence was so clear that they preferred to be
branded as traitors to their race and nation rather than deny
Christ any longer. And they had the opportunity to study first
hand evidence.-’ They could question and cross-examine the wit
nesses of the resurrection.27 They could study anew the Messianic
prophecies and how Jesus fulfilled them. They could investigate
the miracles worked by the Apostles in the name of the risen
Christ. In fact, the Apostles worked so many miracles that "fear
came upon every soul” (Acts 2, 7-8; 2, 43; 3, 1-10; 4, 13-22; 5,
18-23; 6· 8; 8, 13; 12, 6-10). (Note that we might prove even
from these miracles alone that God approved of the message of
the Apostles.)
The entire primitive Church shared the Apostles' conviction
about the real and bodily resurrection of Christ.2· In the first
century, St. Clement of Rome 22 is just as certain of it as St. Ig­
natius of Antioch *° is in the second century, or as Tertullian ··
and St. Irenaeus 32 are in the third century, or as St. Augustine “
and St. John Chrysostom34 are in the fourth century. All the
creeds, all the confessions of faith 36 and many doctrinal defini26. The Gospels mention the time and place of many miracles. At Capharnaum, for example, Christ healed the paralytic man. the servant of the
centurion, and raised the daughter of Jairus, the head of the synagogue, from
the dead. Many of the sick whom Christ healed and the dead who had
been restored to life by him were living witnesses confirming the words of
the Apostles.
27. St. Paul states that the majority of the five hundred people who had
seen Christ after his resurrection were still alive when he wrote his First
Epistle to the Corinthians. (I Cor. 15, 6)
28. Cf. Koesters, op. cit., pp. 25-41.
2g. Cf. Leiter to the Corinthians, I, XXXVI, 1 (PG., I. 280).
30. Cf. Letters to the Ephesians, XVIII, 2 (PG., V, 660); Magnetians. XX.
2 (PG.. V, 661); Smyrnaeans, I. 1 (PG., V, 708).
31. Cf. De Praescr., XIII (PL., II, 26); Adv. Marcionem, III, 8 (PL., 11, 331);
Adv. Pox.. II (PL.. II. 156).
32. Cf. Against Heresies, I, x, 1 (PG., II, 549).
33. Cf. Enarrationes in Ps. 63:15 (PL.. XXXVI. 767).
34. Cf. In Princip. Act. Hom., IV. 8.
35. Cf. Deminger. op. cit., nos. 2-13. 16. 10. 40-42. 54. 86. 994.

loo

Evidence for Our Faith

tions of the early Church reflect this firm faith of all Christians
in the resurrection of Christ. As St. Athanasius (325) said: "We
prove, therefore, that this doctrine (of the divinity of Christ) has
been handed down from fathers to fathers; you, however, who are
Jews of later birth and disciples of Caiphas, what fathers can you
produce to support your view? You can quote no one of any note;
all manifest horror of you." ’·
At the present time, approximately 485,000,000 Catholics,
129,000.000 Eastern Christians, and the majority of 207,000,000
Protestants believe that Christ is the true Son of God. This is a
religious profession unequaled in the world. If we add to these
numbers all those who have believed in Christ in past centuries,
we have a vast multitude, united by their faith in Christ and in­
spired by his life and teachings. This faith in Christ has been
passed on from generation to generation, from century to century.
It is not the opinion of a day or the tendency of an age; it is the
invaluable inheritance of the great family of Christians.37
These confirmations of the resurrection are undeniable facts of
history. If their apparent cause, the resurrection, is denied, they
are totally inexplicable. Although it is possible to develop each
one of these points and to add new confirmations, it seems un­
necessary. If anyone is interested in further discussion, he can
consult any one of the many books written about the resurrec­
tion.38 The more we study it, the more firmly we are convinced
of its truth. All the evidence bids us acknowledge that Christ
truly rose from the dead. And the positive arguments are rein­
forced by the absurdity of the theories proposed to explain them
away. We must, of course, keep in mind that historical evidence
cannot produce mathematical certitude; it can only exclude
reasonable doubtl In the present case, no reasonable doubt should
remain.
E. Resurrections in Other Religions

In recent years many scholars have labored to develop the sci­
ence of Comparative Religion.” Without doubt, this is a valuable
SG. De Deer. Nicaen. Syn., XXIV (PG., XXV, 465).
87. Cf. Koesters, op. cit., pp. 21-54.
38. The Third Day by Arnold Lunn is a splendid popular work on the
subject.
39. Often it is referred to as a History of Religions.

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

tot

science. Unfortunately, some Rationalists have endeavored to use
it to discredit Christianity. Their works usually follow the same
pattern.40 In the first volumes, the author considers the pagan re
ligions of antiquity. Since the evidence is sparse, he interprets it.
Ordinarily, he notes every similarity in morals, doctrines, or ritual
between the pagan religions and Christianity. Although he never
states definitely that Christianity receives any certain doctrine or
practice from another religion, he insinuates that it did. In other
words, he implies that Christianity is a fortunate syncretism of the
best in all the pagan religions. Christ consciously or unconsciously
selected the best features of all religions prior to his. Thus Christi­
anity is reduced to a natural religion.41
Naturally intelligent Christians object strongly to such a suave
presentation of untruths. Without doubt, the pagan religions
and Christianity have some things in common. As we have seen,
men can figure out some truths about God by reason alone. We
are not surprised, then, if a pagan religion teaches that God is one.
spiritual, infinite, or all-good. Obviously, Christianity teaches
those same truths.
By reason, man can know a number of moral principles. Be­
cause Christ includes those principles in his teaching, it does not
mean he got them from the pagans. If in some detail a pagan
sacrifice corresponds to the Christian sacrifice, it does not mean
they are related.42 In fact, it is obviously wrong to imply, that be­
cause they are similar, the one is derived from the other.
40. A good example is J. Frazer's The Golden Bough (is vols., 3rd ed.),
London (Macmillian), 1911-15. He merely re-echoes men like Pfleiderer,
Cunkel, Cheyne, and Fiebig. Even extreme liberals like B. Carl Clemen and
Johannes Weiss were indignant at the great wrong those men did in the name
of science. Cf. Felder, op. cit., p. 399.
41. As G. K. Chesterton remarked, popular scientists keep repeating that
Christianity and Buddhism are very much alike. Usually, they base their
arguments on resemblances that mean nothing at all. Mr. Blatchlord. (or
example, used this method. Thus he observed that both Christ and Buddha
were called by a divine voice from the sky. as if one would expect the divine
voice to come from a hole in the ground. Or. again, he pointed out that these
two Eastern teachers washed the feet of others. A person wonders why he did
not regard it as a significant coincidence that their disciples had feet to wash.
Cf. Chesterton, op. cit., pp. »4o-».p.
4«. As Ronald A. Knox says: "He (Mencken) is on more familiar ground
elsewhere, when he details more significant resemblances between Christian
and non-Christian rites; always careful, like Professor Huxley, to emphasise

/os

Evidence for Our Faith

As you may suspect, these Rationalists conveniently forget
about the vast differences. They may find a pagan religion that
worships three gods or god under three aspects, but they have
never found one that worships three persons in the one God. They
may discover that in some mystery religion, a man became god or
a god became a man, but they have never discovered one where
God becomes man and yet retains his divine nature. And although
they discover similarities in external and secondary matters,*’
they have never found a parallel to the sublime, well-balanced
figure of Christ depicted by the Evangelists.
Above all, the Rationalists note carefully any similarities be­
tween the resurrection of Christ and those of pagan gods. Again
and again, they indicate where the notion of Christ’s resurrection
might have originated. After they write chapters on legends, folk­
lore, and nature-myths about resurrections, they speak of the
the similarities and keep a severe silence about the differences. Christians use
beads to count the prayers they are saying; so do the Buddhists: therefore . .
The symbol of the Cross is used in Christian art; it is also found among the
relics of several early religions: therefore. . . . The ancient Aztecs celebrated
a ceremonial and probably sacrificial meal, which reminded the Spaniards of
their own Mass and Communion: therefore. . . . Therefore what?
"Mr. Mencken draws no conclusions. Or, rather, he does so occasionally,
but not with more titan his usual success. ... By dwelling on resemblances
and neglecting differences, by presenting the Incarnation as one among a
series of theophanies, the Resurrection as one among a series of fertility­
legends, you can hypnotize the reader into a state of fumbling agnosticism;
'it would take me loo long,' he feels, 'to go into all this mass of detail'; he
cannot see the wood for the trees. I do not know whether Mr. Mencken
talks on the wireless, but he has caught the method to perfection; he dazzles
by excess of light, nauseates the intellectual digestion with a surfeit of facts,
and leaves the reader, from sheer weariness, disinclined to hear the word
'religion' ever mentioned again.” Broadcast Minds, New York (Sheed & Ward),
>985· PP 158-14«43. Often they refer to Krishna, Buddha, and Gilgamesh. Krishna was the
eighth incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu. The earliest legends about him
(second to seventh century) mention some similarities between his childhood
and Christ's. Krishna, however, is represented as the natural son of his parents
and his morality is far inferior to that of Christ. In regard to Gotama Buddha,
the emphasis was first put on his doctrines and only later on his person. The
fundamental teachings of Christ and Buddha are diametrically opposed,
namely, theism vs. atheism and monism. Moreover, Buddha never claimed
to be divine. All we know about Gilgamesh is found in an epic on the cunei­
form tablets in the brick library of Ashurbanipal (668-626 B.C.).

Christ's Claims Are Credible

io)

resurrection of Christ as if it were just another myth. In some old
mythologies, for example, the gods of the sun die at night and
rise in the morning. The Hellenic gods of vegetation M die in
the Fall and rise in the Spring. "Is not Jesus supposed to have
risen at sunrise, and in the Spring? This can hardly be pure co­
incidence.”
Although the Rationalists cannot point out any direct influ­
ence of these mythologies on Christianity, they "know" that they
must have influenced the authors of the Old Testament and
through them the early Christians. Their method is sufficiently
vague, sufficiently discreet about making direct statements that
would have to he proved and sufficiently erudite on the surface to
lead many astray. Because they write volumes on the subject,
people conclude that they "must have something." Unfortunately,
some who read their books fail to grasp the all-important differ­
ence between all these mythical resurrections and the resurrection
of Jesus. They are merely poetic fancies—timeless myths or sym­
bols—without any historical basis. The resurrection of Jesus is a
well-authenticated historical event concerning a historical per­
sonage. There is a world of difference between the two.
III. CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have indicated three reasons why every man
should believe in the divinity of Christ. These reasons or proofs
are based upon a great deal of evidence found in proven histori­
cal documents. When we examine the objections Rationalists
have proposed against these proofs we realize that it is not the
believer but the unbeliever who is unreasonable and who is
blinded by his philosophy. The difficulty is not to find sufficient
evidence to establish, for example, the resurrection of Christ for
all the historical evidence at our disposal leads us to believe in
the resurrection. The difficulty is to select and present the best
evidence in a few pages.
44. Babylonian Tammuz. Egyptian Osiris and Isis. Phoenician Adonis and
Astarte, Phrygian Attis, Syrian Atargatis, Thracian Dionysos and Zagreus. Cf.
Felder, op. cit., 398-401.

I04

Evidence for Our Faith
THE HALLUCINATION THEORY

Supplementary reading from Arnold Lunn, The Third Day, Lon­
don (Burns, Oates), 1945, pp. 74-80.

We must not confuse hallucination with mal-observation. A
clever conjurer can deceive his audience and they may fail to ob­
serve things which only a keen-sighted and quick-witted person
would detect, and the resultant hallucination is due to malobservation. Abnormal people who are mentally unbalanced
suffer from isolated illusions. Normal people under abnormal
circumstances may suffer hallucinations. Many years ago Mr.
Claud Elliott, now headmaster of Eton, and I, searched a
Pyrenean peak on which a friend of ours had been killed. We
had travelled all through the night from London and started on
our search-party within an hour or two of arriving at the little
inn from which he started his last climb. We were out of training
and tired, and the strain of the search gradually began to tell.
Every time we turned a corner we expected to see our friend;
again and again we thought we saw his body stretched out on the
rocks, and heard the other members of the party shouting that
they had found him. A vulture hovering near the cliff, as vul­
tures will often hover for days before attacking a dead body,
provided a macabre touch. These hallucinations were vivid
while they lasted, but they never lasted for more than a second or
two.
Monsignor Knox, in one of his sermons, quotes my experiences
on the Pyrenean search-party and adds, "Isn't it possible, ask the
critics of our religion, that the people who thought they saw our
Lord after his Resurrection were in the same position as that?”
To which we answer, No. Whatever position they were in, they
were not in the same position as that. Rather, they were exactly
in the opposite position. A hallucination means seeing something
else, and mistaking it for what you are looking for, as Arnold
Lunn did in the Pyrenean peak; these people saw what they were
looking for and, one and all, mistook it for something else. St.
Mary Magdalene did want to find the Crucified, and it would
have been natural enough if she had seen the gardener and mis­

Christ's Claims Are Credible

mt

taken him for our Lord. The curious thing is that she saw our
Lord and mistook him for the gardener. The two disciples on the
Emmaus road, who were thinking about our Ix>rd and talking
about him as they went, might have been pardoned if they had
recognised his figure, wrongly, in that of some casual passer-by.
But the fact is that they thought he was a casual passer-by when
they really met him. The apostles in the Upper Room might
easily have seen a ghost and taken it for their Master; but they
didn’t, they saw their Master and took him for a ghost. And again
by the lake-side, they might have been deceived by the accents
of a strange voice, and thought it was his. It is more significant
that they should have been deceived by the accents of his voice,
and thought it was a strange one. They didn’t run away with their
first impressions, and tell unauthenticated stories of a miracle.
They examined their first impressions and only by examination
learned the miraculous truth."
And as Monsignor Knox remarked on another occasion, "No­
body is sure that he has found a half crown in his pocket as a
man who puts his hand into a pocket expecting that it will con­
tain a solitary copper.”
Exhaustion, strain and fear, all played their part in creating
those fleeting hallucinations on the Pyrenean peak, but no such
background can be invoked to explain the appearances of our
lord to the disciples.
Nothing could be more natural than the setting in which Christ
appeared to the disciples on their way to Emmaus. The story is
told by St. Luke. Jesus joins them on their walk, just as any other
pilgrim might. It was broad daylight, and the appearance of Jesus
provokes none of the astonishment and perturbation which wc
associate with the appearance of phantoms. And the stranger who
joins them asks them why they were so depressed. "You must
be a stranger in Jerusalem," is the reply, "or you could not have
failed to hear the things that have happened these days." "What
things,” asks the stranger; and the two disciples re-tell the sad
story of their vanished hopes. "For, of course, we had hoped that
it was he who was to deliver Israel."
Or again read the story of doubting Thomas as told by St. John.
No prejudice could be stronger than St. Thomas'. He insists on
experimental proof before he believes, and yields only to the ir­

i of,

Evidence for Our Faith

resistible pressure of stubborn fact. It is impossible to fit this story
into the familiar pattern of hallucination. . . .
Our problem is to account for the origin of a belief sn contrary,
not only to human experience, but also to their own expectations,
for the disciples hoped for an earthly triumph, and refused to be­
lieve that Jesus would be rejected by his own people. And because
they did not wish to believe in the Cross, they found no room in
their minds for the Resurrection which, like the Cross, had been
foretold. Very significant in this context is the conversation of two
disciples with the risen Christ whom they had failed to recognise
on the walk to Emmaus. They told him how the chief priests and
our rulers, handed Christ over to be sentenced to death. "For our­
selves, we had hoped that it was he who was to deliver Israel, but
now to crown all, today is the third day since it befell." And they
describe with no apparent conviction, the finding of the empty
tomb by the women and also by some of the apostles "but of him
they saw nothing,” and it is clear that these disciples at least were
unpersuaded by the fact that the women reported "that they had
seen a vision of angels who said that he was still alive.” It was not
until they returned to Jerusalem that the disciples who walked
to Emmaus learned that “the Lord had appeared to Simon.” The
reluctance to accept the evidence of women is a convincing touch,
for if the story had been invented we may be very sure that the
discovery of the empty tomb would not have been attributed to
women. . . .
It was not until St. John entered the tomb and found it empty
"and the napkin that had been about his head not lying with the
linen clothes” that "he saw and believed. For as yet they knew
not the scriptures that he must rise again from the dead.”
It was difficult for the disciples to believe in the Resurrection
because this belief conflicted with all human experience. It was
difficult to believe in Christ because loyalty to Christ involved a
breach with the church of their Fathers. We are tempted to forget
that the disciples were Jews, for the influence of Christian art is
so strong that we tend to think of them as Nordic or Latin Chris­
tians and not as Asiatic Jews. Religion is never more powerful
than when it is closely associated with the national loyalties of an
oppressed race, as for instance in Palestine under the Romans, or
in Serbia during the Turkish occupation, or in Ireland during the
long Anglo-Protestant ascendancy. It was as difficult for the dis­

Christ’s Claims Are Credible

/07

ciples to break away from the Synagogue as it would have been for
Irish peasants during the penal times to apostatise from the Cath­
olic Church.
It is inconceivable that a mere hallucination could have pro­
voked and maintained this spiritual dislocation of their lives, a
dislocation which involved a complete breach with their past.
Sooner or later the remonstrances of those who loved them, and
the bitter reproaches of those who despised them as apostates must
have eroded their faith in the objective reality of what they be­
lieved that they had seen. As the opposition increased and as the
possibility of martyrdom became more and more apparent, their
confidence in the hallucination must inevitably have weakened.
Moreover, no hallucinations are identical, and inevitably as the
memory of the phantoms faded the disciples must have begun to
compare their own memories of what they believed that they had
seen, and the inevitable discrepancies must have reinforced their
growing doubts. Finally, these men had to stand the supreme test
of martyrdom, and they were not of the stuff of which martyrs are
made, for they abandoned Jesus and fled at the moment of his
arrest and Peter subsequently denied him.
It is very hard for a man to eradicate even small failings, for
character is stubborn in its resistance to change. The disciples
were average men, neither heroes nor cowards, but subject—as
ordinary men are subject—to collapse under great strain, and it
is difficult to believe that a mere hallucination could have trans­
formed these men, who panicked in Gethsemane, into the dynamic
Apostles who were not only ready to break with their Church,
their relations and their friends, but also proved themselves un­
daunted by flogging, imprisonment and the ever present prospect
of martyrdom. Nothing but a certitude, rock-like in quality, could
have produced this amazing transformation.

CHAPTER VI

The Testimony of History

IF Christ's claims are credible, I should be a Christian, a follower
of Christ. But what kind of a Christian? This question brings us
to the heart-breaking problem of a divided Christianity. There
are approximately 821,000,000 Christians in the world today. Of
these, some 485,000,000 are Roman Catholics; 129,000,000 belong
to the Separated Eastern Churches;1 and 207,000,000 are Prot­
estants.12*5 There are nineteen Separated Eastern Churches and
many more Protestant Churches.8 The problem then is this:
Should I be a Roman Catholic, a member of the Roman Catholic
Church, and, if so, why?
The Roman Catholic Church offers three reasons for its claim
to be the one and only true Church of Christ. The most basic of
these reasons is known as the historical proof for the Church's
1. These arc also called the Dissident Oriental Churches or the Orthodox
Churches. After centuries of intermittent schism they separated themselves
definitively from Rome in die fifteenth century. Some of these churches, or
parts of them, have since returned to communion with the Holy See. Consult
the chart at die end of this chapter.
2. This includes the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church, the
American offshoot of the Church of England. The "high-church" group
within the Protestant Episcopal Church resents the term Protestant and has
tried unsuccessfully to have it eliminated from die official title of their
Church.
5. Here in the United States diere are around four hundred Protestant
sects. Most of them are small; more dian 90% of American Protestants belong
to two dozen denominations.
/oS

The Testimony of History

l09

claim. It runs like this. Christ himself established his Church as a
visible society, giving to it a determinate constitution as a visible
society He commanded all men to become members of this one
Church. Now the only Church that can trace its lineage back to
the apostolic Church founded by Christ is the Roman Catholic
Church. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is the true
Church of Christ. Therefore, if a Christian, I should be a Roman
Catholic Christian.
The critical point in this proof is the statement: Christ estab­
lished his Church as a visible society, giving to it a determinate
constitution as a visible society. The proof for this statement is as
follows. He who i) gathers around himself a group of disciples,
2) places before them a goal to be achieved, 3) supplies them with
the means to its achievement, and 4) establishes an authority in
their midst to direct them to this goal by the use of these means, is
the founder of a visible society. But Christ himself did all these
four things in the case of the apostolic church: t) he gathered
together a group of disciples: 2) he placed before them a goal to
be achieved: 3) he supplied them with the means to its achieve­
ment; 4) he established an authority in their midst to direct them
to this goal by the use of these means. Therefore Christ himself
founded the apostolic Church as a visible society.
The first statement is indisputable: the man who does all these
four things is unquestionably the founder of a visible society. It
is around the second statement that the Roman Catholic-Prot­
estant controversy revolves, although not around all four parts of
this statement nor with equal importance around those in dispute.
As to the first part—Christ himself gathered together a group
of disciples—there can be no question. As to the second part—
Christ placed before them an end to be achieved—there is. at least
along general lines, no dispute; that end is eternal salvation in the
kingdom of God. As to the third part of the statement—Christ
supplied them with the means to the achievement of this end—
there is much dispute but this disagreement has its roots in the
fourth part of the statement. It is around this fourth and last part
that the controversy really revolves—which is not surprising, since
without authority a visible society cannot exist4 and since the
nature of the authority determines the nature of the visible society.
4. Authority is the formal element in a visible society and the distribution
of authority determines ihe nature of the visible society.

i IO

Evidence for Our Faith

Thus our primary question—Did Christ himself establish his
church as a visible society?—is reduced to the question—Did
Christ himself establish an authority in the apostolic church and,
if so, what was the nature of that authority? Some Protestants
deny that Christ established an authority in the apostolic church.
Others admit that he did so but disagree with us as to the nature
of that authority. A review of their opinions will throw much light
on our own position as Roman Catholics and will at the same
time indicate what must be proved in order to validate the histor­
ical proof for the Roman Catholic position.
I. CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT VIEWS
A. The Catholic View

The Roman Catholic position is that Jesus Christ established
his Church as, at one and the same time, an invisible and a visible
society. Here we are interested in that Church as a visible society.
What kind of an authority did he set up in his Church?
First of all, we maintain that Christ bestowed authority to gov­
ern, teach, and sanctify his followers upon the Apostles and their
successors, the bishops of the Church. Secondly, we hold that
Christ bestowed supreme authority over the whole Church upon
St. Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome. Thus, we believe
that the Church of Christ according to the will of its founder is
ruled by bishops who are the successors of the Apostles. We be­
lieve that among the bishops, as among the Apostles, one of their
number is chief. Although each Catholic bishop receives his juris­
diction from God, he must use it in obedience to the Bishop of
Rome who succeeds St. Peter as supreme ruler. In other words,
just as every diocesan bishop is a visible vicar with authority
delegated from Christ over his own diocese, so the Pope is a still
higher vicar with authority delegated from Christ over the whole
Church. As Fortescue says: "We know that Christ governs, teaches,
sanctifies his Church through men, his vicars. Christ baptizes,
Christ consecrates, Christ forgives sins, rules the diocese. Christ
rules the whole body too, at Headquarters: here, too he does so
through his minister." 6
What is the scope of their authority, the authority of a bishop
5. Cf. Fortescue, The Early Papacy, London (Burns, Oates and Wash­
bourne). 19:0, p. 21.

The Testimony of History

ttt

in his diocese, of a Pope over the whole Church? Neither a bishop
nor a Pope is an irresponsible tyrant who can do anything he
pleases in the territory under his jurisdiction. They have authority
over matters of religion and in those adjacent matters that closely
affect it. But they have no authority from Christ in purely tern
poral matters, in political questions, or in the experimental sci
cnees. Moreover, even in religious matters, their powers are not
unlimited; they are limited by the constitution of the Church as
established by Christ. Not even the Pope can modify or change
any article of divine revelation; his task is to guard it against at­
tack and false interpretation. He can neither omit a text from the
Bible nor add one to it. He must believe the revelation of Christ
as all Catholics believe it and he must preach it to the world.
He can neither make nor abolish a sacrament. Nor could a Pope
decide to abolish the college of bishops and directly rule the entire
Church.
B. Protestant Views
It is very difficult to present accurately the manifold Protestant
views on this matter.® The best one can do is to indicate trends of
thought. They can be reduced to two.
First of all, we have those Protestants who agree with us that
Christ did establish his Church as a visible society but disagree
with us as to the kind of society he established. Here we have two
divergent views. The "high-church" Episcopalians and the "Or­
thodox" Churches maintain that Christ bestowed spiritual author­
ity upon the Apostles and their successors, the bishops of the
Church. They deny that he gave supreme authority to St. Peter
and his successors, the bishops of Rome. At best, they will admit
that the occupants of the see of Rome possess a primacy of honor;
that they are the first among equals.67 We have another view
favored by some Lutherans. This not only denies that supreme
authority was granted to St. Peter and his successors but also that
spiritual authority was conferred upon the Apostles and their suc­
cessors, the bishops. It holds that spiritual authority was given to
6. Cf. Weigel. Gustave, S.J., Ί Survey of Protestant Theology in Our Day,
Westminster (The Newman Press), 1954, pp. 3-1».
7. They do not agree as to the source of this primacy of honor. Some hold
that it is of ecclesiastical origin while others will admit that it was bestowed
upon St. Peter and his successors by Christ himself.

112

Evidence for Our Faith

all of Christ's followers, insisting upon the priesthood of all be­
lievers. They are the immediate subject of spiritual authority. It
is they who not only designate those who shall exercise authority
in the Church but likewise communicate this authority to them.
Secondly, we have those Protestants who deny that Christ estab­
lished his Church as a visible society. In their opinion, the Church
as founded by Christ has no earthly organization.8 It is something
greater and wider than any defined body of Christians. In other
words, the Church of Christ embraces all believers,9 Of course,
members of this one invisible Church may form individual
churches, if they find it spiritually helpful to do so. Although
these churches are useful, they are not essential.10 They have been
compared to clubs within a city. Some citizens of a city, for exam­
ple, may find it useful to join a club (K. of C., Elks, Odd Fellows,
etc.) but all remain citizens whether they join a club or not. Thus,
8. A well-known Protestant editor, Charles C. Morrison, writes: "No de­
nomination claims that Christ is the head of its denomination! It may claim
that it has ‘the truth.’ that it is 'the true New Testament church,' that its
creed is the true statement of the Christian faith, and that its practices and
mode of organization conform strictly to die 'pattern' of the primitive church;
but no denomination, or only a negligible few. has ever pretended that Christ
is the head of its denomination. Such a claim would sound eidier ridiculous
or blasphemous in the ear of any Protestant. Only Rome makes such a claim,
and it was against this very pretension that Protestantism revolted.” Can
Protestantism H'in America, New York (Harper), 1948, p. 180. Cf. Harnack,
What is Christianity!, New York (Putnam's), 1908, pp. 281, 293, 295-296.
9. Ronald A. Knox, who is a convert to the Church, said: "Ninety per cent
of the people who reject the Catholic Church reject it. not because they
believe in some other visible Church, but because they do not believe in a
visible Church at all." The Mystery of the Kingdom, London (Sheed &
Ward), 1928, p. 41.
In this regard, Protestants are following the lead of Luther and Calvin.
They maintained that Christ did not found his Church as a visible institution.
In their opinion, the true church is composed of diose whom Cod has pre­
destined to Heaven. In recent years, Hamack and Sabatier proposed a differ­
ent opinion. According to them, Christ merely revealed his spirit of love for
God and men. His "Kingdom" or "Church" is made up of those who try
to feel in their hearts what he felt.
to. Morrison says: "Protestantism thus knows at least this much of the
mind of Christ with respect to the differences which divide his church into
‘churches': He totally disregards them as having no relevancy at all in the
constitution of his church. Protestants confess that Christ and his church
transcend their sectarian contentions and the sectarian 'churches' that are
maintained upon them. The sheep of other sectarian folds belong to him
no less than those of their own sectarian fold." Ibid., p. 180.

The Testimony of History

rrj

all Christians belong to the one true Church of Christ whether
they attend the services of any particular denomination or not.
Consequently, many Protestants feel that one church is as good as
another.11 And they do not think that any Church has an exclu­
12
sive authority from God to teach and guide men.11
The historical proof for the Church’s claim is directed mainly
against those Protestants who admit that Christ founded a visible
Church but who disagree with us as to its nature. Our immediate
task, then, is to show that Christ himself conferred spiritual au­
thority upon the Apostles and their successors, the bishops of his
Church—this against the view of some Protestants that he estab­
lished his Church on democratic lines; and that he bestowed su­
preme authority upon St. Peter and his successors, the bishops of
Rome—this against those Protestants who maintain that he estab­
lished his Church on oligarchic lines. The identification of the
Catholic Church with the one established by Christ follows with­
out any difficulty.

II. EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY
In this section we seek to prove that Christ himself conferred
spiritual authority upon the Apostles and their successors, the
bishops of his Church. To do so we will appeal to the evidence
from Scripture and Tradition.
A. Evidence from Scripture
At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus declared his in­
tention of inaugurating "the kingdom of God” or "the kingdom
of heaven" or “my Church.” 13 In fact, the greater part of his
teaching centers around it. It was the "kingdom" vaguely de­
scribed by the prophets in which a remnant of the Jews would
take part.14
11. Cf. ibid., pp. 180-181.
12. There are exceptions. The Seventh Day Adventists, for example, hold
that their church is the one true Church because they alone have preserved
the faith of the Apostles and the reformers, which faith is lost in all the other
Christian denominations.
13. O( course, the earthly kingdom instituted by Christ is a preparation for
the heavenly; the relation is one of means to end. Cf. Y. de la Briere, "Eglise,"
in Dictionnaire Apologétique, I, 1246-1247.
14. Like the other institutions of Christianity, the Church was foreshadowed
under the Old Jewish dispensation so that the world would be prepared (or
it. Under the old dispensation, the Ecclesia (Church) of Cod was coter-

iif

Evidence for Our Faith

Obviously, it was not a political kingdom, for Jesus resisted
any effort to make him a temporal monarch. And yet "his king
Horn” is inaugurated on earth for he compares it to a field that
contains both wheat and cockle; to a net that takes in both good
anti bad fishes; to a bridal party including both wise and foolish
virgins. It is a sheepfold of which he makes Peter the shepherd.'5
The resurrection is to take place at the end, not at the beginning
of it.'"
Indeed, Christ speaks of himself as a king who departs for a
far country. During his absence, his deputies will administer his
kingdom. And it will grow rapidly, like a mustard tree, serving
as a leaven to all mankind.,T When he, the King, returns (at the
end of the world), he will reap the harvest. He will separate the
minous with the Jewish nation. God has "called" the Jews from among all
the nations to his unique Assembly. As a member of this Assembly, the Jew
claimed what he claimed, and hoped what he hoped. In God's Providence,
this Church-nation served as the rough model for the Christian Assembly
that followed anti superseded it.
The Christian Church was to differ in many respects from the old "Church
of God.” "It was to differ from it in being international; it was to differ
from it in being guided and indwelt by the Holy Spirit; it was to differ from
it in being indefectible, irreplaceable. But plainly the new Church was to
be, like the old "Church," a visible Society; for in all his teaching our Lord
uttered no hint of a difference which must have proved so momentous."
Knox. The Church on Earth, New York (Macmillan), 1929. pp. 6-7·
15. John 10. 16; ei, 15-18.
16. Surely, there is no foundation for the old Calvinist notion that the
Church is the sum of those predestined to eternal life.
17. "This kingdom of his is not to appear suddenly. Recent scholars have
sometimes imagined that our Lord expected his own death to be followed
by some sudden world catastrophe, which would usher in a new order of
things, and that this new order was the 'kingdom' referred to. But he has
been careful to explain that his kingdom is a slow growth which you might
compare to the action of a man who plants a mustard seed, or that of a
woman who hides leaven in three measures of meal. So far from encouraging
his followers to think that a world-catastrophe is to be expected shortly, he
goes out of his way to assure them that a long period of waiting must precede
it; and that period of waiting will be his kingdom. The householder must
sleep and rise night and day while the seed grows; it is a far country that
die king is visiting, and his return from it is delayed. Thus the kingdom
may be identified with a period of time, namely—our Lord will not specify
its length—which is to intervene between its institution and his coming
again." Knox, The Belief of Catholics, New York (Shced &: Ward). 1940,
pp. 146-147.

The Testimony of History

jry

cockle from the wheat, the bad fish from the good, the goats from
the sheep. Then the good will be invited to his heavenly kingdom,
the consummation of his kingdom on earth.
As the nucleus of this kingdom or Church, Christ chose a small
number of disciples whom he carefully trained. "Then he went up
onto the mountain side, and called to him those whom it pleased
him to call; so these came to him, and he appointed twelve to be
his companions, and to go out preaching at his command . .
(Mark j, 13-15).
His principal concern seemed to be their ministry which was to
be a posthumous continuation of his own. In fact, he spent most
of his time instructing them. While he preached only to the lost
sheep of Israel, they were to represent him before the whole
world. Thus his heart is filled with joy and gratitude when they
recount the successes of their first mission. Repeatedly, he stresses
their role. They are to be "fishers of men," the “salt of the earth,"
and the reapers of an abundant harvest. To them alone he entrusts
the secrets of the kingdom.
For three long years he instructed and trained them. Then, just
before his Ascension, he sent them forth as his representatives to
1) teach,
2) govern, and
3) sanctify all nations.
He sent them to teach all nations. "All power in heaven and
on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples
of all nations . . ." (Matt. 28, 19; Mark 16, 16). "You shall re­
ceive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you and you are to
be my witnesses in Jerusalem and throughout Judaea, in Samaria,
yes, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1, 8).
Obviously, their mission is a continuation of his own. They are
his official teachers. To them he promises the Holy Spirit who
will aid them to recall and understand all his teachings. "So much
converse I have held with you, still at your side. He who is to
befriend you, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send on my
account, will in his turn make everything plain, and recall to your
minds everything I have said to you" (John 14, 25-26).
He sent them to govern men. "Go, therefore, and make disciples
of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have com­
manded you" (Matt. 28, 19-20). Notice that our Lord not only
commands them to teach, but to teach them to observe (obey) hu

ji6

Evidence for Our Faith

commandments. In other words, they teach with his authority.
Peter is Riven charge '* of all his lambs and sheep (John 21, 15-17).
And the Christians are bound to obey them. "I promise you,
all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and all that
you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18, 18). "He
who listens to you, listens to me; he who despises you, despises
me; and he who despises me, despises him that sent me" (Luke
10, 16).
He sent them to sanctify men by sacred rites. "And he said to
them. Go out all over the world ... he who believes and is
baptized will be saved; he who refuses belief will be condemned"
(Mark 16, 16; Matt. 28, 18-20).
"When he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said to
them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they
arc forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are re­
tained" (John 20, 22-23).
And the Apostles carried out his command. Following St.
Peter's first sermon, the Apostles baptized three thousand (Acts
2, 41). After Philip baptized the Samaritans, Peter and John laid
their hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit (Acts
8, 12-17). Peter baptized the first Gentile converts even though
they had already received the Holy Spirit (Acts 11, 15-18). In fact,
until the time of the Protestant revolt, the public rite of baptism
clearly distinguished members of the Church from non-members.
Through it, they were initiated into the society of Christ.
Everywhere the Apostles taught his doctrines, governed accord­
ing to his precepts, and sanctified men with his sacraments. It was
to the Apostles as teachers, rulers and sanctifiers of his society that
Christ promised his constant divine assistance. "Go, therefore,
make disciples of all nations . . . and behold, I am with you all
days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28, 19-20).
Soon after Christ's Ascension the apostolic Church appeared as
an organized, visible society. There is no indication of any period
of organization. The Apostles seemed to know their roles. Imme­
diately they acted together, under the leadership of Peter, as the
official teachers and rulers of the infant Church.
Indeed, they presupposed that everyone recognized their posi­
tion in the Church. Thus, they appointed and ordained the first
deacons.
18.

The nature of St. Peter's authority will be discussed in the next section.

The Testimony of History

u-j

So the twelve called together the general body of the disciple», and «aid.
It is too much that we should have to forego preaching God’s word,
and bestow our care upon tables. Come then, brethren, you must find
among you seven men to put in charge of this business, and to the
ministry of preaching. . . . These they presented to the apostles, who
laid their hands on them with prayer (Act 6, 2-6).

Note how the twelve called together the general body of dis­
ciples. They told them to select seven men whom the twelve or­
dained and put in charge of the less important business of the
Church.
On their own responsibility, they chose another Apostle (Acts i,
15-26). They took for granted that their successors would also
rule the Church. St. Paul states that a bishop "must be one who
is a good head to his own family, and keeps his children in order
by winning their full respect; if a man has not learned to manage
his own household, will he know how to govern God's Church?”
(1 Timothy 3, 4-5).
The Council of Jerusalem (49-50 A.D.) serves as another good
example of how the Apostles governed the apostolic Church. In
the Acts of Apostles, we read:
But now some visitors came down from Judea, who began to tell the
brethren, You cannot be saved without being circumcised according to
the tradition of Moses. Paul and Barnabas were drawn into a great con­
troversy with them; and it was decided that Paul and Barnabas and
certain of the rest should go up to see the apostles and presbyters in
Jerusalem about this question. . . . When they reached Jerusalem,
they were welcomed by the church, and by the apostles and presbyters;
and they told them of all that God has done to aid them. But some be­
lievers came forward and declared. They must be circumcised; we must
call upon them to keep the law of Moses. When the apostles and presby­
ters assembled to decide about this matter there was much disputing
over it, until Peter rose and said to them . . .Thereupon it was re­
solved by the apostles and presbyters, with the agreement of the whole
church, to choose out some of their number and despatch them to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. ... It is the Holy Spirit's pleasure
and ours that no burden should be laid upon you beyond these . . .
(Acts 15, 1-35)·

Note how the Christians at Antioch referred their question to
the Apostles and presbyters of the central Church. When their
representatives arrived at Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the

ri8

Evidence for Our Faith

Church and by the Apostles and presbyters. Evidently, the mem­
bers of the Church as well as its leaders were well known and
united.
The dispute continued until Peter rose. Following Peter's direc­
tions, the Apostles made a law for Gentile converts. Thus, as the
recognized leaders of the Church, the Apostles governed it.
Obviously, Peter was the leader of the Apostles. In this chapter,
we do not intend to discuss how it was possible for him to be the
undisputed leader despite his threefold denial and his poor edu­
cation. But we merely note the fact that Peter directed the elec­
tion of a successor to Judas; that he preached the first sermons be­
fore the Jews; that he judged Ananias and Saphira; that his word
was final at Jerusalem.10 In other words, the Apostles governed the
Church under the leadership of Peter.19
20
Indeed, the apostolic Church appeared as exclusive and au­
thoritative as the Catholic Church seems today. Thus, St. Paul
declared:

Friends, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you
a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him!
I repeat now the warning we gave you before it happened, if anyone
preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse
upon him (Gal. i, 8-io)l

Again, St. Paul told Titus: “Give a heretic one warning, then
a second, and after that avoid his company; his is a perverse
nature, thou mayest be sure . . .” (Titus 3, ti).
In his first epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul instructed them
to expel habitual sinners from their company.

Why, there are reports of incontinence among you, and such incon­
tinence as is not practiced even among the heathen; a man taking to
himself his father’s wife. And you, it seems, have been contumacious
over it, instead of deploring it and expelling the man who has been
guilty of such a deed from your company. . . . Call an assembly, at
which I will be present in spirit, with all the power of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and so, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, hand over the
person named to Satan. . . . The other questions I will settle when
I come (1 Cor. 5, 1-5; 11, 34).
19. Acts 1, 15-16; st, 14-42: 3, 12-26; 4, 16-20; 5, i-is; 5, s6-gg; 15, i-85.
so. The nature of this leadership, as already noted, will be discussed in the
following section.

The Testimony of History

ng

Like St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus, St. Paul insisted on obe­
dience.
Obey those who have charge of you, and yield to their will; they are
keeping unwearied watch over your souls, because they know they will
have an account to give. See to it that theirs is a grateful task, not a
laborious effort; you would gain nothing from that. . . . Greet all
those who are in authority and all the saints (Hebrews 13, 17 and 24).

Note how St. Paul instructed the bishops to be real shepherds.
Keep watch, then, over yourselves, and over God’s Church, in which
the Holy Spirit has made you bishops; you are to be the shepherds of
that flock which he won for himself at the price of his own blood (Acts
20, 27-28).

It is possible to quote other passages of Sacred Scripture but it
seems unnecessary. From the texts we have quoted, it is clear that
the apostolic Church was an organized society. It was composed
of rulers and subjects, teachers and taught, working towards the
same objective. The members were known, for they were admitted
to the Church through the public rile of baptism (Acts 2. 41; 11,
48). As a group, they joined in public worship. All of them be­
lieved in the same truths of faith. If anyone differed from the
official teachers of the Church, they were expelled. It is likewise
clear that the authority which the Apostles exercised was not one
that they usurped nor was it one that had been bestowed upon
them by the disciples of Christ. It was an authority that had been
granted to them by Christ himself.
B. Evidence from Tradition

1.

The General Councils

The organization of the early Church is clear from the General
Councils. They were composed of bishops from all over the world.
These bishops who were the local rulers of the Church were called
together to decide questions of faith and morals. When their de­
cisions were approved by the Pope, they were binding on all mem­
bers of the Church. Thus all the followers of Arius were cut off
from the Church by die Council of Nicaea.
In the first five centuries there were four General Councils,
held at Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and
Chalcedon (451)· Even the canons of these Councils indicate that

iao

Evidence for Our Faith

the early Church was a visible society composed of rulers and sub­
jects, teachers and taught, working together towards the same ob­
jective with the same means. The Council of Chalcedon, for ex­
ample, declared:
Clerics of poor-houses, monasteries and oratories shall remain under
the jurisdiction of their respective bishop in each city . . . and shall
not indulge in sclfwill or rebel against their bishop. Those who dare in
any manner transgress this ordinance and refuse submission to their
bishop, are if clerics, to incur canonical censure (deposition), if monks
or laymen, to be excommunicated.21

Evidently, the bishops had supreme authority in their respective
cities. If a person wished to remain in the Church, he had to obey
his bishop. Disobedience led to expulsion from the society. But
the bishops themselves had to conform to the canons of the
Church. Thus the Council of Ephesus decreed:

Similarly in regard to all those who shall aim to undo in any way any
decision of this holy council of Ephesus, the holy council decides that
if they be bishops or clerics, they are to be expelled from their ranks
(deposed); if laics, excommunicated. 22
Apparently, the whole Church was a strongly knit society under
the same authority. The decrees of the Councils of Constantinople
and Nicaea confirm this truth. Thus the Council of Nicaea de­
clared:
In regard to those who call themselves Cathari (heretics), should they
desire to enter the Catholic and Apostolic Church, this holy and great
council decrees that they receive the imposition of hands . . . they
must certify in writing that they will accept and follow the teachings
of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. . . ,28

Even these few decrees reveal how well organized the early
Church was. Obviously, the Fathers of the Councils did not think
the Church was invisible. And the more you study the Councils
the more you realize that primitive Christianity was Catholic in
every respect. Consider, for example, the attitude of the Council
of Chalcedon towards the Pope.
si. The Council of Chalcedon, Canon VIII. Translation by H. J. Schroeder.
The Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils, St. Louis (Herder). 1937,
P· 97ss. Council ol Ephesus, Canon VI. Ibid., pp. 76-77.
»3. Council of Nicaea, Canon VIII. Ibid., p. 34.

The Testimony of History
Six hundred and thirty bishops were present at the Council.
Although the vast majority of them were from the F.a<rern Em­
pire, they recognized Pope Leo as their head. In a letter to him
they declared: “In your representatives you didst take the presi
dency over the members of the Synod, as the head over the mem­
bers.” 24
And Pope Leo acknozuledged this fact when he remarked that
"my legates have presided in my place over the Oriental Synod.” 23
Indeed, the papal legate, Paschasinus, declared at the first ses­
sion of the Council:

We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop
of Rome, who is head of all Churches, to see that Dioscorus (Archbishop
of Alexandria) shall have no seat in the Council, and if he shall venture
upon this, that he be expelled.2®
No bishop questioned the fact that the Bishop of Rome was
the head of all the Churches. Evidently, it was a truism. Indeed,
the Pope objected to Dioscorus because he attempted to hold an
Ecumenical Synod "without the consent of the Apostolic See,
which had never been done before, and ought never to be
done.”2T
As a result, the Archbishop of Alexandria was denied a vote in
the Council. This is factual proof of the power of the Pope in the
early Church. It reminds one of the attitude of Pope Coelcstine
towards the Council of Ephesus. In his first letter to it (May 3,
431), Pope Coelcstine assumes that all the bishops will agree with
his decisions.
The (papal) legates are to be present at the transactions of the Synod,
and will give effect to that which the Pope has long ago decided with
respect to Nestorius, for he does not doubt that the assembled bishops
will agree with this.29
In other words, the bishops are merely to confirm the decision
of the Pope. Apparently no bishop questioned his right to direct
the Council. Indeed, Archbishop Firmus of Caesarea, one of the
leading bishops, declared:
s.|. Quoted in History of the Councils, Charles J. Hefele, Edinburgh
(Clark), >883, III. p. »97»5. Ibid., p. »97s6. Ibid., p. »98.
ay. Ibid., p. «97s8. Ibid., p. 4».

jaa

Evidence for Our Faith

The former letter of the Apoitolic See to Cyril had already contained
the lenience and direction respecting the Nestorian question, and they
(the assembled bishops) had . . . only fulfilled this direction, and pro­
nounced the canonical and apostolical condemnation against Nestonus.2*

At the second session of the Council of Chalcedon, when the
Nicene Creed was read, the bishops exclaimed:

That is the orthodox faith, that we all believe, into that we were baptired, into that we also baptize; thus Cyril taught, thus believes Pope
Leo.»’

In like manner, when another letter from Pope Leo in regard
to faith was read, the bishops cried out:
That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostlesl We all
believe thus, the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes
otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo.»1

Later, the papal legate, Paschasinus, speaks of Leo as the Arch­
bishop of all the Churches.
In the third place, the letter of the most holy man Leo, the Archbishop
of all the Churches, who condemned the heresy of Nestorius and Eutyches, shows quite clearly what is the true faith, and this faith the
Synod also holds, and allows nothing to be added to it or taken from it.»2

From these historical facts it should be evident that the early
Church was organized as the Catholic Church is today. (At pres­
ent, we are interested only in organization of the early Church—
not in the actual supremacy of the Pope in every age.) Indeed, the
Catholic Church alone teaches and rules its members through
priests and bishops who are subject to the Pope. It alone speaks
and acts like the early Church.
2.

The Fathers

of the

Church

In the works of the Fathers of the Church we also find innu­
merable passages indicating the organization of the Church in the
tint few centuries. Since these works are available in both Catholic
and non-Catholic translations, we need not go into detail. But let
us consider a few passages.
*9. Ibid., p. 63.
30. Ibid., p. 3>6.
31. Ibid., p. 317.
3». Ibid., p. 330.

The Testimony of History

When St. Ignatius of Antioch was on his way to martyrdom at
Rome (107 A.D.), he wrote seven letters to the Christian com
munities he passed. In his letter to the Trallians, he says:
You must continue, then, to do nothing apart from the bishop. Be
obedient, too. to the priests as to the apostles of Jesus Christ. . . In
the same way all should respect the deacons as they would Jesus Christ,
just as they respect the bishop as representing the Father and the priests
as the council of God and the college of the Apostles. Apart from these
there is nothing that can be called a Church.’3
Evidently bishops and priests are essential to the Church. And
the members should respect and obey them just as they would
respect and obey our Lord and the Apostles. In his letter to the
Ephesians, St. Ignatius repeats the same lesson.

For if the prayer of one or two men has so much force, how much
greater is that of the bishop and that of the whole Church. Anyone,
therefore, who fails to assemble with the others has already shown his
pride and set himself apart. ... Let us be careful, therefore, not to
oppose the bishop, so that we may be obedient to God.’*

In his letter to the Smyrnaeans, he again emphasizes the dignity
and power of the bishop, priests and deacons.
Shun schisms, as the source of troubles. Let all follow the bishop as
Jesus Christ, did the Father, and the priests, as you would the Apostles.
Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Apart from
the bishop, let no one perform any of the functions that pertain to the
Church. Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop
or by one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the
bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is,
there is die Catholic Church.”

Note how St. Ignatius in the year 107 presupposes that the
Church exists as an organized institution in every town he passes.
The bishop and priests rule it as representatives of our Lord. The
faithful are obliged to obey them in order to remain in the
Church. Apparently, St. Ignatius has never heard of an invisible
Church.
33. Letter to the Trallians, HI, »-3 (PG, 5.677). Translated by G. Walsh,
New York (Fathers of the Church Inc.), 1947. pp. 101-103.
34. Ibid., 1. 5. p. 89 (PG., 5, 643).
35. Ibid., VI, 8, p. 111 (PG, 5. 714).

m

Evidence for Our Faith

The same is true of all the Fathers. Listen to the words of St.
Irenaeus:
In every church, all who wish to see the truth may study the tradition
of the apostles that is known throughout the world. Indeed, we can
name those who were instituted bishops in the (various) churches by
the apostles and trace their successors to our own times. . . . And they
(the Apostles) wanted these men, who were to be their successors, to be
perfect and blameless in every way, for they were committing the
government of the Church into their hands.38

St. Irenaeus who was taught by St. Polycarp, the disciple of St.
John the Apostle, declares that the Apostles instituted bishops to
take their place in the government of the Church. They com­
mitted the Churches to their care. In fact, Irenaeus can name the
bishops instituted by the Apostles and their successors. He uses
"the greatest, the most ancient and the universally known Church
founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apos­
tles, Peter and Paul,” as an example.37 Like Ignatius, Irenaeus
stresses obedience to the bishops.
Therefore one should obey die presbyters who are the successors of the
Apostles. . . . But, as I have already said, we should follow those who
retain the doctrine of the Apostles, and who are qualified, with the
order of the priesthood, to instruct and correct others privately and
publicly.38

It is possible to quote many more passages from the Fathers,
but it seems unnecessary. All their works testify to the hierarchical
constitution of the Church.3* They continually speak of bishops,
priests, and deacons as men whom the laity are bound to obey. St.
Ignatius, for example, assumes that the Church is an external,
56. St. Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, III, 5, 1-4 (PG., 7, 848-855). Transi,
mine. Of. ibid., IV, 26, 1 (PG., 7, 1055): IV, 33, 8) PG., 7, 1077).
37. Ibid., HI. 3. 2 (PG., 7, 848).
38. Ibid., IV, 26, 2-3 (PG., 7, 1053-1054).
39. The great Protestant scholar, Harnack, speaks of the episcopal organiza­
tion of the Church in the second century when the Gnostic heresy sprang up.
He writes: "There can be no doubt that the Gnostic propaganda was seriously
hindered by that inability to organize and govern Churches which is char­
acteristic of all philosophic systems of religion. The Gnostic organization of
schools and mysteries was not able to contend with the episcopal organization
of the Churches." Hamack, History 0/ Dogma, London (Williams & Norgate),
1894.1 (transi, from 3rd German ed.,), 252 n. 1.

The Testimony of History

rat

organized society. This assumption is the strongest proof, for it
means that no one even questions the fact. And St. Ignatius was
an immediate successor of the Apostles whom he knew. Evidently,
the constitution of the Church did not change over night. The
Church of St. Ignatius was a well-organized society because the
Apostolic Church was constituted that way. and it was constituted
that way by Christ himself, through his bestowal of the power
to teach, govern and sanctify upon his apostles. That their suc­
cessors, the bishops of the Church, exercised this same Christ-given
authority is the clear testimony of Tradition.
HI. PAPAL AUTHORITY

In this section we seek to prove that Christ bestowed supreme
authority upon St. Peter and his successors in the see of Rome. To
do so we will again appeal to the evidence from Scripture and
Tradition.
A. Evidence from Scripture

In regard to papal supremacy, the most important scriptural
passage is found in the sixteenth chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Of course. Catholics do not rest their case on it alone. As usual,
we study it together with other passages from Scripture and con­
sider how they were understood in the early Church. But we do
regard this text as strong evidence in favor of St. Peter's su­
premacy. On account of its importance, it has been subjected to
the most searching criticism.
i. Promise of the Primacy

Then Jesus came into the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi; and
there he asked his disciples, What do men say of the Son of Man? Who
do they think he is? Some say John the Baptist, they told him, others
Elias, others again, Jeremy or one of the prophets. Jesus said to them,
And what of you? Who do you say that I am? Then Simon Peter an­
swered, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus an­
swered him. Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jona; it is not flesh and
blood, it is my Father in heaven that has revealed this to thee. And I
tell thee this in my turn, that thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock
that 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 whatever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matthew
*6. *3-*9)·

Evidence for Our Faith

ia6

There are three metaphors in this passage, namely,

a) the metaphor of the rock,
b) the metaphor of the keys, and
c) the metaphor of the ropes (binding and loosing).
In order to understand our Lord's meaning we should consider
each one carefully.

a.

Metaphor of the Rock

"Thou art Peter, and it is upon this rock that I will build my
Church."
Here Christ speaks to Peter alone and speaks of Peter alone in
a figurative way.
Without a doubt, the English translation weakens the force
of the passage. The new name, Peter, which Christ gives to Simon,
son of Jona, is the Greek word for rock (Wrpos). In Aramaic, the
word for Peter is Kepha which means rock. Thus the sense of the
passage is: "Your name is Rock, and it is upon this Rock I will
build my Church.” In other words, Christ plays on the two words,
rock and church.
We may put the argument in syllogistic form like this:
What a rock foundation is to a church in the material order, so
Peter is to the whole group of the faithful or the church in the
social order.
But the natural foundation is the ultimate and basic principle
in the material order for the coherence and stability of the
church.40
Therefore, Peter in the social order is the ultimate and basic
principle of union and stability for the universal Church of
Christ.4*
40. In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord contrasts the wisdom of one
man who built his house upon rock with the foolishness of another who built
his house upon sand (Matt. 7, 24-27; Luke 6. 18). Evidently, Christ is building
his church upon a rock so that it will perdure.
41. In every society, the real principle of union and stability is authority.
Peter, as the foundation upon which the unity and stability of the church
depends, must have authority. Obviously, this does not lessen the authority
of Christ, for he merely delegates power to Peter who in Christ's name and
by his authority presides over the church on earth. Christ, therefore, remains
die ultimate and divine principle of its stability, the font of all authority. The
authority of Peter, as visible head of the church, is participated and exer­
cised in union with Christ (Ephesians 2, 20-22).

The Testimony of History

b.

'»7

Metaphor of the Keys

"I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Evidently,
the keys are a symbol of authority.’2 They are natural signs for
designating power or authority for whoever has charge of the keys,
has charge (i.e. authority) over the place that is locked, that the
keys open.
When Christ designated Peter as the rock upon which he would
build his Church, he indicated that Peter would be the central
authority in his Church. By this second metaphor, Christ re
emphasizes the authority of Peter. He gives him the keys to the
very kingdom of heaven. And he places no limitation on his
power as the next metaphor reveals. It does not make any differ
ence whether Christ meant the Church on earth or the heavenly
kingdom by the phrase, "kingdom of heaven." In cither case, he
gives Peter supreme authority.

c.

Metaphor of the "Ropes”

"Whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
In Rabbinical law, the Jews often used the words, "bind” and
"loose.” They are literal translations of the Hebrew words, "asar”
meaning to bind in the sense of prohibiting, and "hittir" which
means to loose in the sense of permitting. "Asar" and "hittir"
represented legislative powers to the rabbis. Hence Peter is given
the power of obliging to or dismissing from a moral obligation.
This metaphor completes the text by showing the practical
effects of Peter's supreme power. His power is practically unlim­
ited, for whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, Christ will ratify
in heaven. In other words, our Lord will approve what Peter does.
"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” This paren­
thetical phrase signifies that “it” will be perpetual. But to what
does "it" refer? According to grammatical rules "it" refers to
"church" for church comes after the noun, rock. Moreover, the
object of siege would be the edifice, not merely the foundation.
"Gates” is a symbolic word meaning “powers." At the time of
Christ, "hen" meant either the place of the dead where the spirits
of men dwell after this life or the place of the damned. It does

4». In Sacred Scripture, "keys" are often used as symbols of power. CL
Isaias it. as; Apoc. 1, 18; J, 7.

iaS

Evidence for Our Faith

not matter how "hell” is understood here since in cither case the
Church is shown to be perpetual. If "heir’ connotes the place of
the dead, then the phrase means that death will not prevail against
the Church. If “heir' signifies "the place of the reprobate," then
the phrase means that diabolical powers will not prevail against it.
Hence the Church will be perpetual.
Now, that the Church is perennial is due to its foundation (cf.
Matt. 7, 24-27)· Christ explicitly says: "It is upon this rock that I
will build my Church; and (i.e., therefore) the gates of hell shall
not prevail. . .
Otherwise the parenthetical phrase is not log­
ically connected with what goes before. Peter, therefore, must
exist as long as the Church, that is, perpetually. But Christ him­
self foretold Peter's death (John 21, 18-19). Thus we must con­
clude that our Lord speaks, not of Peter personally, but of the
office he holds. Peter will ever live and rule in his successors.
If the sense of this passage is so clear, you may wonder why non­
Catholic scholars do not agree with its exegesis.43 As a matter of
fact, many of them do. In the last hundred years, many non­
Catholic scholars have rejected the interpretations of Calvin and
Luther.
According to Calvin, Christ said: “You are Peter (and then
pointed to himself, and said) and upon this rock (i.e., myself) I
will build my church.” 44
In Luther's opinion, the faith of Peter was the rock to which
Christ reierred. Our Lord really meant that the Church is built
upon the faith of Christians. Other Protestants suggested that the
confession of Peter was the rock upon which Christ intended to
build his Church.
In recent years, leading Protestant scholars have rejected these
interpretations. Dr. Henrich Holtzmann, for example, who was a
43. Most Protestants never consider the passage. A Methodist minister ad­
mitted that he never thought of it in relation to the Pope.
44. To justify this interpretation Calvinists point out that Christ is often
spoken of as a rock in Scripture. We agree that during his life on earth,
Christ had the titles of Rock, Keybearer. Teacher, and Shepherd. Then the
Christian body consisted of a visible head (Christ), subsidiary teachers (the
apostles) and the rank and file. But before his death Christ conferred those
titles on Peter who was to take his place as visible head on earth. (Matt.
16, 18; Luke xe, 31: John 11) Thus the outline of his Church is preserved:
the visible head (Peter, representing Christ), the subsidiary teachers, and the
rank and file. Cf. Ward & Shecd, op. cit., p. 101.

The Testimony of History

I2f)

Lutheran professor of Scripture at Strasbourg, commenting on
this text said:
In the Aramaic original in both places the word employed was hepha.
but in the Greek when the metaphor is applied to the person of Peter
(and on this point the interpretation of Catholic exegetes must be ac­
cepted without qualification, in reference to the traditional Protestant
exegesis which explains the Rock as Peter's faith or confession) on the
first occasion the masculine form is necessarily used, though for this
reason it is employed also as an appellation. The same man (Peter) who
just now was brought before us as the foundation of the building ap­
pears in verse 19 as the steward (see Zacharias 12, 42) and keybearer in
the house when it has been built, like Jesus Himself in the house of His
father (Apoc. 3, 7). When Christ is no longer present in person, Peter
will exercise the supreme authority as steward and master of the house,
symbolized by the keys which open and shut (Is. 22, 22).
The ecclesiastical spirit expressed throughout this entire pericope is
specifically Catholic, as is shown by the identification of the concepts
Church (verse 18) and Kingdom of Heaven (verse 19).48
Note how Dr. Holtzmann accepted the Catholic exegesis of this
passage. Another commentator on the New Testament who was
admired by many Protestants was August Meyer. He was a prom­
inent Lutheran professor and minister for over forty yean. His
works have been re-edited by Dr. Bernard Weiss who is also a
Lutheran minister. In regard to this passage, Meyer and Weiss
say:
The expedient to which anti-Roman controvenialists so frequently
have recourse, to explain the Rock as meaning not Peter himself but
his firm faith and its confession (so Luther, Melancthon, Calov, Ewald,
Zauge, Wiesehr, Keil) is inadmissible, since the allusion to "this Rock"
following as it does the words "thou art a Rock” can refer only to the
Apostle himself, as also the succeeding words. "I will give thee. . . ’*

When they discuss the second metaphor, Meyer and Weiss say:
In reference to Peter, however, the metaphor shifts, inasmuch as it
changes from that of a foundation-rock, not indeed to the inferior
metaphor of a porter but (Luke 12, 42; I Cor. 4, 1 and 9, 17; Titus 1, 7)

4j. Heinrich Hollrmann as quoted by Friedrich von Hugel in his book.
Some Motel on the Petrine Claimi, London (Sheed & Ward). 19JO, pp, »5-

26.
46. Ibid., pp. 21-ss.

/jo

Evidence for Our Faith

to that of the steward, expressing no longer the constant relation of the
Apostle to the Church but the future authority which was its conse­
quence. It is the authority of the steward who is entrusted with the
supreme charge and supervision of the economy of the household, and
possesses full powers of administration in it, symbolized by the keys of
the house (Isaiah ss, st; Apoc. 3, 7). To this authority belongs beyond
all doubt the right mentioned in these passages to open and shut.47

It is possible to quote many more Protestant scholars to the same
effect.48 Since they reject the old interpretations of Calvin and
Luther, it is hardly necessary for us to refute (hem. Calvin's inter­
pretation demands that we read a good deal into the text. If it
were true, St. Matthew did not mean what he said. The same ob­
jection is made against Luther’s interpretation. If Christ intended
to establish his Church on the faith of all Christians, why did he
not say so? Apparently, Luther and Calvin did not want to admit
the truth because of the consequences.
Although their modem disciples admit the Catholic interpreta­
tion of this text is correct, most of them deny that the passage it­
self is a genuine part of St. Matthew’s Gospel. They regard it as
an interpolation. Of course, the Liberal Protestants are noted for
"discovering" interpolations. It is one of their weaknesses. But
there are signs of improvement. Fifty years ago they rejected all
four gospels as non-historical. Now they merely reject those pas­
sages which displease them.
But according to the principles of historical criticism, no part
of an historical document may be rejected unless it is proven
erroneous. Consequently the burden of proof lies with the Lib­
eral Protestants. Most of them, however, deny the genuineness of
this passage merely because the other Evangelists, although they
record the scene, do not mention the words of Christ conferring
the primacy on Peter. Without a doubt that is an important omis­
sion but is it a sufficient reason to doubt the genuineness of the
text in St. Matthew? We do not think so for a number of reasons.
First of all, all existing codices of St. Matthew's Gospel and all
translations, with one exception, contain the passage in question.
The one exception is the Syrus Synaiticus. This exception causes
47. Ibid., pp. 22-23.
48. Cf. ibid., p. 30 and Lebreton, Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ, I,
London (Bums, Oates and Washbourne), 1935, 355-356.

The Testimony of History

iji

no difficulty because the whole page on which this passage occur»
is missing from the manuscript.
Secondly, there is no speck of evidence indicating that the pas­
sage was an interpolation.* 9 In the sixth chapter, we proved that
any substantial change in the Gospels was impossible. Since the
people knew the Scriptures by heart and reverenced them as God's
words. they were opposed to any change. St. Augustine tells us
how the people of Oca objected vehemently when St. Jerome’s new
translation was read in their church because he changed one word
in the Book of Jonas. If they detected even an incidental change
in the Old Testament, how would it have been possible to add a
whole new passage with great significance to the New Testa­
ment/0 Above all, how could this have been done without arous­
ing any controversy? But there is no record of any controversy.
Finally, do you think the other bishops would permit the
bishop of Rome to assume supremacy contrary to the intentions
of Christ without even protesting? Being human the bishops are
jealous of their prerogatives. History recounts many quarrels
between bishops over matters of far less importance. At the
Council of Nicaea (325), for example, the archbishops of Jerusa­
lem and Caesarea fought over the right of precedence. Yet there
is no indication that anyone in the early Church questioned the
supremacy of the bishop of Rome. On the contrary, all the evi­
dence indicates that other bishops acknowledged his supremacy
from the beginning.81
There is, then, no reason for doubting the genuineness of this
passage. The difficulty is not to explain its presence in Matthew,
but to account for its absence in Mark and Luke. This is a prob­
lem for scriptural scholars.59 It has no bearing on the proof. Cer-49
*
52
51
50
49. "There is not a passage in the whole of the four gospels which is more
clearly Aramaic in terms, metaphon, and construction." Lagrange, op. cit.,
I, 262.
50. If the text was added in the second century, it would have certainly
alluded to St. Peter's successors.
51. Although St. Irenaeus, for example, urged Pope Victor (190 Α.Γ>.) not to
excommunicate some Creek bishops, he never questioned his power to do so.
52. Perhaps a study of the text itself furnishes, at least, a partial explana­
tion. Evidently, its full significance cannot be grasped unless a person knows
the meaning of several key Aramaic words. Since Matthew wrote to Jews,
he could quote these words of our Lord and feel sure of being understood.

Evidence for Our Faith

tainly. the silence of Mark and Luke does not weaken the testi­
mony of Matthew unless it is proven that they should have cited
these words. But this cannot be shown.
Indeed, St. Luke relates how Christ foretold the important role
Peter would play despite his coming fall.

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan has claimed power over
you all, so that he can sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for thee,
that thy faith may not fail; when, after a while, thou hast come back to
me, it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren (Luke 22, 31-32).

This is the only record we have of Christ offering prayer for an
individual. After his fall and conversion, Peter will become the
support of his brethren.53 His faith will never fail for the Son of
God has prayed for him. The Protestant scholars, Meyer and
Weiss, comment:
‘That thy faith fail not': i.e., that thy faith in me may not cease, that
thou mayest not become unbelieving and fall away from me. Jesus
knew this prayer had been heard despite the temporary lapse of the
denial, whose occurrence He equally foreknew. That is why He con­
tinues: 'and thou (thou, the counterpart of I), once converted, confirm
thy brethren (thy fellow-disciples) be their support and strengthen them
when their faith wavers.’54
2. The Bestowal of the Primacy

And when they had eaten, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of
John, dost thou care for me more than these others? Yes, Lord, he told
him, thou knowest well that I love thee. And he said to him, Feed my
lambs. And again, a second time, he asked him, Simon, son of John,
dost thou care for me? Yes, Lord, he told him, thou knowest well that
I love thee. He said to him, Feed my lambs. Then he asked him a third
But Mark and Luke who wrote to Greeks apparently judged it better to
omit the words lest they confuse their readers. As we shall see, Luke puts
over the same idea in a different way (Luke 22: 31-32). Professor Cuthbert
H. Turner, a Protestant, in an article in Theology (Aug., 1926) attributes
St. Mark's silence to Peter's humility. Speaking of the four gospels as a
whole, he says: "What impresses me more than anything else is the con­
vergence ol die testimony of these four documents in the prerogative position
allotted to St, Peter.”
53. Note how our Lord once again warns the Apostles of the power of Satan
(gates of hell) and promises them security through Peter (upon this rock).
54. Hugel, op. cit., p. 27.

The Testimony of History

rjj

question. Simon, son of John, dost thou love me? Peter took it ill that
he should ask him a third time, Dost thou love me? and said to him.
Lord, thou knowest all things; thou canst tell that I love thee. Jesus
said to him, Feed my sheep (John 21, 15-17).

This episode took place in Galilee after the resurrection of
our Lord. Without a doubt, it was a magnificent reparation on
Peter’s part for his threefold denial of Christ. But it was far more,
for our Lord not only forgives Peter but makes him universal
shepherd in his stead.ns
Previously, Christ had referred to himself as the Good Shep­
herd; to his followers as his sheep (John 10, 1-11). Now he hands
over to Peter the care of his whole flock. Peter must take his place
as pastor of all the lambs and sheep/'"
At Caesarea Philippi Christ designated Peter as the rock upon
which he would build his Church; the steward who would have
charge of the house of God. Now he bestows that supreme author­
ity upon Peter. Since Christ will shortly ascend into heaven, he
names Peter to take his place on earth.
The obvious literal sense of tire three passages of Scripture
which we have been discussing is that Christ gave Peter supreme
authority over his Church. Any other interpretation demands that
we read something into the words of our Lord; that he does not
mean exactly what he says. Moreover, any other interpretation is
faced with the problem of explaining how (and why) St. Peter or.
at least, one of his immediate successors assumed supremacy con­
trary to the intentions of our Lord.
55. Most Liberal Protestant scholars agree with the Catholic interpretation
of this passage. But they deny its historicity. Their "reasons" for rejecting it
are no better than their "reasons" for rejecting the passage from Matthew.
Until they offer proofs, we shall reject their doubts as unreasonable since the
passage is an integral part of a proven historical document.
56. in the Old Testament, die leaders of die people arc often called shep­
herds (I Par. 17, 6; If Kings 5, 2; Jer. 2. 8). Of course, the supreme shepherd
of the Jewish people is God (Ps. 22, 1; 79. 1; Is. 40, 11; Jer. 31, 10). The
Messiah, whom God promises to send the Jews, will be the prince of shepherds
(Jer. 23. 1-8; Ezechiel 34. 1-31). Christ pictures himself as the Good Shepherd
(John 10, 1-18). Before his ascension. Christ puts his flock under the care of
Peter (John 21. 15-17). Of course, Christ continues to be the owner of the
flock and the supreme shepherd ("Feed my sheep." John 10. 27-29). Thus
Peter calls our Lord the Prince of shepherds in his first epistle (I Peter 5, 4; t,
•5)-

Evidence for Our Faith

j. Exercise of the Primacy

The Gospels indicate Peter’s position in relation to the other
Apostles. When the Evangelists list the Apostles, for example,
they name Peter first though he was not the Beloved Disciple nor
die best educated. Often they refer to "Peter and the other apos­
tles” or "Peter and the twelve" (Mark 16, 7). Peter's name occurs
in some sixty passages scattered over the four Gospels. No other
Apostle is mentioned more than twenty-five times. St. Luke notes
that after the resurrection Christ appears to Peter before he ap­
pears to the other Apostles (Luke 24, 35).
In the Acts of the Apostles, we read how St. Peter on five impor­
tant occasions acted as head of the apostolic Church. 1) In the
presence of all the Apostles, Peter directs the election of a suc­
cessor to Judas (Acts 1, 15-26). 2) After the descent of the Holy
Spirit, Peter preaches the first sermons (Acts 2, 14; 3, 12; 3, 8; 5,
29). 3) He alone judges and punishes Ananias and Saphira (Acts
5). 4) As a result of divine revelation, he leads the way in the
admission of Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10 and 11). 5) At the
Council of Jerusalem there was much disputing over the admis­
sion of Gentiles to the Church until Peter spoke in favor of it
(Acts 15).
So long as the Apostles remained together in Jerusalem, Peter's
supremacy was manifested on every important occasion.5’ His
right to act as supreme ruler was never questioned by the other
Apostles.58 Evidently, they understood the words of our Lord in
their literal sense.
57. “There are in Westcott and Hort's edition of the New Testatmcnt, 1027
lines in the first twelve chapters of Acts: of these 622 relate what was done
and said by Peter, including 197 devoted to the single episode of the con­
version of Cornelius." Dr. Foakes Jackson as quoted by Selden P. Delany,
M'hy Rome, New York (The Dial Press), 1930, p. 130.
58. Sometimes non Catholics mention St. Paul as an exception. Paul wrote:
"But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, 1 withstood him to his face, be­
cause he was deserving of blame. He had been eating with the Gentiles, until
we were visited by certain persons from James; but when they came, he began
to withdraw and to separate himself, fearing the circumcised. And the rest of
the Jews dissembled with him . . ." (Gal. 2. >1-13). Certainly, Peter taught
that the Mosaic laws no longer bound Christians (Acts 15, 7-10, 28-29). Yet
in this case, Peter obviously did not practice what he preached. Perhaps he
hoped to avoid an unpleasant scene. Paul himself had circumcised Timothy
to avoid needless trouble (Acts 16, 3). When Paul, however, saw the other

The Testimony of History

tjj

Today many non-Catholics are disposed to admit that Peter
svas the supreme ruler and teacher of the apostolic Church.5· But
they ask,—did it pass on from him to the Bishops of Rome? "To
which our most natural answer is,” as Ronald Knox says. "If not
to them, to whom?” "n Surely the promises Christ made to Peter
are out of all proportion to the role Peter personally played.
When we commented on the passage in St. Matthew's Gospel,
we noted that since Peter is the foundation of the Church, he must
exist as long as the Church, that is perpetually. Since Christ fore­
told Peter's death, he evidently meant that Peter would live and
rule in his successors. His office would be perennial.
Moreover, does it seem reasonable that Christ would establish
a Church, that would last to the end of the world, with a form of
government that would change within fifty years? Certainly, there
is no evidence to support that opinion. Indeed, if a visible author­
ity was necessary when the Church was small, it would be still
more so with the growth of the Church and the passage of time.
Jewish Christians and even Barnabas following Peter's example, he feared
the consequences. And so Paul reprimanded Peter for his actions. Though
Paul censured Peter's conduct, he never questioned his authority.
Indeed, Paul seems conscious of the gravity of his action. Do you think
Paul would have mentioned it if he had merely corrected another apostle? It
seems not for if one brother rebukes another, it causes no comment. But if a
bishop rebukes the Pope, it is extraordinary. Thus when Paul mentions that
he criticized Peter's conduct, he leaves us with the inference that Peter was
his superior. We also get that impression when Paul mentions how, alter his
conversion, he had gone to Jerusalem to visit Peter alone (Cal. i, 18).
59. The old Protestant contention that Peter never went to Rome has been
abandoned. The critical Protestant scholar. Bishop Lightfoot, considered it a
proven fact that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there. Harnack wrote:
"No community in the Empire could regard with indifference its relationship
to the great Roman Church; almost everyone had connections with her; she
contained believers from all the rest. As early as 180 this Church could point
to a series of bishops reaching in uninterrupted succession from the glorious
apostles Paul and Peter down to the present time . . . she decided all ques­
tions of faith with admirable certainty. ... It is highly probable that Peter
was really in Rome like Paul (see Clem. V.. Ign. ad Rom. IV.); both really
performed important services to the Church there, and died as martyrs in
that city." History of Dogma, London (Williams 8c Norgate), 1896. II (and
transi, ed. from 3rd German ed.), 159, and n. 1.
60. Knox, op. cit., p. 160. As we shall see. the early churches jealously kept
the record of their spiritual pedigrees. The Roman bishops traced their pedi­
gree back to Peter. Certainly, the Antiochene bishops never contested thia.

Evidence for Our Faith

Finally, all the evidence at our disposal indicates that the suc­
cessors of St. Peter exercised supreme authority and their author­
ity was acknowledged by the vast majority of bishops and Chris­
tians.
B. Evidence from Tradition

At the present time, non-Catholic scholars have practically
given up their attempts to prove that the immediate successors
of St. Peter did not exercise supreme authority over the Church.
The evidence is too clear and abundant. Certainly, no non­
Catholic scholar will question the fact that papal supremacy was
universally acknowledged after the fifth century. But in the past,
some have denied that the Christians of the first centuries ad­
mitted the supremacy of the Pope. Because this old error still
perdures, we should devote some attention to it.
In this matter, we must be on guard against judging according
to our feelings or prejudices. In the past some Catholic authors
have been too intent on proving their point—arguing from one
or two quotations rather than from the whole tradition. We hope
to avoid this error. Since the value of evidence increases as it is
multiplied, we will consider many texts. Then we will draw our
conclusion, not from one text, but from all of them put together.
On the other hand, some non-Catholic scholars seem more in­
tent on explaining away passages favorable to papal supremacy
than explaining them. When one of the Fathers, for example,
addresses the Pope in words that state or imply his supremacy,
they conclude it was only a polite compliment. Obviously, this is
an easy means of discounting texts. Maybe in a few years they will
tell us that the Vatican Council merely intended to compliment
Pius IX when they defined the infallibility of the Pope. Surely
we must hold that an intelligent man means what he says—es­
pecially when he uses expressions with definite implications—un­
less the contrary can be proven. To dismiss a statement with
which you disagree by declaring the author did not mean what he
said is puerile.
Naturally we do not expect to find numerous proofs of papal
supremacy in the first few centuries. First of all, the early churches
founded by the Apostles offered few occasions for the exercise of
papal supremacy. Secondly, since the Church was subjected to
recurrent persecutions, communication with the Pope was diffi­

The Testimony of History

cult. Thirdly, there are relatively few document» of that period
still extant.
Before we examine the documents, we should note an impor­
tant distinction. If a non-Catholic could prove that the early
Christians believed some article of faith, the contrary of what we
believe now, or at least, logically incompatible with our belief,
that would destroy our faith since we maintain that faith does
not change. But if we cannot prove that the first Christians be­
lieved what we believe now, it is not at all logical to conclude
that our beliefs differ from theirs.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that we could find no state­
ment of any kind about some dogma. This would not affect our
faith. It would simply mean that there is no proof, either for or
against the dogma, in the given period. We should still accept it
for we believe the Church has always been guided by the Holy
Spirit.”
All the fundamental institutions and doctrines of the Church
existed in the practice and teaching of the Church from the be­
ginning, but not as explicitly and completely, as in the course of
time. The apostolic Fathers did not intend to give a comprehen­
sive coverage of dogma. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example,
was not treated explicitly by any Father until the fourth cen­
tury.
We have labored this point because people so often confuse not
saying a thing is true with saying it is not true. Happily we have
a good deal of historical evidence indicating that the Catholic
Church in the first five centuries did believe what we believe
about the papacy. And no non-Catholic scholar questions the fact
that after the fifth century it was the common belief of Christen­
dom.
In regard to the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the first
five centuries, we have two sources of evidence: the works of the
Fathers of the Church, and the decisions of the Councils. Often
the Fathers and Councils state or imply his supremacy. Indeed,
they mention cases where his jurisdiction was used, where a Pope
decides a question and his decision is accepted, in such a way that
they can be understood only on the supposition that his universal
jurisdiction was admitted by all Christians. Let us consider some
of the better examples of each.
61. Ct. Fortescue, op. at., p. 9.

■IS

Evidence for Our Faith

i. Works of

the

Fathers

In the works of the Fathers who lived prior to the sixth cen­
tury" we find many indications of the power of the Bishop of
Rome.”

a. The Letter to the Corinthians
The first case is astounding unless we sec in it the Providence
of God, who intends that we should have a clear example of the
Pope's universal jurisdiction before the year too. It is, of course,
the famous letter of St. Clement to the Corinthians. Near the end
of the first century, the Christians of Corinth rebelled against
their hierarchy.04 Thereupon "the Church of God dwelling at
Rome" wrote to the "Church of God dwelling at Corinth.” Most
authorities agree that "the Church of God dwelling at Rome"
means the authority of that Church, that is, its bishop. In fact,
authors of the second and third centuries attribute the letter to
Clement, Bishop of Rome.05
In the letter Clement does not merely counsel the Corinthians
to be obedient to their hierarchy; he commands them. He
writes: "But, if some shall disobey the words which have been
spoken by him (God) through us, let them know that they will in­
volve themselves in no small transgression and danger.” 00
Again, he sûtes: "For you will afford us joy and gladness if you
obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit. ... We
have done this in order that you may know our entire preoccupa62. Most Christians admit the orthodoxy of the Fathers of the Church in
the first five centuries. Seldom have any Christians doubted the faith of such
saints as Clement, Ignatius. Cyprian, Jerome, and Augustine.
63. Belloc says: "All Church history is full of Roman Primacy from the
moment when church history becomes open to detailed examination. ... If
you would call it corruption, you must put the origin of that corruption very
early; indeed, you will be compelled to put it within the lifetime of those who
had talked familiarly with the Apostles and knew their mind and all the
tradition of the very beginnings of the Church." The Catholic Church and
History, London (Burns, Oates, & Washbourne), 1930. p. 44.
64. Harnack, Funk, Bardenhewer, Lightfoot, Hilgenfeld, and many other
scholars date the letter about the year 96.
65. Irenaeus. Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 3: Hegesippus (Eusebius, Historia
Ecclesiae, IV. 22, >): Dionysius Corinth, (ibid., IV. 23. 9); Hieronymus. De
Viris Illustribus, 15.
66. Clement, The Letter to the Corinthians, 59, 1.

The Testimony of History
tion has been and remains that you may quickly achieve peace." ♦’
What are the implications of this letter? The Bishop of Rome
sends categorical orders to Christians in Greece. In those days of
sailing boats, Corinth seemed to be on the other side of the world.
Yet the Bishop of Rome reminds them that disobedience of his
commands would be sinful. Does Pius ΧΠ claim any more au­
thority over any diocese? Now the "Pope" who wrote this letter
"saw the Apostles themselves and lived with them."w When
Clement wrote this letter, it is probable that one of the Apostles,
St. John, was still alive at Ephesus. Yet it was not St. John but the
Bishop of Rome who feels obliged to correct the abuses."9 Does
this not mean that the Bishop of Rome had the care of all the
churches.70
There is no evidence that the Corinthians questioned Clement's
jurisdiction. On the contrary, the letter was praised and quoted as
an admirable document.71 Imagine how Protestants would react
to such a letter. Apparently, the Corinthians were Catholics. Or­
der was restored in the Church.72
b. The Letters of St. Ignatius

Another indication of the position of the Bishop of Rome
comes from the pen of the great martyr-bishop, St. Ignatius of
Antioch. When he was on his way to martyrdom at Rome (107
A.D.) he wrote seven letters. In his letter to the Romans he speaks
67. Ibid., 63, 2-4.
68. Irenaeus, op. cit., Ill, 3, 3.
69. Clement, op. cit., I. 1.
70. Hamack wrote: "That letter to the Corinthians proves that, by the end
of the first century, the Roman Church had already drawn up fixed rules for
her own guidance, that she watched with motherly care over outlying com­
munities, and that she then knew how to use language that was at once an
expression of duty, love, and authority." Op. cit., II, 155.
71. St. Irenaeus describes it as "a most powerful letter to the Corinthians
exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition
which the Church in Rome had received from the apostles. . . ." (Op. cit..
Ill, 3, 3). Bishop Dionysius of Corinth mentions (a. 170 A.D.) that it was still
read during divine worship. Harnack said: "Bishop Dionysius of Corinth
in hie letter to Bishop Soter (166-174), affords us a glimpse of the vast activity
manifested by the Christian Church of die world's metropolis on behalf of all
Christendom and of all brethren far and near; and reveals the feelings of filial
affection and veneration with which she was regarded in all Greece as well as
in Antioch.” Op. cit., II, 156-57.
72. Hcgesippus as quoted in History 0/ the Church by Eusebius, >·, t.

Evidence for Our Faith

ijo

of their church with the utmost respect as “the president of the
bond of love." A noted Protestant scholar, Harnack, concluded:
Soften as we may all the extravagant expressions in his Epistle to the
Romans, it is at least clear that Ignatius conceded to them a precedence
in the circle of sister Churches: and that he was well acquainted with
the energy and activity displayed by them in aiding and instructing
other communities. . . . Lastly, Ignatius is convinced that the Church
will interfere quite as energetically on behalf of a foreign brother as on
behalf of one of her own number.73

The non-Catholic historians, Shotwell and Loomis, think that
to this Eastern bishop the Roman church appears “to stand on a
level somewhat above that of the others to which he writes."74

c.

The Easter Question

Towards the end of the second century, we have another good
example of the power of the bishops of Rome. When the bishops
of Asia Minor refused to conform to the universal custom of
celebrating Easter on Sunday every year, Victor I (189-199)
threatened to excommunicate them. St. Irenaeus, the bishop of
Lyons and others, however, protested because they thought the
penalty was too severe for the fault. As a result, Victor never pub­
lished the excommunication or he withdrew it at once. But no
one even suggested that Victor could not do what he threatened.
Obviously, Victor was claiming real jurisdiction over the Chris­
tians in Asia Minor. Though some bishops thought he was too
severe, they never questioned his claim. In regard to Victor’s ac­
tion, Harnack wrote:

Victor ventured to issue an edict, which we may already style a peremp­
tory one, proclaiming the Roman practice with regard to the regulation
of ecclesiastical festivals to be the universal rule in the Church, and
declaring that every congregation, that failed to adopt the Roman ar­
rangement, was excluded from the union of the one Church on the
grounds of heresy. How would Victor have ventured on such an edict
. . . unless die special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions
of the "common unity" in the vital questions of the faith had been an
acknowledged and well-established fact? How could Victor have ad­
dressed such a demand to die independent Churches, if he had not been
75.
Hamack, op. cit., II, 156 and n. 3.
74. Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter, New York (Columbia Univ.
Press), 19S7. p. 239.

The Testimony of History

/41

recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian
of the "common unity.” ’·

d.

The Testimony of St. Irenaeus

The testimony of St. Irenaeus (125-202), who was Bishop of
Lyons in France, is well-known. Irenaeus was a Greek who had
been taught by St. Polycarp, the pupil of St. John the Apostle.
In his book, Against Heretics, Irenaeus speaks of the Roman
Church as "the very great, the very ancient, and universally
known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most
glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul.” Then he states: "For because
of its pre-eminent authority, every church . . . must agree with
this church. . . 76
78
77
It has been extremely difficult for Protestant scholars to explain
the meaning of these statements of St. Irenaeus.77 Apparently,
St. Irenaeus was a Roman Catholic.

e.

Tertullian

In bitter irony, Tertullian, who was a Montants! heretic, speaks
of Pope Calixtus (213-222) as "the Supreme Pontiff, that is, the
Bishop of bishops.” 78 The implication is clear. Tertullian means
75. Harnack, op. cit., II, 160. As Harnack pointed out. Victor in this cue
"set the authority of Rome against that of Greek apostolic Churches." Ibid.,
163. n. 3. In reference to the Philosoph. (a. 200 A.D.) of Hippolytus, another
Protestant scholar Sohm, remarked: "One cannot help concluding that the
Roman bishop has die power of appointing and deposing not merely presby­
ters and deacons, but also bishops. Moreover, the impression is conveyed that
tin’s appointment and deposition of bishops takes place in Rome, for the
passage contains a description of existent conditions in the Roman Church.
Other communities may be deprived of their bishops by an order from Rome,
and a bishop (chosen in Rome) may be sent them." Quoted by Hamack, ibid..
76. Irenaeus, Against Heretics, III, 3, 2. Cf. Batiffol. Cathedra Petri, Paris
(Cerf). 1938. pp. 36-37.
77. Harnack granted: "The truth rather is that the Roman community must
have been named, (by way of example), because its decision was already the
most authoritative and impressive in Christendom." Op. cil.. II. 157.
78. Tertullian, On Modesty, I. Harnack said: "The sarcastic titles 'pontifex
maximus.' 'episcopus episcoporum' . . . are so many references to the fact
that Calixtus already claimed for himself a poution of primacy
." /bid.
II. 163. Indeed, Harnack conceded: "Beyond doubt the Roman Church
possessed an acknowledged primacy in the year 250: it was the primacy of
active participation and fulfilled duty." Ibid. 11. 16· note 1.

Evidence for Our Faith
that the Catholics regard the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme
Pontiff, the Bishop of bishops.

f.

St. Cyprian

In the past, some Protestants have spoken of St. Cyprian (210258) as if he had been an adversary of papal supremacy.’0 It is
true that Cyprian argued with the Bishop of Rome and even re­
sisted some of his orders. But he also affirmed the supremacy of
Rome in clear and emphatic terms.
As his letters reveal, Cyprian disagreed with papal decisions
on several occasions. When Pope Cornelius, for example, admitted
several of Cyprian's rebellious priests to communion, Cyprian
protested.00 This, however, was a question of discipline, not of
faith. Cyprian never questions the power of the Pope. Indeed,
he urges Pope Stephen I (254-257) to excommunicate the Bishop
of Arles who was a Novation heretic.81 This shows that Cyprian
acknowledged the Pope's jurisdiction over even bishops of France.
In regard to the rebaptism of heretics, Cyprian again differed
from the Pope. He maintained that only Catholics could bap­
tize validly. Today all Christians agree that Cyprian was wrong
and Stephen was right.82 As usual, Rome took the tolerant, rea­
sonable position and opposed strongly just what many Protestants
would suppose to be popish intolerance. Fortunately, the dispute
was settled before Cyprian’s glorious death as a martyr. In his
79. Unfortunately, Protestants do not pay much attention to Cyprian's main
point, the necessity of one Church. Harnack admitted: "According to Cyprian,
the Catholic Church, to which al) the lofty predictions and predicates in the
Bible apply, is the one institution of salvation outside of which there is no
redemption (ep. 73, 21). She is this, moreover, not only as the community
possessing the true apostolic faith, for this definition does not exhaust her
conception, but as a harmoniously organized federation. This Church there­
fore rests entirely on the episcopate, which sustains her, because it is the con­
tinuance of the apostolic office and is equipped with all the power of the
Apostles. Accordingly, the union of individuals with the Church, and there­
fore with Christ, is effected only by obedient dependence on the bishop, i.e.,
such a connection alone makes one a member of the Church." Ibid., II, 85-86.
80. Ep. LIX.
81. Ep. LXVHI.
82. St. Augustine and St. Jerome regarded Cyprian's viesvs as heretical and
his conduct reprehensible. Of course, they agreed his martyrdom atoned for
his faults. Harnack said: “In his conflict with Stephen. Cyprian unmistakably
took up a position inconsistent with his former views as to the significance of
the Roman see for the Church. . .
Op. cit., 11, 88 note 2.

The Testimony of History
favor, we must remember that Cyprian never denied papal su­
premacy. In fact, he affirms it repeatedly. In a letter he writes:
"Cornelius was made bishop . . . when the place of Fabian, that
is, when the place of Peter and the high degree of the priestly
throne was vacant." 83
For Cyprian the Roman see is the "mother and root of the
Catholic Church.” 8485
87In another letter he says that the African
86
schismatics “dare to set sail and bring letters to the throne of
Peter and the chief Church, whence priestly unity came forth.'' ’*
Cyprian knew there is “one Church and one see, founded by
the Lord's voice on Peter. No other altar can be set up, no new
priesthood made, except the one altar and one priesthood. Who­
ever gathers elsewhere scatters." ’· There is "one Church founded
by Christ our Lord on Peter, by the source and reason of
unity.” 8T

g.

The Patriarchs of Alexandria

In this same century. Pope Denis (259-269) judged the case
of Denis, Patriarch of Alexandria. After some members of his
diocese denounced him to Rome, the Pope asked his namesake to
present his side of the case. Denis of Alexandria did so and was
exonerated.8889
Note the implications. If the Bishop of Rome had
the right to judge the Patriarch of Alexandria, then all bishops
and Christians were subject to him.
Even the great St. Athanasius acknowledged the supreme au­
thority of the Pope. When he and four other bishops were de­
nounced to Pope Julius I (337-352). they went to Rome. "When
they had explained their cause to Julius, Bishop of the city of
Rome, he sent them back to the East and restored to each his see,
as is the prerogative of the Roman Church. . . 8B
83. Ep. LV. 8.
84. Ep. XLXIII, 3. Commenting on this phrase. Hamack said that it was
an "acknowledged fact that the Roman community was the most distinguished
among the sister groups and as such had had and still possessed the right and
duty of svatching over the unity of the whole." Ibid., II, 165.
85. Ep. LIX, 14. Harnack admitted that Cyprian acknowledged the Roman
primacy. Cf. op. cit., II, 165.
86. Ep. LXVHI, 5.
87. Ep. LXX, 3.
88. St. Athanasius, Ep. de Sent. Dionysi, 13 (PG., »5, 499).
89. Socrates. Hist. Eccl., II, 15 (PG., 67. »11).

144

Evidence for Our Faith

In the fourth century, references to the supreme authority of
the Bishop of Rome are more numerous. We will mention only
a few of them. If you are interested, books on this subject will
give many more.
h. St. Jerome

In a letter to Pope Damasus (366-384) St. Jerome wrote:

I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross.
I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am joined in communion
with thy Holiness, that is, with the See of Peter. On this rock I know
that the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is
profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the
deluge comes.·0

2. The Councils

of the

Church

In like manner, the acts and decrees of the local and general
Councils of the Church prior to the sixth century can be under­
stood only on the supposition that the bishop of Rome was
universally recognized as the supreme ruler of the Church.

a. Council of Milan
The Council of Milan under St. Ambrose applauds Pope
Siricus (384-389) for condemning the heretic, Jovinian.

We see in the letter of your Holiness the vigilance of a good shepherd
keeping faithfully the gate entrusted to you, watching over the fold of
Christ with holy care, worthy that the sheep of the Lord should hear
and follow you.®*
b. Council of Sardica

The Council of Sardica (344) acknowledges the jurisdiction of
the Pope over all bishops. It declares that any bishop may ap­
peal to the Pope. If the Pope deems it necessary, he may appoint
judges for the trial. The Council declared: "It seemed best and
most proper that the bishops from every province should refer
to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter.” 02
No one questions the fact that the Council of Sardica recog­
nized the Bishop of Rome as supreme ruler of the Church. And
90. Ep. XV, Ad Damasum, 2 (PL., si, 355-356).
91- Ambrose, Ep. 42.
92. Ep. syn. Sard, ad lui. (Harduin I, 653).

The Testimony of History

its decrees became the common law of the Church both in the
East and West.
c. General Councils

In chapter nine, we indicated the attitude of the General
Councils toward the Bishops of Rome.1’ As we have seen, they
recognize him as the unerring teacher and supreme ruler of all
the churches. Pope Coelestine, for example, rightfully assumes
that all the bishops at the council of Ephesus will agree with his
decisions. Nor does anyone object when Philip, the Papal Legate
at Ephesus, declares:
There is no doubt, indeed it is known to every age, that the holy and
most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, column of faith
and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the king
dom from our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour and Redeemer of the human
race, that to him was given power of forgiving and retaining sins, who
to this time lives and judges in his successors.84

At the first session of the Council of Chalcedon, the papal legate
declared:

We have a commission from the most holy and most apostolic Bishop
of Rome, who is the head of all the churches, to see that Dioscorus
(Archbishop of Alexandria) shall have no seat in the council, and if
he shall venture upon this, that he be expelled.8*
The Pope objected to Dioscorus because he attempted to hold
an Ecumenical Synod "without the consent of the Apostolic see.
which has never been done before and ought never to be done." 88
Although the vast majority of the bishops at the Council were
from the East, no one questioned the right of the Roman bishop
to judge the archbishop of an apostolic see. Now if the Pope had
jurisdiction over the archbishop of Alexandria, he evidently had
episcopal jurisdiction over all the members of the Church.
The General Councils were primarily concerned with the congj. The seven ecumenical councils were all held in the East and dealt
mostly with Eastern heresies. In fact, they were almost like provincial synods
of the East for lew Western bishops attended them. NonCatholu uhobrs
find it difficult to explain why legates of the Bishop of Rome presided over ail
of them.
94. Mansi, IV, >»95.
95. Hefelc. op. cit., ΠΙ. p. »98.
96. Ibid., p. S97.

1^6

Evidence for Our Faith

demnation of heresies that disrupted the Church. They were not
concerned with doctrines accepted by all Christians. Conse­
quently, they never discussed the supremacy of the Pope. But
repeatedly they acknowledged his supremacy by their words and
actions.
V. CONCLUSION

Let us now draw together the elements of the historical proof
for the Church’s claim to be the one true Church of Christ.
Christ, we maintain, established his Church as a visible society,
giving it a determinate constitution. He commanded all men to
become members of this one Church. Now the only Church that
can trace its lineage back to the apostolic Church founded by
Jesus Christ is the Roman Catholic Church. Therefore the Ro­
man Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ. Therefore 1
should be a Roman Catholic.
The attack upon this proof has centered around the statement:
Jesus Christ established his Church as a visible society, giving it
a determinate constitution. Since authority is the formal element
in any visible society, the attack has been focussed above all else
upon the question: did or did not Christ himself set up an au­
thority to rule his Church and, if so, what was its nature? We,
as Roman Catholics, hold that Jesus Christ did establish an au­
thority to rule his Church; that he gave spiritual authority to the
Apostles and their successors; that he conferred supreme author­
ity over the whole Church upon St. Peter and his successors, the
bishops of Rome. We have presented sound historical evidence
for that position.

CHAPTER VII

The Stamp of God’s Approval

THE Roman Catholic Church presents a second argument in
favor of its claim to be God’s official Church here on earth. It
is the so-called ■’empirical" proof. The Vatican Council expressed
it in these words: "The Church itself, by reason of its marvelous
growth, its eminent holiness and inexhaustible fruitfulness in all
good things, by reason of its catholic unity and its unconquered
stability, is itself a great and perpetual motive of credibility and
an irrefutable witness of its own divine mission." 1
The empirical proof, therefore, can be presented in argumen­
tative form in this way. That Church is the true Church of God
to which he has been giving extraordinary assistance and, doing
so, has been guaranteeing its claim to be God’s official Church
here on earth. But there are five aspects of the life of the Catholic
Church which clearly manifest that it has been receiving extraor­
dinary divine assistance, namely, its marvellous growth, its emi­
nent holiness, its inexhaustible fruitfulness in all good things,
its catholic unity, and its unconquered stability. Therefore the
Catholic Church is God’s Church and God himself is guarantee­
ing its claim. (Note that Christ’s name does not enter directly
into this proof; the conclusion is that the Roman Catholic Church
is God’s Church.)
The first statement in this proof—That Church is God's
Church to which he has been giving extraordinary help and, do­
ing so, has been guaranteeing its claim to be his official Church on
I. Session HI, cap. 3—Denz, 1794.
‘48

The Stamp of God's Approval

149

earth—needs no proof. If a particular Church lays claim to he
exclusively the true Church of God and if God gives it extraor­
dinary assistance, then certainly he is barking up this claim. But
the second statement—But the Roman Catholic Church has been
receiving extraordinary divine assistance and, therefore, God
himself is guaranteeing its claim—docs require proof. Let us ex­
amine each of the five aspects of the life of the Roman Catholic
Church to which the Vatican Council appealed to justify the
claim that it has been receiving extraordinary divine assistance.
I. ITS MARVELLOUS GROWTH

The founding of the Roman Catholic Church was historically
a miraculous event. That this is so can be shown from the fact
that there was no proportion between the natural causes and the
effect produced. An examination of the circumstances under
which the Church came into existence and spread rapidly through­
out the length and breadth of the then-known world will make
this amply clear.
From the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles we know that
after Peter's preaching, following upon Pentecost, first about
3,000 souls,2 then 5,000 were converted to Christ; and daily "the
multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord in­
creased still more." · When St. Stephen was stoned to death a
persecution of the Christians broke out in Jerusalem and "all
except the apostles were scattered abroad throughout the land of
Judea and Samaria. . . . Now those who were scattered abroad
went about preaching the word.”* "Now those who had been
dispersed by the persecution that had broken out over Stephen,
went all the way to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch . . . .
and a great number believed and turned to the Lord." 5 Barnabas
and Saul were sent to Antioch and taught "a great multitude. And
it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called 'Christians.' *
Later the Apostles founded churches throughout the Roman
Empire and even beyond its boundaries. Thus, about twenty
years after Christ's ascension, Peter was able to write an epistle
».
3.
4.
5.
6.

Acts 2. 41; 4, 4.
Acts 5, 14.
Acts 8, 1-4.
Acts 11, 18-11.
Acts 11,16.

!jo

Evidence for Our Faith

"to the sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappa­
docia, Asia and Bithynia." ’ About the same time Paul wrote to
the Romans: "Your faith has become known to the whole
world."* About the end of the first century, John wrote his
Apocalypse "to the seven churches, to Ephesus, and to Smyrna,
and to Pergamum, and to Thyratira, and to Sardis, and to Phila­
delphia, and to Laodicea."® Thus, even during the life of the
Apostles, Christianity had spread over a vast area.
After the death of the Apostles, the number of Christians in­
creased so rapidly that by the middle of the second century St.
Justin could say that there is no race of men, whether barbarians
or Greeks among whom prayers are not offered through the name
of the crucified Christ.10 About the same time, St. Irenaeus testi­
fies to the fact that there were churches in Germany, in Spain, in
Gaul, in the East, in Egypt, in Lybia, in Jerusalem, and in
Judea.11 By the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity pre­
vailed in Asia Minor, Thrace, Cyprus, Edessa and was diffused
throughout Syria, Egypt, Greece, southern and central Italy, pro­
consular Africa and Numidia, Spain and Gaul. Many of the early
Christians were indeed of the common people,12 but many also
were from among the rich and the illustrious,13 as also from
among the learned.1*
This marvelous growth took place despite great impediments
and despite the weakness of the natural means employed. That
the impediments were great is all too clear. This little band of
Jews taught that all men must bow down in worship to Jesus of
Nazareth, a Jew who had died the death of a criminal on the
cross, a teaching which was, as St. Paul says,16 a scandal to the
Jews and folly to the Gentiles. They condemned and refused to
recognize the civic deities—and this at a time when the worship
7. 1 Peter 1, 1.
8. Romans 1, 8.
9. Apoc. 1, 11.
10. Dial, cum Tryphon, n. 117, P.G., t. VI, 749-750.
11. Adv. haereses. I, 1, c. 10, n. ». P.G., 555, sq 1, in, c. 3, n. », P.G., 848,
*q1». I. Cor. i-»6.
15. Cf. Acts 13, 1»; 17, 34: Phil. 4, 3, »»; Acts 17, 4-1»; 18, »-»6; I Cor. 7,
1»; 11, 5·
>4. Ci. Arnobius, Adv. Gentes, 1, II, 5. P. L. V, 816.
15. 1 Cor. 1, »3.

The Stamp of God's Approval

ryt

of the national gods was considered to be a part of the recognition
due to the State itself. They insisted on a lofty and difficult rode
of moral conduct in startling contrast with the corrupt practices
of the pagan world. Finally, from the very beginning they were
faced with bitter opposition. First of all came persecution by
their Jewish compatriots. Peter and John were arrested by them.1·
The Apostles were imprisoned and scourged.*’ Stephen, the dea­
con, was stoned to death.1’ Paul was repeatedly manhandled.*·
James was put to death by Herod when he realized that the perse
cution of the Christians was pleasing to the people at large.**
At first the Romans thought the trouble was between two factions
within the Jewish people and remained on the outside. But dur­
ing the reign of Nero the Christians were blamed for setting fire
to Rome. From then on until the Edict of Milan in 313 the
Christians lived under the official ban of the Roman Empire
and, time after time, were subjected to some of the most savage
persecutions ever recorded in human history.
The weakness of the means employed is also clear. The Apos­
tles were a group of men lacking in any special education. Nor
did they possess any political power. "And I, brethren," says St.
Paul,21 “when I came to you, did not come with pretentious
speech or wisdom, announcing unto you the witness to Christ.
For I determined not to know anything among you. except Jesus
Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in
fear and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching
were not in the persuasive words of wisdom, but in the demonstra­
tion of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might rest, not on
the wisdom of men, but on the power of God." “What is really
hard to believe," says St. Augustine,22 "for anyone who stops to
think, is the way the world came to believe. The fishermen whom
Christ sent with the nets of faith into the sea of the world were
men unschooled in the liberal arts and utterly untrained as far
as education goes, men with no skill in the use of language, armed
16. Acts 4, 1—as.
17. Acts 5, 17-4».
18. Acts 7, 54-60.
19. II Cor. 11, 15-55.
so. Acts is, 1-5.
SB. City of God.^Bk. XXII, chap. 5.

ita

Evidence for Our Faith

with no weapons of debate, plumed with no rhetorical power.
Yet. the catch this handful of fishermen took was enormous and
marvelous. They hauled in fish of every sort, not excluding those
rare specimens, the philosophers themselves. . . . The world
has believed this insignificant group of lowly, unimportant, and
uneducated men precisely because the divine character of what
happened is more marvelously apparent in the insignificance of
such witnesses."
Weighing the natural causes involved in the birth of the
Church against all the impediments to her existence, it is clear
that the growth of the Church was a miracle of the social order.
This is confirmed by the manifold miracles that accompanied
her growth. Many of them are explicitly mentioned. At Pente­
cost, each man in the crowd heard the message in his own lan­
guage, although the members of the crowd were from every
section of the diaspora.23 Peter’s miraculous curing of the lame
man at the gate of the temple brought many converts into the
Church.24 When Ananias and his wife Saphira lied to Peter, they
were immediately struck dead by God.26 That many other mir­
acles were performed by the Apostles is clear from the Acts; their
miraculous powers became so well and widely known that a
multitude of non-Christians from the cities near Jerusalem
brought their sick to them to be healed, which they were.29 The
Apostles were freed from prison through the intervention of an
angel,27 as was Peter later on.28 Stephen, the deacon, performed
miracles which aroused the fear and hatred of his countrymen.20
Philip, one of his companions, did likewise.30 The conversion of
the great St. Paul to Christ was clearly a miracle.31 St. Paul him­
self worked many miracles. He cast out an evil spirit from a girl
in Philippi.82 In fact, so great was his reputation as a miracle
worker that some of the Jewish exorcists at Ephesus tried to cast
23. Acts 2, 4-11.
24. Acts 3, 1-10.
25. Acts 5, 1-10.
26. Acts 5, 11-26.
27. Acts 5, 18-20.
28. Acts 12, 5-11.
29. Acts 6, 8.
30. Acts 8, 6-8.
31. Acts 9, 1-19.
32. Acts 16, 16-18.

The Stamp of God’s Approval

syj

out devils by using his name,” Two incidents arc explicitly men­
tioned in which the Apostles restored the dead to life: St Peter
raised up Dorcas at Joppe;84 St. Paul revived Troas.”
II. ITS LOFTY HOLINESS
At first glance, a claim to holiness may seem to spring from in­
ordinate pride. But let us examine this claim. In speaking of the
holiness of the church, we do not pretend to show that, man for
man, Catholics are holier than non-Catholics. Nor do we intend
to expose our own consciences or the consciences of other Cath­
olics to settle the argument. No! That is impossible! We are not
concerned with the holiness of individual Catholics but with the
holiness of the Church.
Now the holiness of the Church is manifest, first of all, in its
doctrines. For two thousand years amid the greatest variety of
circumstances the Catholic Church has ever taught the complete
doctrine of Christ as it is found in Sacred Scripture and tradition.
The Church has always urged its children not only to avoid sin
but to seek the highest perfection by practicing the evangelical
counsels. As a result, it has become the mother of innumerable
religious orders whose members consecrate themselves to die prac­
tice of poverty, chastity and obedience.3®
The Church has never been content to teach merely "the
golden rule" or general moral principles. It has applied the
precepts of God to every detail of life. Even the Church’s enemies
are forced to admit that its doctrine has never varied from the
highest moral standards.3’ Perhaps they may point to a few bad53
*
53. Acts 18, n-17.
34. Acts 9, 36-4».
35. Acts so, 9-12.
36. In his book. Design for Giving, Harold J. Seymour, an Episcopalian,
who was general manager of the National War Fund, makes an interesting
observation. "They (Catholics) have also given 186,000 of their sons and
daughters to lives of complete and final consecration; 39,000 priests. 7.000 lay
brothers, and 140,000 sisters. With all these, and with those who gate freely
of their time to the Ladies of Charity, and to the Society of St. Vincent de
Paul, this Church can indeed call itself 'Mother of Charities.' both here at
home and around the world.” Seymour, Design for Giving, New York
(Harper), 1947, p. 125.
37. In his book. The Catholic Church and Conversion. C. K. Chesterton
comments on the accusation: "Roman Catholics are taught that anything is

Iy

Evidence for Our Faith

popes. But they have never discovered any evil doctrines. And
the very fact that the Church’s teaching has ever remained pure
and sublime, despite some bad popes and bishops, is even a greater
miracle than if all its rulers were saints.
As history shows, the Church has preferred to lose anything
rather than compromise God's teaching. In the fourth century,
for example, when it looked as if the whole world would succumb
to the Arian heresy, which was supported by all the power of the
Roman empire, the Church preferred to suffer extinction rather
than compromise. Or rather it was confident, even in the midst
of terrible persecutions, that the gates of hell would not prevail
against it.
In the sixteenth century the Church refused to bargain with
Luther even though she might have "kept" Germany. It rejected
any such compromise rather than betray its Founder. In like man­
ner, it refused to make any exception to the law of God for King
Henry VIII. Surely, if it believed that the end justifies the means,
these were ideal places to apply the principle. No doubt, the
Catholic Church could make peace with Russia today if it would
agree to Russia's terms. And it would gain more members if it
would permit divorce. But the whole world knows that the
Church will never compromise. This conviction is based upon the
more or less conscious realization that it will ever preach the
unadulterated law of God—no matter how strong the opposition.
In the past, its enemies used to accuse it of teaching immoral
doctrines. Although they could never put their finger on one,
they were sure they existed. Even today many people "swallow”
ridiculous stories about us. Unfortunately, they are too ignorant
to investigate the charges.
Recently, more intelligent enemies of the Church have tried
a new tack. They declare that the teaching of the Catholic Church
is too holy. In their opinion, it teaches far more than Christ did.
In fact, they are convinced that no one can live out its doctrines.
They are beyond the powers of human nature.
And strange to say, the Church agrees with them, that is if a
lawful if done for the good of the Church." Since it ia supposed to be a definite
statement of an institution whose statemenu are very definite, it can be
proved to be totally false. Chesterton compares it to the statement that die
Pope has three legs or that Rome is situated at the North Pole. Cf. ibid., pp.
S5-S6·

The Stamp of God's Approval

/55

man relics upon his own powers alone. The Church, however,
does not leave its members on their own. It offers them inestima­
ble help. Of course, the real secret of its powerful assistance lies
in the Mass and the Sacraments. For Catholics believe that they
receive the Body and Blood of our Lord as their spiritual food,
that God strengthens them by powerful graces through the other
sacraments. At Mass, they participate in the very sacrifice of
Calvary. But since these are hidden sources of grace appreciated
only by Catholics, we will not stress them here. Yet non-Catholics
should keep them in mind, when they investigate the possibility
of living the Catholic religion.
But the very fact that hundreds of millions of Catholics are
living according to its teaching is sufficient proof. In fact, this
close union of so many Catholics gives confidence and encourage­
ment to the individual. He feels himself to be a part of a victori­
ous army struggling to follow Christ. And all are strengthened
by the absolute confidence of the Church in their ability to live
as real Catholics.
In the second place, the holiness of the Church is manifest in
its results. "By their fruits you will know them. Do men gather
grapes from briers, or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree
bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matt. 7, 16'7)·
The real fruits of the Catholic Church are the saints. They are
its undeniable results for they endeavored to practice what it
teaches and to use the means of sanctification which it offers.
Surely a sincere man would not be so unfair as to judge the
Church by those "Catholics" who disregard its teaching and its
sacraments.38 They are not its products. A doctor does not judge
38. James Cardinal Gibbons wrote: "It is easy to explain why so many
disedifying members are always found clinging to the robes of the Church,
their spirtual Mother, and why she never . . disowns them as her children.
The Church is animated by the spirit of her Founder. Jesus Christ. He 'came
into this world to save sinners.' He was the Friend of Publicans and sinners
that He might make them the friends of God. . . . The Church, walking in
the footsteps of her divine Spouse, never repudiates sinners ... no matter
how grievous or notorious may be their moral delinquencies; not because
she connives at their sin, but because she wishes to reclaim them. She bids
them never to despair, and tries, at least, to weaken their passions, if the
cannot reform their lives.” The Faith of Our Fathers, Baltimore (Murphy).
189s. pp· 45-46·

Evidence for Our Faith
the value of a diet by the patient who ignores it; or the effects of
a medicine by a patient who never takes it. In like manner, a
man should not judge the Church by men who do not make use
of it. Remember that man's will remains as free within as with­
out the Church.”
Yet, as Monsignor Ronald A. Knox, who was an Episcopalian
before his conversion, points out:

There is no single excuse so freely used by people who want to justify
themselves in remaining outside the Church as the behavior of some
of us who are inside it. . . . There is nothing more jealously watched
or more bitterly criticized today by people who criticize religion than
the behavior of professed Christians. Fifty years ago, people did not pay
very much attention to what we did; today, when the Catholic Church
is the only considerable religious body that dares to claim an increas­
ing and not a diminishing membership, we have a heavier responsi­
bility. . . . We do not want that scrutiny, so often Pharisaical, to make
hypocrites of us. But do let us take care, not only about our motives,
as God sees them, but about the external appearances of our actions,
lest they should be keeping back souls from God. ... A scandal car­
ries further than a tale of sanctity; our Blessed Lady lived and died un­
known, but all Jerusalem knew when Judas hanged himself.40
59- A noted convert points out: "The Church has always insisted that bad
belief breeds bad conduct, and that right belief is a help to right conduct,
but none the less the Church has never lost sight of the distinction which
Protestantism tends to blur. Credo means 'I believe'; it does not mean 'I
behave.' Catholicism is often a test not only of character but of intelligence,
and there is no reason why a man should cease to be intelligent because he
has ceased to be good. There is no reason why he should stop believing be­
cause, for the moment, he has stopped behaving. . . .
"In the course of nineteen centuries the Church has discovered that sinners
sometimes sin, and is therefore not so scandalized as her critics by the frailties
of her children. Like her Master, she comes to call not the righteous but
sinners to repentance, and like her Master she continues to give scandal by
her uncompromising hostility to fashionable sins and by her infinite charity to
unfashionable sinners.” Arnold Lunn, Within That City, New York (Sliced
& Ward), 1936, pp. 38, 40.
40. Ronald A. Knox, The Myitery of the Kingdom, London (Sheed &
Ward). igz8, pp. 44-45. In >950, the vice-chancellor of the diocese of Kansas
City summarized the Catholic attitude towards crime at the funeral of an
accused gangster. He stated: "The doubt (whether he should have been given
ecclesiastical burial denied to public sinners) in favor of the deceased stems
from the fact that recently he was seen receiving the sacraments and attending
Sunday Mass. ... As Catholics we abominate and we condemn syndicated

The Stamp of God's Approval

The Church, however, should be judged by its saints for they
alone used it fully. Now their holiness has never been attacked or
questioned by anyone. In fact, most non-Catholics have a real
admiration for a saint like Francis of Assisi. The well-known
Protestant scholar, Harnack, concedes that the Catholic Church
produces saints today. He says:

In all ages it (Roman Catholicism) has produced saints, so far as men
can be so called, and it still produces them today. Trust in Cod, un­
affected humility, the assurance of redemption, the devotion of one s
life to the service of one's brethren, are to be found in it; many brethren
take up the cross of Christ and exercise at one and the same time
that self-judgment and that joy in Cod which Paul and Augustine
achieved.41
The saints come from every walk of life. Men and women,
clergy and laity, the married and the unmarried, the rich and
the poor—all are represented on the calendar of the saints. Thou­
sands of saints are mentioned in the Roman Martyrology alone.
They are found in every century. At the time of the Protestant
revolt, for example, when the Church was supposed to be in a
bad state, there were great saints like Francis de Sales, Philip
Neri, Charles Borromeo, Vincent de Paul, Peter Claver and
Alphonsus Ligouri. In the nineteenth century, three hundred
and ten were declared Blessed (the second great step towards
canonization) and seventy-eight svere canonized. As Time maga
zine pointed out in an article about Mother Cabrini, the process
of canonization is long and difficult.

But good works and great sanctity are not all it takes to make a saint.
One of the things it takes is a lawsuit—long-drawn, intricate and com­
plex. In the first step toward canonization a diocesan tribunal is ap­
pointed in each diocese where the candidate has lived. Before the tri­
bunal a local Vice Postulator pleads the candidate's "Cause" while a
Promoter of the Faith (the "devil's advocate") makes all possible objec­
tions at every turn.
crime and vice. It is as despicable as it is evil. We condemn the underworld
and all its barbarous and cowardly ways. But we condemn also the overworld
—liquor executives, public officials . . . and the like who, though able to
retain the aura of respectability, sacrifice every decent principle for their
own contemptible and selfish ends" (April 18. 1950).
41. Harnack, What h Christianity/ New York (Putnam's), 1908. p. 185.

j;8

Evidence for Our Faith

When al! local examinations are completed, the documents of the case
proceed to the Congregation of Rites in Rome, where they are meticu­
lously reviewed, approved by the Pope (in his Christian name, so as
not to compromise papal authority) and returned to the diocesan tri­
bunals for a second pleading. ... If they and the Congregation of
Rites find that the Servant of God was not just an extremely virtuous
person but practiced in "heroic degree” the . . . Virtues of Faith,
Hope, Charity. Prudence, Justice, Fortitude and Temperance, the pri­
mary degree of Venerable is awarded.

For a Venerable to become Blessed and finally a Saint, two miracles are
required at each stage. Miracles must be "of the first order"; i.e., in­
stantaneous healing of a grevous disease of a nonpsychological or
nervous nature, attested to by doctors of known reputation, preferably
nonCatholics.

Saint Frances Xavier Cabrini’s best known miracle occurred in March
igti. A nurse at the Cabrini-founded Columbus Hospital in Man­
hattan accidentally washed out the eyes of an infant named Peter
Smith with a 50 per cent solution of silver nitrate instead of the routine
one per cent. Three doctors who examined the child's scarred eyes said
that there was no hope for his sight. But the hospital’s Superior pinned
a relic of Mother Cabrini to the baby's nightdress and called the sisters
to the chapel to pray all night. Next morning the doctors admitted
that a miracle had occurred—the scare were miraculously gone.
But day-old Peter now had pneumonia, was running the normally fa­
tal temperature of 108. Once again the doctors gave him up. Once again
the Sisters of the Sacred Heart prayed all night for Mother Cabrini’s
intercession. Once again morning found the child completely cured.
Last week, while the bells of Rome rang out and the Holy Father said
High Mass in honor of the first U. S. saint, 25-year-old Peter Smith,
now a veteran of the Pacific war and a candidate for the priesthood,
retired with his mother to the Catskills to meditate on St. Francis
Xavier Cabrini.42
In regard to the holiness of the Church, then, the evidence is
clear and convincing. Never have the enemies of the Church
proved that it has ever departed even in the least degree from
the highest moral teaching. Never do they question the heroic
sanctity of its numberless saints. No doubt, some of the members
of the Church commit private and public sins. But do not its
critics realize that its children are still human and free? If they
are bad despite the holy doctrines and sacraments of the Church,
41. Time, XLVHI, 5 0uly 15, 1946), 76.

The Stamp of God’s Approval

>·>

what would they be without them? If critics of the Church are
sincere, they will investigate its doctrines, its means of sanctifica­
tion and its innumerable saints. Then they will know most as­
suredly that the Catholic Church is holy.
How do you explain this amazing fact that the Catholic Church
has given undeniable manifestation of its holiness for two thou­
sand years? Apparently, no natural explanation suffices.
III.

ITS INEXHAUSTIBLE FRUITFULNESS

The extraordinary fruitfulness of the Church is manifest in the
influence it has had upon i) the individual, 2) the family, and 3)
upon civil society.
1) The Church has always provided for the poor, the orphans,
the aged, the sick, for all those in distress, by founding charitable
institutions to minister to their needs.4· It has been moved to do
so because the love of one's neighbor is nothing more than an
extension of the love of God. "Blessed are the merciful,” said
Christ, "for they shall receive mercy.”44 Again he said: "But
when the Son of Man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels
with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory; and before
him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them
one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the
goats; and he will set the sheep on his right hand, but the
goats on the left. Then the king will say to those on his right
hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, take possession of the king­
dom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I
was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave
me to drink; I was a stranger and you took me in; naked and you
covered me; sick and you visited me; I was in prison and you came
to me.' Then the just will answer him saying, 'Lord, when did we
see thee hungry, and feed thee; or thirsty, and give thee drink?
And when did we see thee a stranger, and take thee in; or naked,
and clothe thee? Or when did we see thee sick, or in prison, and
come to thee?' And, answering, the king will say to them, ‘Amen
I say to you, as long as you did it for one of these, the least of my
brethren, you did it for me.’ Then he will say to those on his
left hand, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting
fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was
43. Many Roman Catholics are unaware of the scope of these works.
44. Matt. 5, 7.

/6o

Evidence for Our Faith

hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty and you
gave me no drink; I was a stranger and you did not take me in;
naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you
did not visit me.' Then they also will answer and say. ’Lord, when
did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick,
or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer
them, saying, 'Amen I say to you, as long as you did not do it
for one of these least ones, you did not do it for me.’ And these
will go into everlasting punishment, but the just into everlast­
ing life." 45
2) The Church has always promoted the welfare of the family
by protecting the rights of wives, children and servants.
It has unceasingly defended the dignity of womanhood, reject­
ing and condemning the cruel and licentious notions of the pagan
world. It has insisted upon the Christian law of the unity and
indissolubility of matrimony and this, indeed, even under the
most difficult circumstances.4·
It has defended the rights of children by prohibiting and pun­
ishing with severe spiritual penalties such pagan practices as
abortion, the exposure of unwanted infants, the buying and sell­
ing of children. It constantly urges parents to give their children
a religious education. In order that they may fulfil this obliga­
tion, it has founded schools, colleges and universities at great ef­
fort and expense.
3) Finally, the Church has exercised a profound influence for
good upon civil society, both national and international.
In the early centuries its enemies sought to arouse popular in­
dignation against the Church by acusing it of every crime and,
in particular, of treason against the State. During the persecu­
tions they stepped up their attack. As a countermeasure, the
early apologists insisted upon the contribution Christians were
making to law and order in civil society. The Church has
always been mindful of St. Paul’s words: "Let everyone be sub­
ject to higher authority; for there exists no authority except from
God, and those who exist have been appointed by God. There­
fore he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God;
and they that resist bring on themselves condemnation." 47 Yet,
45. Mau. »5. 31-46.
46. Two notable cases: Philip of Hesse and Henry VIII of England.
47. Rom. 13, I-».

The Stamp of God's Approval

161

while preaching respect and obedience to lawful authority in the
State, the Church has always condemned and opposed its un­
lawful use. For that reason every tyrant from Nero to Stalin has
sought to destroy the Church.
An outstanding example of the Church’s influence for good
came during the break-up and disappearance of the Roman Em­
pire. It is difficult to exaggerate the enormity of the task that
faced the Church in the so-called "Dark Ages." It was the task of
converting, taming, and civilizing the barbarian hordes that had
invaded the crumbling Roman Empire. True to its divine mis­
sion, the Church accepted the burden. It sent out missionaries;
it founded monasteries; it opened schools. In time these labors
bore their fruit; by the eighth century the barbarians had
achieved some semblance of civilization and spiritual culture.
As soon as life had become sufficiently settled again, centers of
higher learning were founded. It was to the monastic schools of
England and Ireland, where the lamp of learning had continued
to glow during these trying times, that Charlemagne, the king of
the Franks, turned to begin his schools in France and Germany.
Slow at first, the progress of learning gained momentum so that
by the end of the eleventh century a revival had already begun.
Sublime art and architecture and enduring literature, all the
fine arts found their noblest inspiration in the life of the Church.
The renaissance of the fifteenth century, which produced some
of the greatest masterpieces of human history, flourished under
the patronage of the Church.
The Church has likewise exercised a tremendous influence for
good in the sphere of international relations. It has done so in
many ways: by condemning wars of conquest, by determining
what is licit and illicit even in a just war, by affirming the neces­
sity and excellence of the Christian law of charity and fraternity
over and above the special laws of different nations, by arbitrat­
ing conflicts between nations. Always has it insisted upon the fact
that there will be no peace apart from him who is called "the
prince of peace,” "the king of kings, and lord of lords." °
In the eyes of the unprejudiced the extraordinary fruitfulness
of the Church in all good things is a fact that cannot be denied.
48. Isaiah 9, 6.
49. Deuc. 10. 17; I Tira. 6, 15; Apoc. 19. 16,

Evidence for Our Faith

i6a
IV.

ITS CATHOLIC UNITY

Although men desire unity, history shows that they have never
attained it in the natural order. Indeed, history almost leads one
to despair of any unity for it constantly reminds one of the eco­
nomic, religious, racial, cultural, and ethical differences separat­
ing men. These differences have given birth to innumerable
wars between nations, cities and individuals. And they still
separate men today. In fact, unity now seems more hopeless than
ever before. Though we had every reason to hope for real peace
after the last war, we have never enjoyed it. At present, we are
fighting a cold war with Russia. The United Nations appears to
be a tragic failure. And who knows how many struggles go on
within the various countries?
Perhaps you will say: "Thank Godl I live in the U.S.A. At
least, we are united." But even our unity is rather superficial. As
a nation, we do not agree on any religion, philosophy or morality.
Certainly, these are obstacles to unity. Needless to say, there is
racial conflict within our borders. The struggle between labor
and management appears to be almost class warfare. ... No
wonder men become cynical about unityl
In marked contrast to this universal disunity stands the Catholic
Church. Throughout the centuries and throughout the world, it
has succeeded in uniting hundreds of millions of people differing
in every respect. It has united men of every age, nation and class
on those points about which men most often disagree. It has
united them in faith, worship and government.
This unity among Catholics is far greater than most people sup­
pose. Catholics do not merely agree on generalities like "faith in
Jesus as Lord and Saviour." But all the articles of Catholic belief
are defined and clearly stated. And all Catholics believe them
interiorly and profess them exteriorly, or else they cease to be
Catholics. This unity of faith is maintained despite the fickleness
of the human mind, the natural desire to exalt private judgment,
and the natural reluctance to accept what cannot be fully under­
stood.
Just as its faith is one and unchanging, so is its worship. Since
Catholics believe that Christ established the manner in which
God must be worshipped, they do not individually decide whether
they should offer one form of sacrifice or another. The central,

The Stamp of God's Approval

16)

official and public worship of the Catholic Church is the Maw.
This is essentially the same whether it is offered by its priests in
Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia or America. Just as the sacrifice
of the Mass is one, and the same, so are its sacraments, those
special means of grace instituted by Christ for the sanctification
of its members.
Of course, all Catholics do not follow the same rites. By a rite
is meant the prayers and ceremonies used in the sacrifice of the
Mass and in the administration of the sacraments. In fact, there
are ten different rites used in the Church, if the several variations
in the Latin rite are counted as only one. Of these, nine origi­
nated and are used principally in the East.50 The Popes have
recognized these rites as of equal dignity with those of Rome.
While some of the languages used in these rites are now dead
(e.g., Coptic, Ge'ez), others are vernacular (Rumanian, Arabic).**
Moreover, the church laws of these Eastern Catholic churches
differ somewhat from those of the Western church. In the ad­
ministration of the sacraments, the majority of them use leavened
altar-bread, give Communion in both species together, administer
Confirmation immediately after Baptism by immersion, and per
mit marriage before ordination. 31 These different rites and church
laws show the catholicity, the unity without rigid uniformity, and
historic origins of the Catholic Church.33
Finally, all its members are united under one head. Although
50 Cf. the chart at the end of this chapter. Today there are over eight
million Catholics of Eastern rites. Usually, they dislike the name Uniate, for
it was coined as a term of contempt. They may be called, for example. "Catho­
lics of the Creek rite" or simply "Greek Catholics." if they belong to the
Greek rite.
51. As the chart shows, many of these rites are used in the United States.
Catholics of the Latin rite may attend Mass and receive Communion in their
churches. Usually, they call the Mass "the Divine Liturgy" or "the Offering "
5». Many of these rites and laws are older than ours. Pope Leo XIII de­
creed that any Western priest who would try to persuade an Eastern Catholic
to adopt the Latin rite ipso facto incurs suspension. Cf. the encyclical. Onentalium dignitas (1894) of Leo XIII; the “motu proprio" Dei providentis (1917)
of Benedict XV; the encyclical, Ecclesiam Dei of Pius XI; and the encyclicals.
Orientalis Ecclesiae (April 9, 1944) and Orientales Omnes Ecclesias (Dec. »J.
■ 945). At a solemn papal Mass, the epistle and gospel are sung in Creek, as
well as in Latin.
53. Cf. Donald Attwater, The Christian Churches of the East, Milwaukee
(Bruce), 1947. I. 1-39· These Eastern Catholic churches descend in a direct

ιό,ι

Evidence for Our Faith

they may differ in race, culture, nationality and political ideals,
they all recognize the Pope as the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of
Christ on earth.
And yet the Church has no armored corps. Its members freely
choose to belong to it. The Church offers them no earthly re­
ward. In fact, it promises them only the cross. Hundreds of
thousands of its members have suffered martyrdom. Untold mil­
lions have been persecuted. And yet they love the Church with a
love more vehement than the hatred of all its enemies.
These men, women and children, who are loyal to the Church,
are not fanatics. They are ordinary people from every walk of
life—employers and employees, scientists and farmers, bankers
and scrub women. There is no type of mind or way of life that
does not feel at home in the Church. It is not the Church of the
rich or the poor, the learned or the unlearned, the strong or the
weak. It is big enough to include all these. In respect to classes, it
is perfectly catholic.
During the last war, our servicemen came to appreciate an­
other aspect of its catholicity. No matter where they went, they
found that the Catholic religion had preceded them. Some were
amazed, for example, to find that Guam is ninety-seven per cent
Catholic. Others were inspired by the faith of the South Sea is­
landers. They discovered that men, whom they never knew ex­
isted, agreed with them perfectly in religion, philosophy and
morality. Even in Japan, they discovered hundreds of thousands
of Catholics in cities like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In every nation where there is any freedom of religion Catholic
missionaries are at work. Even after thirty years of persecution,
they still work underground in Russia. In geographic extent, or
in numbers of adherents, there is no comparison between the
Catholic Church and any Protestant sect. In fact, the Catholic
Church has more members than all the Protestant sects combined.
Thus the Church belongs to no age, no race, no culture, no
class, no place. It is universal—catholic in every respect.
How can this marvelous unity among men of every age, race,
culture, and interest be explained? As we have seen, unity is not
line from the churches of St. Athanasius, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Cyril of
Jerusalem, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St.
Gregory of Nyssa, and others—none of whom celebrated Mass in Latin or
used the Roman Liturgy.

The Stamp of God's Approval

/6*

easily attained even in a small way. Yet the Catholic Church has
united 300,000,000 men of every generation during the past two
thousand years. It has united them in religion, philosophy and
morality without any armed force. Today it is stronger than ever
before.
How do you explain these facts so evident to all—this universal
unity? We are convinced no natural explanation is at all adequate.
Nothing short of the power of God can explain it! God alone can
unite so many, so perfectly, so long! The Catholic Church, there­
fore, is God's Church.
V.

ITS UNCONQUERED STABILITY

That the Roman Catholic Church is a miracle of the social
order is also clear from its unconquered stability as an existing so­
ciety. For it has endured and still endures in the face of an opposi­
tion, so deep, so widespread, and so persistent, that any society
within the natural competence of men would have been destroyed
long ago. Thomas Macauley, while failing to realize the miracu­
lous character of the Church's survival, does recognize the extraor­
dinary nature of the stability of the Catholic Church in contrast
with other human institutions. He says:
There is not and there never was on this earth, a work of human
policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church.
The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human
civilisation. . . . The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when
compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. The line we trace back
in unbroken series from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nine­
teenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far
beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends. . . . The repub­
lic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains,
not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigor.
The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the
world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Au­
gustine, and still confronting hostile Kings with the same spirit with
which she confronted Attila. . . . Nor do we see any sign which indi­
cates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the
commencement of all ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in
the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the
end of them all. ... It is not strange that, in the year 1799. even
sagacious observers should have thought that, at length, the hour of
Rome was come. An infidel power ascendant, the Pope dying in cap­

rf,6

Evidence lor Our Faith

tivity, the most illustrious prelates of France living in a foreign country
on Protestant alms, the noblest edifices which the munificence of former
ages had consecrated to the worship of God turned into temples of
Victory, or into banqueting houses for political societies. . . . But the
end was not yet. . . . Anarchy had had its day. A new order of things
rose out of the confusion, new dynasties, new laws, new titles; and
amidst them emerged the ancient religion. The Arabs have a fable that
the Great Pyramid was built by antediluvian kings, and alone, of all
the works of men, bore the weight of the flood. Such as this was the
fate of the Papacy. Il had been btiried under the great inundation; but
its deep foundations had remained unshaken; and, when the waters
abated, it appeared alone midst the ruins of a world that had passed
away. The republic of Holland was gone, and the empire of Germany,
and the great Council of Venice, and the old Helvetian League, and
the House of Bourbon, and the parliaments and aristocracy of France.
Europe was full of young creations, a French empire, a kingdom of
Italy, a confederation of the Rhine. Nor had the late events affected
only territorial limits and political institutions. The distribution of
property, the composition and spirit of society, had, through a great
part of Catholic Europe undergone a complete change. But the un­
changeable Church was still there.84

Pondering over these five aspects of the Church’s life we can
well understand why the fathers of the Vatican Council could
say: “Through its wonderful grQjvth, its peerless sanctity and in­
exhaustible fruitfulness in all good works, its catholic unjty_and
unconqucred stability, it (the Catholic Church) is a great and
perpetual motive of credibility and an unassailable testimony of
its own divine mission.’’
54. Thomas Macaulay, Critical, Historical, and Miscellaneous Essays and
Poems, New York (Lavell), 1898, Vol. II, pp. 465-466, 498-499. Macaulay was
a Protestant historian.

CHAPTER VIII

The Marks of the Church

THE second proof presented by the Roman Catholic Church in
order to justify its claims is known as the proof from the marks
of the Church. The Vatican Council proposes this proof in these
words: "And, that we may be able to satisfy the obligation of
embracing the true faith and of constantly persevering in it, God
has instituted the Church through his only begotten Son, and
has bestowed on it manifest notes of that institution, that it may
be recognized by all men as the guardian and teacher of the re­
vealed word; for to the Catholic Church alone belong all those
many and admirable tokens which have been divinely established
for the evident credibility of the Christian faith.” 1
That these notes or marks of the true Church are four in num­
ber, namely, unity, catholicity, holiness and apostolicity, is evi­
dent from the Creed of Constantinople, which says: “I believe
... in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church." The proof
from the marks of die Church can, therefore, be presented in
argumentative fashion in this way. Our Lord declared that his
Church should be one, catholic, holy, and apostolic. But the
Catholic Church alone possesses these four notes or marks. There­
fore the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ.
I. OUR LORD'S INTENTION

Christ’s Church was to be one Church. At the last supper Christ
prayed: "Yet not for these alone (the Apostles) do I pray, but for
i.

Session HI, cap. 3—Denz. 1793.

t6S

Evidence for Our Faith

those also who through their word are to believe in me, that all
may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they
also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast
sent me. And the glory that thou hast given me, I have given to
them, that they may be one, even as we arc one: I in them and
thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the
world may know that thou hast sent me. and that thou hast loved
them even as thou hast loved me.” 2 St. Paul expresses Christ’s
will for the unity of his Church in a striking manner. Over and
over again he likens the Church to a living body: "As the body is
one and has many members, and all the members of the body,
many as they are, form one body, so also is it with Christ. For in
one Spirit we were baptized into one body, whether Jews or
Gentiles, whether slaves or free.” 3 He teaches that all the mem­
bers of Christ's Church are as parts of a living organism. The
unity so described entails a unity of government, faith, and
worship.
Christ's Church was to be one in government.4 For he com­
pared his Church to "a sheepfold," "a city,” "a kingdom." He
spoke of his Church, never of his churches. St. Paul, echoing the
desires of his master, says that the Church must be "one body
and one Spirit." 5 In other words, just as in the living body there
is only one governing will, so in the Church there must be but one
governing authority.
Christ's Church was to be one in faith. For Christ commanded
his apostles: "Teach ye all nations . . . teaching them to ob­
serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” * In the
Church, says St. Paul, there must be "one Lord, one faith, one
baptism." ’ Just as in the living body there is but one mind, so
also in Christ’s Church there must be one faith. “Mark them,"
2. John 17, ao-23.
3. I Cor. 12, isff.
4. In the historical proof we have seen that Christ himself provided for
this unity of government in his Church. Here, abstracting from this precise
point—the reason for so doing will appear as we proceed, we only affirm
that the unity which Christ willed for his Church was so intimate as to entail
a unity in government, faith, and worship.
5. Ephes. 4. 4.
6. Matt. 28, 19-20.
7. Ephes. 4, 5.

The Marks of the Church

169

he warns, "who cause dissensions and scandals contrary to the
doctrine that you have learned, and avoid them. For such do not
serve Christ our Lord."· And he exhorted the Romans: May
then the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one
mind towards one another according to Jesus Christ; that, one
in spirit, you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ.” 8
Christ’s Church was to be one in worship. For worship is the
external manifestation of faith. If then there was to be one faith,
there must be oneness likewise in worship. That Christ himself
provided for this oneness in svorship is clear from the fact that
he himself established the rites by which God was to be honored
and men were to be sanctified, namely, the seven sacraments as
revolving around the central act of divine worship, the holy sac­
rifice of the Mass.10
Christ's Church was to be catholic or universal. For Christ com­
manded his Apostles to preach his message to all men without any
exception. He bade them preach the Gospel to "all nations" u
and to "every creature." 12 These words show beyond a shadow
of doubt that the mission of Christ on earth was to be extended
by means of his Church to persons of every race and color, of every
nation, of every social level. The Apostles obeyed this emphatic
command of the master and, indeed, so successfully that St. Paul
was able to apply to himself and his fellow-preachers the words of
the Psalmist: "Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and
their words unto the ends of the whole world." 13 And, speaking
to the Colossians, he says that the Gospel is believed "in the whole
world.” 14
Christ’s Church was to be holy. Christ placed before his fol­
lowers a lofty goal, namely, an intimate, everlasting union with
God himself in the kingdom of heaven. "Beloved, now we are
8. Rom. 16, 17-18.
g. Rom. 15, 6.
10. The fact that Christ himself instituted the seven sacraments and that he
instituted the holy sacrifice of the Mass at the last supper will be discussed
and vindicated in a later course.
11. Matt. z8, ig.
is. Mark 16, 15.
13. Rom. g, 18.
14. Col. 1, 6.

t>jO

Evidence for Our Faith

the children of God," says St. John, "and it has not yet appeared
what we shall be. We know that when he appears, we shall be
like to him, for we shall see him just as he is." ,B St. Paul expresses
this thought in these words: “We see now through a mirror in an
obscure manner, but then (we shall see him) face to face. Now I
know in part, but then I shall know even as I have been
known.",B Accordingly, Christ placed before his disciples an
equally lofty ideal. "Be ye perfect, therefore, as also your heavenly
Father is perfect." ”
He made this ideal more precise in the sermon on the Mount.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth. Blessed
are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted. Blessed are they
who hunger and thirst for justice, for they shall be satisfied.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are
the clean of heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peace­
makers, for they shall be called children of God. Blessed are they
who suffer persecution for justice’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom
of heaven. Blessed are you when men reproach you, and persecute
you, and, speaking falsely, say all manner of evil against you, for
my sake. Rejoice and exult, because your reward is great in
heaven; for so did they persecute the prophets who were before
you.” 18
Yet Christ foretold that all the members of his Church would
not live up to this lofty ideal. Among his immediate followers,
there were some who were morally good; others, indifferent;
others, positively wicked. Judas Iscariot was the traitor among
Christ’s intimate friends, an Apostle chosen from among his
disciples by Christ himself. Others turned against him or aban­
doned him at crucial moments in his life or simply because of
what they considered his hard doctrines. That Christ expected
such human failings in the members of his Church is all too
clear. He compared his Church, his kingdom, to a wheat field in
which his enemy, the devil, had sown cockle. But he tells us what
will be done. "Suffer both (the wheat and the weeds) to grow
until the harvest, and in the time of the harvest I will say to the
15.
16.
17.
18.

I John 3, t.
I Cor. 13, 11-13.
Mau. 5. 48.
Mau. 5, 3-1«.

The Marks of the Church

ryr

reaper: Gather up first the cockle, and bind it into bundles to
burn, but the wheat gather ye into my bam." ’· And a little later
on he said: "The kingdom of heaven is like to a net cast into
the sea, and gathering together all kind of fishes, which, when it
was filled, they drew out, and sitting by the shore, they chose out
the good into vessels, but the bad they cast forth.”30 It is clear
that, while Christ placed before his followers a very lofty ideal,
he did not expect all the members of his Church to be holy, even
in the lowliest sense of the word.
Christ's Church was to be apostolic. For Christ founded his
Church upon a small band of men chosen by him from among his
disciples. "Then he went up onto the mountain side, and called
to him those whom it pleased him to call; so these came to him.
and he appointed twelve, to be his companions, and to go out
preaching at his command." 19
*21*They became his chief concern for
the few years of his life on earth. In fact, he spent most of his time
instructing them. While he preached only to the lost sheep of
Israel, they were to carry his message throughout the world. Re­
peatedly he stressed their role. They were to be "fishers of men.”
the “salt of the earth," and the reapers of an abundant harvest.
To them did he entrust the secrets of the kingdom. For three
long years he instructed and trained them. Then, just before his
ascension into heaven, he sent them forth to preach his message
to all mankind. "All power in heaven and on earth has been
given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations." ”
"You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you
and you are to be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and throughout
Judea, in Samaria, yes, and to the ends of the earth."23 The
Church of Christ must, then, be apostolic in its doctrine.
It must likewise be apostolic in its means of sanctification. For
Christ established certain rites for the glory of God and the sanc­
tification of souls. They are the seven sacraments and the holy
sacrifice of the Mass.24 Baptism: "And he (Christ) said to them,
19. Matt. 13, 30.
so. Matt. 13. 47ff.
si. Mark 3. 13-15.
ss. Matt. s8, 19.
S3. Acts 1, 8.
s.j. Most Protestant seen recognise only two sacraments: baptism and the
Lord's Supper.

ija

Evidence for Our Faith

Go out into all the world ... he who believes and is baptized
will be saved; he who refuses belief will be condemned." 28 Con­
firmation: "When the Apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard
that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them
Peter and John; who, when they were come, prayed for them that
they might receive the Holy Ghost, for he was not yet come upon
any one of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they re­
ceived the Holy Ghost." 20 Penance: “When he (Christ) had said
this, he breathed upon them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy
Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and
whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.’" 2T The Blessed
Eucharist as a sacrament: "Amen, amen, I say unto you: except
you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood, you shall
not have life in you; he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath everlasting life, and I will raise him up in the last day,
for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed; he
that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, abideth in me and I
in him.”28 The Blessed Eucharist as a sacrifice: "I have received
of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord
Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread and
giving thanks broke and said: ‘Take ye and eat: this is my body
which shall be delivered for you; this do for the commemoration
of me.’ In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, say­
ing: ’This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye,
as often as you shall drink for a commemoration of me.’ For as
often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice you shall
show forth the death of the Lord until he come.” 28 Holy Orders:
"The Holy Ghost said to them, ‘Separate me Paul and Barnabas
for the work whereunto I have taken them.’ Then they, fasting
and praying and imposing hands, sent them away. So they being
sent by the Holy Ghost went to Seleucia." 80 Matrimony: "The
husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the
Church . . . Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved
<5· Mark 16, i6.
26. Acts 8, 14-17·
»7. John so, »2-23.
28. John 6, 54-57»9. I Cor. 11, 23-26.
30. Acts 13, 3.

The Marks of the Church
the Church and delivered himself up for it that he might sanctify
it. This (marriage) is a great sacrament, but I speak in Christ and
the Church." 31*Extreme Unction: "Is any man sick among you?
Let him bring in the priests of the Church and let them pray over
him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the
prayer of faith shall save the sick man; and the Lord shall raise
him up; and, if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." 3334
Here
we have only indicated briefly33 the rites established by Christ.1*
II. THE CHURCH AND THE MARKS

Christ willed his Church to be one, catholic, holy and apostolic.
Which Church possesses these notes or marks of the true Church
of Christ? When we examined the testimony of history we put for­
ward some of the evidence for our conviction that Christ himself
established the apostolic Church as a visible society; that Christ
himself gave authority to teach, govern, and sanctify all men to
the Apostles and their successors, the bishops of his Church; that
he bestowed supreme authority over the whole Church to St. Peter
and his successors in the see of Rome. At the time, we saw that
many Protestants reject the Church’s claim to their allegiance.
Usually they will admit quite readily that the Roman Catholic
Church is historically continuous with the primitive Christian
Church. How do they justify their defection from the Church?
First of all, they eliminate any direct connection between Christ
and the primitive or apostolic Church as a visible society. As pro­
ceeding from Christ the primitive Church was an invisible society.
It was this invisible Church which was to be one, catholic, holy
and apostolic. It was with this invisible gathering of the faithful
that Christ promised to "remain all days even to the consumma­
tion of the world.” Who established the primitive Church as a
visible society? His Apostles and disciples did so after his ascension
into heaven.
31. Ephe». 5, Î3-3S.
3a. James 5, 14-15.
33 Α» we have noted already, the fact that Christ instituted these special
means of grace will be vindicated in a later course.
34. In the historical proof for the Church's claim there is still another
sense in which the Church was to be apostolic, namely, in authority. In other
words, it should be able to trace its authority back to the apostolic Church
which received that same authority from Christ himself.

17/

Evidence for Our Faith

Having severed the bond between Christ and the primitive
Church as a visible society, they were now in a position to justify
their severance of the bond between themselves and the Roman
Catholic Church. On what grounds? The primitive Church, they
said, since it truly embodied the invisible Church of Christ, was
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. But, they contended, this visible
Church which had once lived in apostolic fervor became cor­
rupted and fell away from its original excellence. They could
never come to any agreement among themselves as to when this
catastrophe had occurred. Conjectures of the sixteenth century
‘‘reformers" placed its defection at any conceivable time between
the first Christian Pentecost and the Council of Constance (14141418). They were certain, at any rate, that the original Christian
Church, which they identified quite readily with the Roman
Catholic Church, had become corrupt; in fact it had become so
corrupt that it was no longer a fitting visible embodiment of the
invisible Church of Christ.
Acting on this assumption, they considered it not only a right
but a duty to establish a new Church to replace the Roman Cath­
olic Church. Since this new Church was to be the visible embodi­
ment of the invisible Church of Christ and was to recapture the
original purity and fervor of the primitive Church, it should
manifest the characteristics or notes of the latter, its unity, catho­
licity, holiness and apostolicity. But things did not work out that
way. The rejection of the authority of the Roman Catholic
Church started an ever-increasing fragmentation of the new Prot­
estant Church. Instead of one reformed and purified Church,
churches began to multiply beyond measure. Thus the reformers
were driven into the position that the visible Church was only a
secondary, even if valuable, adjunct to the invisible Church of the
true followers of Christ; that, in fact, membership in one visible
Church was just as good as membership in another—that is, if one
felt any need to belong to such an organization.
This position led to the abandonment of the traditional four
notes of the Church. Now, any visible Church became acceptable
if it fulfilled two basic requirements, namely, if within such a
society the word of God was taught sincerely and if the sacra­
ments were properly administered. It was agreed that both of
these notes were to be found in all the Protestant churches, but
not in the Roman Catholic Church. But this position created still

The Marks of the Church

rjy

further difficulties. The first problem was the diversity of doctrine
among the Protestant sects. This lead to a further retreat. A div
tinction began to be drawn between two grades of revealed truth.
The "sincerity” that the reformers demanded in the preaching of
the Gospel within any acceptable visible Church only involved
accuracy with reference to ''fundamental” doctrines, as they called
them. Error about secondary doctrines was of little moment.
Again, the second note of the true Church, namely, the proper
administration of the sacraments, created its own difficulty. This
problem was eventually solved by eliminating all but two of the
sacraments, namely, baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The Roman Catholic Church still points to the four notes or
marks, namely, unity, catholicity, holiness and apostolicity, as
the distinguishing features of the true Church of Christ. And the
Roman Catholic Church, as the embodiment of the invisible
Church, the mystical Body of Christ, claims to possess these iden­
tifying marks.35 That the Roman Catholic Church is one—one in
government, faith, and worship—is clear from the preceding
chapter. That the Roman Catholic Church is holy—holy both in
its doctrines and in its results—has also been shown therein. That
the Roman Catholic Church is catholic or universal is obvious.
In its fold are peoples of every race, nation and social position and
it strives unceasingly to fulfil Christ's command to bring his mes­
sage to all nations, to every creature. Finally, the Roman Catholic
Church is apostolic both in its doctrines and in its sacraments. The
Church has guarded with infinite care the deposit of divine reve­
lation confided to the Apostles by Christ himself. It encourages
the faithful not only to know what it teaches but to trace these
doctrines back to their sources in divine revelation. It challenges
those outside the Church to an unprejudiced examination of these
same doctrines. As to the seven sacraments and the holy sacrifice
of the Mass, it offers more than abundant evidence that these
were the special means instituted by Christ for the worship of
35. Wt are pretending, for the sake of argument, that the Protestant posi­
tion in question is true, namely, that Christ did not found his Church as a
visible society, that the notes of unity, catholicity, holiness and apostolicity,
belong to the invisible Church which he established. One could rightly expect
that the visible Church in which this invisible body of the faithful would
become embodied would clearly manifest the distinguishing marks of the
invisible Church. The only visible Church that does so is the Roman Catholic
Church.

i<
j6

Evidence for Our Faith

God and the salvation of souls; that these were the visible signs
of invisible grace employed in the primitive Christian Church
and on down through the centuries.
III. NO SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CHURCH
Nothing about the Catholic Church irritates some non-Catholics
as much as its claim to be the one true Church of Christ. They like
to repeat that one religion is as good as another or that it is not
what you believe, it is how you live that counts.
Any Christian, however, who believes that the Son of God
became man should not say that one religion is as good as another.
For the pagan world into which Christ was born was crowded
with oriental religions. Now if all religions were equally good,
there would have been no need of another religion. Thus the
incarnation, life, passion, death, and resurrection of Christ would
have been useless.
Often secularists say that all religions are equally good and
helpful because all have the same purpose. However, the fact
that they all have the same end does not make them equal for
they may not attain it. Although all automobiles, for example,
have the same purpose, most men would prefer a new Lincoln to
a worn-out Ford. Now the purpose of the Christian religion is to
teach the complete and unadulterated doctrine of Christ. To do
this equally well, all Christian religions would have to reach the
same doctrine. Since they teach different doctrines,3® they obvi­
ously cannot be equally good and helpful.
Moreover, the often repeated statement, "it is not what you
believe, it is what you do that counts,” should not be uttered by a
sincere Christian.8’ For Christ himself said: “He who believes
and is baptized will be saved; he who refuses belief will be con36. As we have mentioned, the so-called Christian churches contradict one
another on many important points. For example, some believe that Christ is
the Son of God equal to the Father in all things, while others do not: some
believe that Christ condemned divorce, though others do not; some believe
the Mass is the highest form of worship, while others consider it idolatry. In
fact, of the hundreds of religious sects in this country, no two agree perfectly
on teaching and practice. Certainly, Christ himself did not teach contradictory
things.
37. To say God does not care what form of Christianity men profess is
exactly equivalent to stating that he does not care whether they believe what
is true or false.

The Marks o/ the Church
l77
demned” (Mark 16, 16). And St. Paul stated: "It is impwible to
please God without faith" (Hebrews it, 6).
Because Catholics are certain that their Church is the one true
Church, they do not necessarily think that all non Catholics are
going to hell. Ordinarily, Catholics are willing to believe in the
good faith of those outside the Church and consequently to hope
for their salvation. Today no Catholic questions the fact that many
Protestants live by high Christian ideals and have an unaffected
love for Christ. In regard to these people, they recall the principle
stated by Pius IX:
Those who are hampered by invincible ignorance about our holy re­
ligion, and, keeping the natural law, with its commands that are writ­
ten by God in every human heart, and being ready to obey him, live
honorably and uprightly, can, with the power of Divine light and grace
helping them, attain eternal life. For God, who clearly sees, searches out,
and knows the minds, hearts, thoughts, and dispositions of all, in his
great goodness and mercy does not by any means suffer a man to be pun­
ished with eternal torments, who is not guilty of voluntary fault.*·
Of course this principle does not apply to fallen-away Catholics
who, having possessed a knowledge of their faith, abandon Cathol­
icism in favor of agnosticism or some other religion.” While it is
normal to assume that a Catholic who falls into heresy is in danger
of hell fire, it is unreasonable to hold that one bom and bred in
heresy, who docs not "see his way” to accept the Catholic faith is
in the same danger. All his habits of thought, all the prejudices
of his environment, all the influences of his friends and teachers
weigh against his chances of becoming a Catholic. And ordinarily
he is not responsible for those circumstances of environment and
education which have made him a heretic. As Msgr. Knox says:

So long, therefore, as he does not come in contact with the Catholic sys­
tem at all, or does not come across it in such a way as to be effectively
challenged by its claims, he has not refused grace. So long as he takes
all reasonable pains to study those claims in a fairminded spirit, and
still, through some defect of outlook, of temperament, of intellectual
apparatus, finds himself drawn no nearer to the truth, he has not re­
fused grace. His ignorance is, so far as we can tell, of the invincible kind;
he remains what he is "in good faith.” If he falls into grave sin he has,
of course, no access to sacramental absolution; but it is still possible for
38. Dcruinger, op. cit., no. 1677.
39. Ibid., no. »79-1-

ijS

Evidence for Our Faith

him to make that perfect act of contrition which claims forgiveness.
We have no fears for such heretics as this?0

The attitude of mind, however, which says, "I am not qualified
to judge the truth about the Catholic Church,” is an attitude of
intellectual indolence masquerading as intellectual humility. The
man who "thinks there is some truth in it,” yet makes no effort
to find out how much, is not in good faith. The man who does not
look into the Church for fear lest he be converted, or who is “too
busy,” when he really dreads the troubles that conversion to the
Church would entail, is not in good faith. Of course, God alone
can judge the individual soul. No theologian can determine
whether a non-Catholic is in good or bad faith, whether he is
worthy of praise or condemnation in the eyes of God.41 Theolo­
gians state objective truths. God alone knows the consciences of
men.
40. Knox, op. cit., pp. 238-239.
41. Pius IX said: "We must hold as certain that invincible ignorance is not
a sin in the sight of God. Who will dare to arrogate to himself the right of
determining die exact limits of such ignorance when he considers the infi­
nitely varied and unfathomable influence of social environment, character,
and so many other circumstances upon which it depends?" Allocution, "Singu­
lari Quadam," December 29, 1854.

PART II

THE

TEACHING AUTHORITY

OF THE CHURCH
In the first part of the course we have sought to vindicate the
claim that the Roman Catholic Church was given authority to
teach, govern, and to sanctify all men in the name of Christ. Now
we turn to its teaching authority. Here wc meet up with two prob­
lems. First of all, there is the question of infallibility. Did Jesus
Christ bestow an infallible teaching authority upon his Church
so that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals? If he did so,
then we must ask: upon whom did he bestow this infallible teach­
ing authority? As Roman Catholics we believe that Christ did
endow his Church with an infallible teaching authority and that
he granted the supreme infallible teaching authority to St. Peter
and his successors, the bishops of Rome. Here, this position of ours
must be vindicated.
The second problem is this: how does the Church actually exer­
cise her infallible teaching authority? She does so in two distinct
ways: First there is the solemn magisterium. This occurs when the
Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is to say, when he, as head of the
Church, teaches the universal church on matters of faith or morals,
or when an ecumenical council, together with and subject to the

jSo

Evidence for Our Faith

Pope speaks definitively to the whole Church on matters of faith
or morals. Secondly, there is the ordinary magisterium. This oc­
curs in the day-to-day instruction given in the Church by the
bishops throughout the world as united under the supreme leader­
ship of the Roman Pontiff. Here we must examine this twofold
exercise of the Church's teaching authority.

CHAPTER IX

The Infallibility of the Pope

MANY non-Catholics do not understand this doctrine.1 They
seem to think that it means the Pope can make unerring pro­
nouncements on any subject whatsoever. They ask, for example,
if the Pope can foretell the outcome of the fourth race at Arling­
ton. Unfortunately, they never realize how modest the claim really
is. In his Preface to St. Joan, George Bernard Shaw says:
Perhaps I had better inform my Protestant readers that the famous
dogma of Papal Infallibility is by far the most modest pretension of
the king in existence. Compared to our infallible democracies, our in­
fallible medical councils, our infallible astronomers, our infallible
judges, and our infallible parliaments, the Pope is on his knees in the
dust confessing his ignorance before the throne of God. . . .*

As Catholics, we do not believe that the Pope can teach on any
subject that strikes his fancy. Nor do we think that infallibility
renders him impeccable.3 Infallibility does not put truth into his
i. Most non-Catholics do not recognize any teaching authority in the
church because they think Christ founded an invisible church. The highchurch £piscopalians and the Separated Eastern Churches who admit Christ
founded a visible church believe in the existence of an infallible teaching
authority in the church. According to them, the organ of that infallible
authority is a council of bishops.
i. Shaw, St. Joan, New York (Bretano's), 1924. Preface xlix.
3. Some historians have charged five or six Popes with immorality. But no
historian accuses any of these Popes of teaching false doctrine, in fact, an
immoral person may leach what is good and true. A drunkard may urge his
son never to touch a drop. Needless to say, he is a poor teacher by his exam­

rga

Evidence for Our Faith

mind. A Pope may be quite ignorant and a poor theologian. It
does not mean that he receives new revelations from God. Like
anyone else, the Pope has to acquire knowledge of God’s revela­
tion by diligent study, for what he does not know he cannot
teach.
Indeed, Catholics carefully distinguish between infallibility
and inspiration. The latter connotes a positive divine help given
to a person.* Infallibility simply means that Providence will see
to it that the Pope docs not officially teach error. Thus we say that
the Pope, when he defines a doctrine is guided, not inspired. As
Ronald A. Knox says: “The difference between inspiration and
guidance is the difference between a schoolmaster who should
control the hand of a pupil while he wrote, and that of a school­
master who should stand by, ready to intervene if he saw him
about to go wrong." 8
Consequently, the Pope uses every possible precaution before
he defines any doctrine infallibly. He makes sure that Scripture
and Tradition have been carefully studied. He considers the opin­
ions of all theologians. Finally, he sees to it that the doctrine is
stated in the most precise terminology. If the Pope did not take all
these precautions, he would be guilty of the sin of presumption.
Of course, the Pope may not teach at all. He may keep silence
even when it would profit the Church if he did speak. But if he
does speak in such a way as to commit the Church, then what he
says will not be false. In other words, Catholics believe that when
the Pope, acting as head of the Church, teaches the whole Church
on some point of faith or morals, God sees to it that he does not
teach error.* Before we are sure that the Pope teaches infallibly,
pie. But no one claims that the Pope teaches infallibly by his example. Fortu­
nately the great majority of Popes have been virtuous men. Seventy-nine
Popes have been canonized.
4. Catholics believe, for example, that the human authors of Sacred Scrip­
ture were divinely inspired. God prompted them to write, guided their choice
of materials, and caused them to think the things he wanted written.
5. Knox, The Church on Earth, New York (Macmillan), 192g. p. 40.
6. The definition of the Vatican Council literally translated states: "The
Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra—that is, when as pastor and
teacher of all Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme apostolic au­
thority a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church—is en­
dowed, through the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, with
that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to be

The Infallibility of the Pope

rfj

therefore, we must verify three conditions. First of all, the Pope
must speak officially, or ex cathedra, that is from the chair of
Peter as the supreme ruler and teacher of the whole Church. Sec­
ondly. the doctrine which he promulgates must be a point of faith
or morals. Thirdly, his pronouncement must be addressed to the
whole Church.
The belief of Catholics in the infallibility of the Pope follows
from their belief in the supremacy of the Pope and the infalli­
bility of the Church. For if the Pope has supreme and final juris­
diction in matters of faith and morals, and if the Church is infal­
lible, then the Pope is infallible. This is evident, for if God always
cares for the Church so that it does not lead men into error, then
the last court of appeal in the Church must be preserved from
error. Thus, the infallibility of the Church makes all the difference
in the world between the Papacy and the Supreme Court of this
country. No one claims the Supreme Court is infallible because
no one holds that the United States is infallible. Since this nation
is not infallible, the Supreme Court may hand down a wrong
decision. But if the Church is infallible, the Holy See, the final
court of appeal in the Church, cannot make an error in matters
of faith or morals. It is important, therefore, that we discuss the
reasons why Catholics believe in the infallibility of the Church
before we consider the reasons why they believe in the infallibility
of the Pope.
I. THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH
As we have seen, Christ came down from heaven to teach all
men the truths necessary for salvation. Since he did not intend
to remain upon this earth, he founded a visible society, his
fortified; and, therefore, the definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable
of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church."
Infallible papal decrees are exceptional and usually mean that there has
been some doubt as to the precise teaching of the Church on a matter of
faith or morals. Ordinarily, the Pope does not speak infallibly in hi» encycli­
cals or allocutions. Nevertheless we should give this teaching an interior.
religious assent. This obligation springs from the obedience we owe him as
our ecclesiastical superior and from prudence which counsels us to respect the
opinions of so great an authority who is assisted by eminent scholars. Should
it ever happen that learned Catholics think dial they have serious reasons for
doubting some points in his ordinary teaching they should privately and
respectfully submit their views to him.

ify

Evidence for Our Faith

Church, to carry out his mission even to the consummation of the
world. And he placed all men under an obligation to accept its
message or be condemned. "Go out over the world, and preach
the gospel to the whole of creation; he who believes and is bap­
tized will be saved; he who refuses belief will be condemned"
(Mark 16, 16).
The Church is his great legacy to mankind? Under his guid­
ance, it has continued to preach his message and offer his sacra­
ments to all men for the past nineteen hundred years. As Catho­
lics, we believe that Christ made his Church infallible; that he will
never allow the whole Church to fall into error in matters of faith
and morals. Let us now investigate the reasons for this belief.
First of all, we should consider the antecedent probability of this
doctrine. Secondly, we will investigate its foundation in Scripture
and Tradition.
A. Antecedent Probability

It seems antecedently probable that Christ would insure his
Church against errors in faith and morals. Otherwise his principal
work would appear to be imperfect and incomplete, for within a
few centuries the mistakes of the leaders of the Church might
frustrate the whole purpose of his coming.7
8 Such an imperfect
work would seem unworthy of the Son of God.
Moreover, "he who wills the ends, wills the means." Without
doubt, Christ wanted men of every age to know with certainty all
that he revealed. Thus he must have willed the means of preserv­
ing that revelation unimpaired.9 But if the Church were fallible,
men of the twentieth century would never know what Christ’s
revelation means, for some men in every age would surely ques­
tion the decisions of a fallible Church. And after nineteen hundread years of disputation we would be lost in the turmoil of
conflicting opinions. With even human foresight Christ should
7. Some people speak as if the New Testament is his great legacy to man­
kind. They forget that it was written by official teachers of the Church after
the death of Christ. It was not guaranteed by our Lord personally but by the
Church which declared it to be inspired.
8. If such a fallible Church erred, Christ would be "forcing" men to accept
falsehood under penalty of going to hell. (Mark 16, 16) This is absurd.
9. Obviously, the Bible alone could not serve as an infallible guide because
the Bible always requires an interpreter.

The Infallibility of the Pope

r8j

have foreseen such a catastrophe. Thus it seems antecedently
probable that Christ would protect his revelation from being
nullified through error since he could easily do so.’0
But these are a priori arguments. We must turn to Sacred Scrip­
ture and tradition for the actual proof of the Church’s claim to
infallibility.
B. Proofs from Scripture and Tradition

In every century, the Catholic Church seems to have had an
unwavering confidence that its Divine Founder was constantly
with it to protect it from error. Certainly, it has that confidence
today. And very few will question its primitive character. Appar­
ently, it springs from the very words of our Lord as they were
understood by the Apostles and their successors. When our Lord
told the Apostles of his approaching death, he promised to send
them the Spirit of Truth. "It will be for him, the truth-giving
Spirit, when he comes, to guide you into all truth ... he will
make plain to you what is still to come” (John 16, 13).
After his resurrection, our Lord once again promised the Apos­
tles that the Holy Spirit would aid them: "Enough for you, that
the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and you will receive strength
from him; you are to be my witnesses in Jerusalem and through­
out Judaea, in Samaria, yes, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts
1. 8).
This special divine assistance was not to be a mere transitory
gift, but would continue until the end of the world. "And behold
I am with you all through the days that are coming, until the
consummation of the world” (Matt. 28, 20).
Obviously, our Lord knew that many centuries would roll by
before the end of the world. By this statement n he was promising
10. Some non-Catholics do not seem to realize that infallibility is a far less
thing than inspiration. Although they readily admit the authors of the Bible
were inspired, they shy away from any mention of infallibility.
11. This statement of our Lord has three significant points: first of al), the
presence of Christ with his church, "And behold I am with you"; secondly,
his continual presence without even a day's absence, "all through the days
that are coming"; thirdly, his presence to the end of time, "until the con­
summation of the world." Thus the true church must have existed from the
beginning without any lapse and will last until the end of time. All that is
necessary, then, is to find this church founded by Christ. Since he is always
with it, we may have perfect confidence that it will not lead us into error.

jg6

Evidence for Our Faith

to be not only with the Apostles but with their successors con­
tinually until the end of time. Since the bishops of the Catholic
Church are the successors of the Apostles, they are assured of his
divine assistance in teaching. This special divine assistance must,
at least, mean that they will not fall into error when they are
teaching the word of God.
Thus St. Paul tells the Ephesians that their faith is built upon
the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being
himself the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2, 20). By faith, St. Paul
evidently means their intellectual belief, for in no other way do
the Apostles and prophets act as media between Christ and the
individual Christian. Under divine inspiration, St. Paul points out
the Church as the principle and source of truth: "So much I tell
thee by letter ... so that, if I am slow in coming, thou mayest be
in no doubt over the conduct that is expected of thee in God’s
household. By that I mean the Church of the living God, the pillar
and foundation upon which the truth rests" (I Tim. 3, J 4-15).
The confidence of all the Apostles in the ever present guidance
of the Holy Spirit became evident at the Council of Jerusalem.
There the Apostles assume that a decision of the Church, even
though it follows a stormy discussion, is the decision of the Holy
Spirit. Thus the decree of the Council begins with the words: "It
is the Holy Spirit's pleasure and ours . .
(Acts 15, 28).
This confidence of the leaders of the Church in the guidance
of the Holy Spirit is manifested in the works of the Fathers. It
underlies all their appeals to general councils. It explains their
demand that everyone must accept as true what has been taught
by the Church. In their eyes, a man who denies what the Church
teaches, commits an inexcusable error. Guided by the Holy Spirit,
the Church always teaches the truth. Thus St. Irenaeus (125-202)
declares: "The successors of the Apostles have received a sure gift
(charisma) of truth according to the will of the Father." 12
Again, he says: "Where the gifts (charisma) of the Lord are
placed there we must learn the truth, namely, from those who
have succeeded the apostles in the Church. . . . These preserve
our faith.” “
St. Ephraem (373) asserts: "The heavenly spouse has established
the Church and made her firm in the true faith.” 14
it. St. Irenaeus, op. cit., IV, 26, 2.
13. Ibid., IV, 26, 5.
14. St. Ephraem, De Inslaur. Eccl., II, 1.

The Infallibility of the Pope

187

And St. Cyprian (210-258) says: "It is of her that we are bom:
with her milk we arc nourished; her breath is our life. The spouse
of Christ cannot become adulterate; she is undefiled and chaste.
She owns but one home; with spotless purity she guards the sanc­
tity of one chamber." **
In his masterful way, St. Augustine sums up the convictions of
all the Fathers when he declares: "Unless the Lord dwelt in the
Church, as she is now, the most careful speculation would fall into
error; but of this Church it is said: She is the holy temple of
God." >·
As St. Augustine points out, the abiding presence of our Lord
with his Church is necessary to keep it from error. Since our Lord
left behind no syllable of writing, he committed entirely to his
Church the task of representing him, and not misrepresenting him
to the world. If he merely depended upon the careful speculation
of his followers, the Church would have certainly fallen into error.
Compare, for example, modem Lutheranism with Luther or
modern Anglicanism with Cranmer and you will see at a glance
how changes creep in. In his divine wisdom, our Lord safeguarded
his message from this peril by remaining with the Church to in­
sure it against error.17
Although it is possible to give many more quotations from the
Fathers, it seems unnecessary. The unanimity of their belief in
the Church's infallibility has never been questioned. In fact, no
one who admits that Christ founded the Church as a society denies
that it is infallible. As we have seen, reason alone indicates that its
infallibility is antecedently probable. And the words of our Lord
as interpreted by St. Paul and the Fathen of the Church leave no
room for reasonable doubt. The Church is infallible because the
Holy Spirit remains with it even to the consummation of the
world. By means of his Church, Christ offers men of every gen­
eration his complete and unadulterated message.18
15. St. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae, 5. 6.
16. St. Augustine, On Psalm IX, is (PL, 36, 1»»).
17. Ci. Knox, The Belief of Catholics, New York (Sheed It Ward). 1940.
p. 154.
18. Protestants claim to take their guidance immediately from a living
Christ. But what is the guidance he gives us, and where are we to find it?
Protestants have never and never will answer that question satisfactorily. As
Ronald A- Knox says: "For the Catholic, as for the Protestant, sanctification
is the direct work of Christ; it is Christ, not the Church, who gives us (as
Priest and Victim) his Body and Blood in Communion. It is Christ who for.

/8S

Evidence for Our Faith
II. THE INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE

The infallibility of the Pope follows from the infallibility of
the Church. Since the Pope has supreme and final jurisdiction in
matters of faith and morals, he is the court of last appeal in the
Church. Therefore, since the Church is infallible the Pope must
be infallible, just as the United States Supreme Court would be
infallible if God made this nation infallible.
In his splendid work, The Early Papacy, Adrian Fortescue
says:

If the Pope were to pronounce heresy, refusing his communion to all
who did not agree with him, one of two things would follow. Either the
Church would be out of communion with her primate, or she would be
committed to heresy. Either means bankruptcy of the whole Catholic
system: so God cannot allow either to happen. God cannot allow it
to happen, that is all the Vatican Council says. There are many things
that wc are confident God cannot allow to happen. He cannot allow
anything that would ruin his Church. He cannot allow all bishops sud­
denly to die without having ordained a successor, because that would
be the end of the priesthood. Here we have another case of something
God cannot allow to happen—unless he means to abandon his Church
and make Christ’s promises vain. How could God prevent a Pope from
declaring heresy ex cathedra? That we must leave to God. His provi­
dence is almighty; if he intends a thing not to occur, it will not occur.
Suppose God promised that a certain kingdom should never go to
war, and suppose its king had the power of making war. Then we
should be quite sure that, somehow, God would manage that the king
never used this power.1·
Indeed, divine protection against error may be given to any
man. So far as we know, God’s providence may have determined
that Bishop Sheen will never make a theological mistake in a ser­
mon. If so, he is infallible in that respect. But there is no proof
of anything of that kind. There is proof, however, in the case of

gives us our sins, sometimes when we submit them to the Church in con­
fession, sometimes before. The Catholic, no less than the Protestant, hopes
to be saved through the merits of Christ's Blood shed for him, and for no
other consideration. The Church, then, in the order of worship, does not
come between Christ and the individual soul. But in the order of intellectual
conviction, the Church does, if you will, come between Christ and the indi­
vidual mind. It is through the Church that the Catholic finds out what he is
to believe and why he is to believe it." (Ibid., pp. 131-132).
19. Fortescue, op. cil., pp. ϊ8-ϊ4·

The Infallibility of the Pope

rSg

the Pope, because he is the final court of appeal for the Church
that Christ promised shall not fail.
Perhaps Providence will take care that no bishop shall teach
heresy in his diocesan letters because, if he did so, it would be ex­
tremely unfortunate. But we have no guarantee here. The error
of a bishop can be corrected by his superior. The Pope has no su­
perior on earth in matters of faith and morals. Therefore God
must see to it that the Pope does not teach heresy when he com­
mits the whole Church. If the consultation of theologians or any
other means are necessary to protect the Pope from error, God
will see to it that these means are used. But the Pope will not offi­
cially teach heresy whatever happens. As Fortescue says: "If you
say that a man will not die in a certain year, you do not mean
that he will not die, if nothing happens to cause his death. You
mean that nothing will happen to cause his death."20
Certainly, the Pope as final court of appeal in the infallible
Church is infallible. Since we proved from Scripture and tradition
that the Church is infallible, it seems unnecessary to offer a de­
tailed proof from those sources for the infallibility of the Pope.
Nevertheless we will consider briefly some of the arguments theo­
logians use in speaking of the infallibility of the Pope. These
arguments are based on Scripture, tradition, and the official teach­
ing of the Church.
A. Scripture
As we have seen, our Lord designated St. Peter as the rock on
which the Church is built.21 He promised that the “gates of hell
shall not prevail against it." Now suppose Peter were to lead the
whole Church into error. The Son of God would have been mis­
taken. The powers of hell would have prevailed. Obviously, this
supposition is foolish. Therefore it seems reasonable to expect
that our Lord will at least keep Peter from leading the Church
into error.
Moreover, our Lord gave Peter and his successors the "keys of
the kingdom of heaven." He promised that whatever Peter binds
or looses on earth he will ratify in heaven. In other words, our
Lord will approve what Peter does. Since our Lord would never
approve untruths, we may be sure that Peter will never teach
them.
so. Ibid., p. «5SI. Cf. p. »40·

iço

Evidence for Our Faith

On another occasion, our Lord tells Peter that he has prayed for
him that his faith may not fail for he is to be the support of his
brethren.0 This is the only record we have of Christ offering
prayer for an individual. It is because of the role Peter plays. The
whole Church depends upon him as its principle (its rock) of sta­
bility and union. Without a doubt the prayer of Christ was an­
swered. Peter will ever live and rule in his successors to support
his brethren in the true faith.
After his resurrection, Christ makes Peter the shepherd of all
his lambs and sheep.*· He is to feed them with the words and sac­
raments of Christ. Surely our Lord will insure Peter and his suc­
cessors against error when they teach his flock. Otherwise his
whole work might be frustrated.
It is possible to enlarge upon each one of these points. But it
seems unnecessary. The words of our Lord can be understood
naturally supposing that he promised a special divine assistance
to Peter and his successors. This special divine assistance should
at least keep them from teaching error. If a person does not admit
that, he has to find a novel interpretation for each passage. And he
will be at a loss to explain the attitude of the Fathers and Councils
towards the successors of St. Peter.
B. The Fathers and Councils

By their words and acts, the Fathers and early Councils of the
Church indicate their belief in the infallibility of the Pope?* Of
course, we do not expect to find that belief stated as clearly and
precisely in the first centuries as it is today.25 Like the doctrine of
the Trinity, its scope and limitations were not clearly defined until
men denied it. Since no one questioned the infallibility of the
Pope before the sixteenth century, no one in the early Church
22. Cf. p. 247.
23. Cf. p. 248.
24. In the first part of this chapter and in the last chapter, we used many
quotations from the Fathers and early Councils in speaking of the infallibility
of the Church and the supremacy of the Pope. Here we presuppose a knowl­
edge of those quotations for some of them offer additional testimony that
Christians have always believed at least implicitly in the infallibility of the
Pope.
25. In his book, The Faith of Our Fathers, Cardinal Gibbons explained
clearly how dogmas have developed through the centuries. Cf. pp. 31-55, 156»57-

The Infallibility of the Pope

tyr

wrote a treatise on it. Belief in it, however, was manifested in sev­
eral ways.
Often we hear a Father protesting that his faith is that of the
Roman See. Although he might say this of any Catholic see, the
numerous references from the East and West to Rome indicate it
is the final standard of right belief. In fact, some Fathers point
out Rome as the standard for all. Others say that God will never
allow the Church of Rome to err in faith. Let us examine some
of their statements.

i.

St. Irenaeus

First of all, we should recall the memorable words of St.
Irenaeus (125-202). In refuting the Gnostic heretics Irenaeus
uses the Roman Church as the criterion of orthodoxy. He writes:
Since it would take too long in a book such as this to enumerate the
succession of all churches (from the apostles), we point out the Tradi­
tion which has been received from the apostles and the faith which has
been preached to all by the greatest, the oldest, and the universally
known church established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles,
Peter and Paul, through a succession of bishops down to our own times.
Thus we refute all heretics. . . . For because of its pre-eminent au­
thority, every church, that is, the faithful everywhere, must agree with
this church, in which by universal consent, the apostolic tradition has
been preserved intact.28

The phrase, "every Church must agree with.” may also be
translated “must go to the Roman Church.” If Irenaeus actually
meant to say "agree with,” then the Roman Church is obviously
the criterion of orthodoxy for all Churches. Two noted Protestant
scholars, Stiem and Harnack, favor this translation. Hamack says:
"Convenire is probably to be understood in its derived meaning
(agree with): the literal and therefore obvious sense ‘every church
must go to the Roman Church' is not admissible." 91
Of course, it does not make a great deal of difference which
translation is used.28 Although the translation, "go to the Roman
«6. St. Irenaeus, Against Heretics, III, 3, 3. Apparently. Irenaeus use* the
word, "oldest,” here in the sense of "greatest authority" as he does in II. 5, 4.
Certainly, he knew that Rome was not the oldest church in years for he says
that Antioch was founded earlier (III, 12, 14). Origen also calls the Church of
Rome the oldest. Cf. Eusebius. History of the Church, VI. 14, 10.
27. Harnack, op. cit., II. 157. n. 3.
28. A Catholic scholar. Funk, preferred the latter translation.

Evidence for Our Faith

/pa

Church." somewhat obscures the meaning of the passage, it does
not change it. The Churches are to go to the Roman Church in
which the teaching of the Apostles is preserved unimpaired.
Some non-Catholic writers have interpreted this passage to
mean that people from all nations go to the great city of Rome
and there they learn what is believed in all the different nations.
It is, however, the exact opposite of what St. Irenaeus says. He
docs not mention the greatness of the city but he speaks of the
mightier rule of the Church of Rome. He does not say that
strangers go to the city but every Church must agree with (or, go
to) the Roman Church. So long as they are in agreement with
Rome, they have the true tradition of the apostles.

2.

St. Cyprian

In the third century, St. Cyprian (210-258), bishop of Carthage
in Africa felt confident that the Roman Church would never err.
He declared that the African schismatics "had not considered that
the Romans are those whose faith is praised by the apostle, to
whom perfidy cannot have access." 28
3.

Synod

of

Antioch

This confidence in the Roman Church was also evident at
Antioch where a hundred and fifty-three Eastern bishops held a
synod in 37g. At its conclusion they publicly proclaimed their
perfect agreement in faith with Rome. "Here ends this letter or
exposition of the Roman synod held under Pope Damasus, and
sent to the East, to which the whole Eastern Church, having held
a synod at Antioch, agrees in the same faith; and all thus agreeing
profess the faith explained above, each one by his own signa­
ture." 30

4.

Pope Damasus I

Everywhere the faith of Rome was the criterion of orthodoxy.
A decision of the Pope put an end to controversy. Thus the his­
torian, Sozomenus, relates how Pope Damasus I (366-384) stopped
the heresy which made the Holy Spirit inferior to God the Father
and the Son (in 380).
29. Ep., LIX, 14.
30. PL., 13, 353.

The Infallibility of the Pope

193

When this question was discussed and grew from day to day from love
of debate, the Bishop of the city of Rome, having heard of the contreversy, wrote to the Churches of the East that they must confess the
consubstantial Trinity equal in honor and glory, as do the Western
bishops. When he did this all were quiet, as the controversy was ended
by the judgment of the Roman Church; and this question at last seemed
to be ended.31

5.

St. Jerome

In a letter to Pope Damasus, St. Jerome states his faith clearly:

I speak with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross.
I, following no one as my chief but Christ, am joined in communion
with thy holiness, that is, with the See of Peter. On this rock I know
that the Church is built. Whoever eats the lamb outside this house is
profane. Whoever is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the deluge
comes.82
6. Synod

of

Milan

When heretics at Milan refused to believe the bishops of that
area, a Synod at Milan (389) referred them to Rome as the final
standard of right belief. "But if they (the heretics) will not believe
the teaching of the bishops ... let them believe the apostles'
creed, which the Roman Catholic Church keeps and preserves in­
corrupt.” 33

7. Pope Innocent I
Apparently, appeals to Rome were quite common for after
Pope Innocent I (401-417) answered a question of faith submitted
to him by a Synod at Mileve (416) in Africa, he concludes:
Whenever a question of faith is raised I hold that all our brothers and
fellow-bishops should refer it to Peter only, that is, to the heir of this
name and honor, as you have done. For he can help all Churches
throughout the whole world.3·
8.

St. Augustine

Later in referring to this decision St. Augustine said: "Already
two synods (Mileve and Cartilage) have sent to the Apostolic See
31. Sozomenus, Historia Ecclesiae, VI, aa (PC.. 67, 1346).
3». £/>. XV, Ad Damasum. ï (PL., as. 355-356).
33. Ambrosi, Ep. XLII, 5.
34. Ep., XXX. a (PL., ao, 590).

Evidence for Our Faith
concerning this affair. The rescript has come from there; the cause
is finished. Would that the error were finished too." 85
This statement by Augustine gave rise to the well known prov­
erb. Roma locuta est, causa finita est (Rome has spoken, the case
is settled).

9.

Pope Zosimus

Innocent's successor, Zosimus (417-418), sums up the teaching
of all the Fathers of the Church in these words: "The tradition of
the Fathers gives so much authority to the Apostolic See that no
one dare contradict its judgment. ... So great is our authority
that no one may go back on our verdict.” 88

10.

St. Peter Chrysologus

St. Peter Chrysologus (406-450) of Ravenna urges the heretic
Eutyches to "hear obediently what is written by the most blessed
Pope of the Roman city; because St. Peter who lives and rules on
his own throne, gives the faith to those who seek it." 87
11.

The Council of Chalcedon

Previously, we quoted the cry that went up from all the bishops
at Chalcedon (451) after the dogmatic letter of Pope St. Leo I had
been read. "This is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the
apostles. We all believe so. The orthodox believe so. Anathema to
him who docs not so believe. Peter has spoken thus through
Leo." 88
Through sixteen more centuries Peter has spoken through a
Leo, an Innocent, a Benedict. Today Peter speaks through a Pope
John XXIII. Pope John will certainly die but the voice of Peter
will not die with him. As Fortescue says: “For twenty centuries
more, if the world last so long, Peter will live in his successors
and will speak, when need arises through them; till at the end
the last Pope hands back to his master the heavy burden of those
keys that he first received on the shore of the Lake of Galilee.” 88
The six hundred and thirty Eastern bishops of Chalcedon ex35.
36.
37.
38.
39.

Contra duas Epist. Pelag.. II, 3. 5 (PL., 758).
Ep. XII, ad Aurelium, 1 (PL., 20, 676).
Ad Eulychen, inter Ep. Leonis 1, XXV, 2 (PL., 54, 741).
Hefele, op. cit., Ill, p- 3«7Fortescue, op. cit., pp. 60-61.

The Infallibility of the Pope

/95

pressed the universal belief of Christendom in the fifth century.
Like their predecessors, they regarded the Pope as the successor
of Peter, the guarantor of orthodoxy. Indeed, they respected the
Pope as if he were St. Peter himself.
Although the Fathers do not use the same terms as we do, in
speaking of the Pope, their faith was substantially the same. This
faith has always been based on the words of our Lord to St. Peter
as they were understood by the apostles and their successors. In
fact, any other interpretation of them faces insurmountable ob­
stacles. First of all, the ‘‘interpreter" would have to explain why
he does not take the words in their obvious, literal sense as the
Fathers do. Secondly, he would have to offer a plausible inter­
pretation of each passage. Thirdly, he would have to explain why
the Fathers respect the Pope as if he were St. Peter himself and
regard Rome as the criterion of orthodoxy. Finally, he would have
to explain how the Pope acquired this astounding prerogative
within a century or two.
Perhaps one or two of his "explanations" might sound plausi­
ble. But it would take unlimited faith to accept all of them. It is
very easy to say "I do not believe," but to give another reasonable
interpretation to the words of Scripture and the Fathers is a
practical impossibility.

C. The Infallible Church
As Catholics, we are convinced that the Church of Christ lives
still and will live to the end of the world. Because the Holy Spirit
is with the Church, it is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
In the twentieth century we have the same confidence in the
Church as Catholics did in the first century, for the Church was
not more guided by the Holy Spirit then than it is today.
Since Christ has given the Church its authority, we can trust
it as we trust Christ. "Who heareth you, heareth me." The prin­
cipal reason, therefore, why Catholics believe in the infallibility of
the Pope or any other dogma is because the Church teaches it.
From the Church, we leam all that Christ has revealed.
Of course, theologians do not stop there. They endeavor to
prove that each doctrine taught by the Church was revealed by
Christ and has been believed from the beginning. This requires
a good deal of research. Without a doubt such theological research
confirms our beliefs. But it never becomes the main reason for

rgfi

Evidence for Our Faith

them. Primarily, a theologian believes in any doctrine taught by
the Church for the same reason as an illiterate Catholic does, that
is, because the infallible Church teaches it.
Because the infallibility of the Pope follows from the infalli­
bility of the Church and because it may be deduced from the
words of our Ixird to St. Peter, it would hardly seem to require
special definition by the Church. But since some people in the
nineteenth century were confused about it, the Vatican Council
stated clearly what is meant by the infallibility of the Pope. The
definition of the Council literally translated reads:
The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,—that is, when as
pastor and teacher of all Christians, he defines by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority a doctrine of faith and morals to be held by the
whole Church—is endowed, through the divine assistance promised to
him in blessed Peter, with that infallibility with which the Divine Re­
deemer willed his Church to be fortified; and, therefore, the definitions
of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
consent of the Church.40

Without a doubt, this was an official teaching of the infallible
Church for it was issued by the bishops of the whole Church, the
successors of the apostles. Therefore anyone who believes the
Church is infallible must admit that the Pope is infallible. As we
have seen, this was not a new doctrine. The Council merely ex­
pressed more clearly and explicitly what Christians have always
believed.
D. Alleged Failures

In the past, some non-Catholic authors have questioned the in­
fallibility of the Pope because they said four Popes have erred.
Paul V and Urban VIII were supposed to have erred in condemn­
ing Galileo. Popes Liberius and Honorius were said to have fallen
into heresy. Lest anyone be confused by these accusations which
are still being repeated, we shall consider briefly the cases in
question.
i
xj j. Galileo (1564-1642)
Before his conversion to the Catholic Church Arnold Lunn
wrote: "No instructed critic would quote the condemnation of
40.

Denzinger, op. cit., 1839·

The Infallibility of the Pope

rgy

Galileo as an argument against the Vatican definition of Papal
Infallibility. ” 41
The reason is obvious. Galileo was not condemned by any
Pope personally but by the Roman Congregations of the Holy
Office and the Index. These Congregations are committees of
learned men who assist the Pope in his work. But their decisions
have never been regarded as infallible. Therefore, the Galileo
case is no argument against papal infallibility. Indeed, Cardinal
Bellarmine (1542-1641), who was a member of the Congregation
of the Holy Office at the time, did not even regard ils decision as
irreversible.
More often today non-Catholics refer to the Galileo case as if
it proves that the Catholic Church is hostile to scientific progress
and freedom of research. Of course, this is not an objection to the
infallibility of the Pope but a misrepresentation of the attitude of
the Church. They like to picture Galileo as a martyr who suffered
because he proposed a new scientific theory when he taught that
the sun is immovable and that the earth rotates on its axis. They
forget that Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464) and Canon
Copernicus42 (1473-1543) had proposed the same theory many
years before Galileo without any difficulty.43 Galileo's trouble was
not due to his scientific theory but due to the fact that he im­
prudently rejected the traditional interpretation of some texts of
41. Ronald Knox and Arnold Lunn, Difficulties, London (Eyre and Spottiswoode), 1932, p. 130. Hilaire Belloc has a dear and concise treatment of this
question in The Catholic Church and History. He states: "The whole attack
on the Church in connection with Galileo turns upon these two misunder­
standings, of which the first is unessential, but the second capital: First, that
a proved scientific fact was at issue; secondly, that this proved scientific fact
was denied, because it was novel, and was denied by that authority which
alone throughout the centuries had been held competent to establish points
of doctrine, the Papacy and the councils of the Church over which it spiritu­
ally presides. The first is wrong and the second is wrong. The Copernican
theory was not novel in Galileo's time; it was still only a theory. His condem­
nation accuses him of returning to the oldest conception (Pythagorean). He
was not condemned by the Church, and the instance of his condemnation,
such as it was, by the appointed committee, was his persistence in teaching as
a proved fact what was still only hypothesis." Ibid., pp. 50-51.
42. The work of Copernicus. De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium, owed
its publication to the financial support of two Cardinals. It was dedicated to
Pope Paul III.
43. Aristarchus of Samos (lived about *50 B.C.) taught this theory.

TqÜ

Evidence for Our Faith

the Bible in defending the Copernican theory against the attacks
of other scientists.
After the scientists began to fight about the interpretation of
Scripture, the Roman Congregations intervened. The question
was how to interpret those passages in the Bible which seem to
say that the sun moves.41 These passages had all along been taken
in their literal meaning, for it has always been a principle of bib­
lical interpretation to take texts literally unless it is quite clear
that they should be taken figuratively. This was the rule set forth
by St. Augustine and sanctioned by Pope Leo XIII. Until 1687
the Copernican theory was an unproved hypothesis. In fact, the
great majority of scientists taught the theory of Ptolemy. Unfortu­
nately, the Congregation sided with the majority of scientists.
After Newton proved (1687) that the Copernican theory was true,
Catholic theologians changed their interpretation. Obviously, it
was not a matter of great importance.46 When the author of those
books of the Bible spoke of the sun rising and setting, he was
speaking not as a scientist but as an ordinary man describing
things as they appeared. Even today, men still speak of the sun
rising and setting. In his encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, Pope
Leo XIII removed the danger of any similar error in the future.
When non-Catholics mention the Galileo case, Catholics should
ask them why they have to go back to the sixteenth century to
show that the Church is opposed to scientific progress. Apparently,
the evidence is very sparse. Certainly, they can find no evidence
in modern times. The fact that great Catholic universities today
are doing everything in their power to further scientific progress
and research proves their thesis is false.
v/

2. Pope Liberius (351-366)

When Pope Liberius refused to sign an Arian formulary of
faith, he was exiled (355) by the Emperor Constantius. Two years
later he was permitted to return to Rome. Scholars still dispute
whether or not he signed the formulary.
Scholars who maintain that he did sign it have never proved
44. I Paralipomenon, 16, 30; Ecclesiastes. 1, 5-6; Josue, 10, 13.
45. Einstein said that it would not have mattered a pin’s point whether it
was said that the earth goes round the sun, or the sun round the earth. Cf.
Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, London (Cambridge Univer­
sity Press), 1938, p. «24.

The Infallibility of the Pope

199

that the formulary contained anything heretical. Many oi the
Arian formularies were quite orthodox. But even if Pope Liberius
signed an heretical formulary, he certainly did not teach heresy
ex cathedra. Thus there is no question about papal infallibility
in this case. Moreover, if Pope Liberius signed it, he did so as a
prisoner under duress. Ronald A. Knox says: "I was always taught
(as a Protestant) that Liberius acted under force majeure, and that
clearly invalidates his expressions of opinion, which he withdrew
when at liberty. Nobody claims for the Pope a gift of invincible
fortitude."

v/ 3. Pope Honorius (625-638)
In the midst of the Monothelite heresy, Pope Honorius wrote
two letters, one to Sergius, a Monothelite, another to Sophronius,
the champion of orthodoxy, in which he forbade further discus­
sion and declared that "there is but one will in Christ." *’ As a
result, Honorius was later condemned as a heretic by the General
Council of Constantinople (680-681).
In this case again there is no question of papal infallibility. First
of all, Honorius did not intend to define any doctrine ex cathedra
in his letters, for he said, "It doth not behove us to settle the ques­
tion whether the number of operations in Christ is one or two."
He merely wished to put an end to the controversy which he
wrongly considered to be a “war of words.” Secondly, Honorius
asserted there was but one will in Christ because he thought that
Sophronius was teaching "that there were two conflicting wills in
Christ.” St. Maximus, who was the leading scholar of the Eastern
Church after the death of Sophronius, exonerated Honorius from
all charges of heresy. The Council condemned Honorius because
some thought he had favored the Monothelite heresy by silencing
both parties. In those days anyone whose actions were thought to
favor heresy was regarded as a heretic. Pope Leo II confirmed the
decree inasmuch as Honorius had been negligent “in extinguish­
ing the rising flame of heresy."
The fault of Honorius was in not pronouncing a decision at all.
He thought the controversy should be left unsettled for the sake
46. Knox and Lunn, op. tit., p. «38.
47. Mansi, XI, 538. The Monothelites taught that the human will of Christ
was absorbed in the divine will. If this were true. Christ would not be ■ true
man,

■

aoo

Evidence for Our Faith

of peace in the Church. After the event, it is easy to see that he
was wrong. But nobody ever claimed the Pope was infallible in
not defining a doctrine.

4. The Objections Inside Out
It is easy to turn these objections inside out. How few and far­
fetched are the alleged failures of infallibility? If someone pro­
posed the theory that the Supreme Court was infallible, a person
could discover any number of cases where the Court has reversed
its decision. But as Ronald A. Knox says:

Here have these Popes been, fulminating anathema after anathema for
centuries—certain in all human probability to contradict themselves or
one another over and over again. Instead of which you get this measly
crop of two or three alleged failuresl I don’t say that proves infallibility;
that would be claiming too much. But surely it suggests there has al­
ways been a tradition in the Church—call it an instinct if you like—
that what has been laid down by a previous Pope is of itself irreformable. And that is the Vatican doctrine against which these criticisms are
really directed. One Pope who yielded, when he was much in the posi­
tion of Tikhon with the Bolshevists; one, who thought it would be nice
if the question of two Wills (much complicated because nobody had yet
invented the blessed words "form" and "content") were left an open
question—and then you had to fish round wildly and even dig out poor
old Galileo to make up a party!48
III. CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have considered some of the reasons why
Catholics believe in two important truths, the infallibility of the
Church and the infallibility of the Pope. In regard to the infal­
libility of the Church, reason alone indicates that the Son of God
would most likely make his Church infallible. The words of our
Lord leave no room for doubt about it. On several occasions, he
promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide his Church even to the
consummation of the world. These solemn promises of our Lord
explain why the Fathers of the Church believed in the infallibility
of the Church. In the twentieth century Catholics have the same
confidence in the Church as the Fathers did in the first centuries,
for the Church was not more guided by the Holy Spirit then than
it is today.
The infallibility of the Pope follows from the infallibility of
48. Knox and Lunn, op. cit., pp. »38—139.

The Infallibility of the Pope

201

the Church. Since the Pope is the last court of appeal in an in­
fallible Church, he must be infallible. This reason for believing in
the infallibility of the Pope is corroborated by a study of Sacred
Scripture. When the words of our Lord to St. Peter are taken in
their obvious, literal meaning, it seems reasonable to expect that
our Lord will at least keep Peter and his successors from leading
the whole Church into error. Indeed, only this interpretation of
his words accounts for the universal respect in the early Church
for the Church of Rome. Many Fathers regard it as the criterion
of orthodoxy. They respect the Pope because, as they put it, St.
Peter speaks through him. Others say that the Church of Rome
will never err. Because no one questioned the infallibility of the
Pope in the first centuries, no one wrote a treatise on it. But by
their words and acts, the Fathers and Councils manifest their be­
lief in it.
Although the Fathers and Councils do not use the same terms
as we do in speaking of the infallibility of the Pope, their belief
was substantially the same. All their statements in respect to
Rome can be understood naturally supposing that they believed
in the infallibility of the Pope. If a person does not admit that,
he has to find a difficult, often a tortuous interpretation of each
statement. Thus when the Vatican Council stated clearly and pre­
cisely the scope and limitations of papal infallibility, it was merely
defining a divinely revealed truth which had been accepted from
the beginning in the Church.
Indeed, this official teaching of the infallible Church is still
another reason for believing in the infallibility of the Pope. After
the Vatican Council, a person can no longer deny the latter with­
out denying the former. Thus all the reasons that induce us to
believe in the infallibility of the Church, should lead us to believe
also in the infallibility of the Pope.

THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

Supplementary reading from Selden P. Delany, JPAy Rome? New
York (The Dial Press), pp. 229-231.
It is characteristic of my type of mind that I postpone decisions
as long as possible, and avoid making investigations the result of
which is likely to be upsetting. I must confess that I had never

aoa

Evidence for Our Faith

read Pope Leo ΧΠΓβ Bull which declared Anglican orders invalid
until I began working on this chapter. Long ago I read the reply
to the Bull made by the Anglican archbishops, together with many
other defenses of Anglican orders. I wish now I had read the Bull,
"Apostolicae Curae," thirty years ago. It might have made a vast
difference in my subsequent life.
At the time when I began writing this book, I made a resolution
that I would make no change in my ecclesiastical position until 1
had completed my argument. 1 can always work things out better
in writing than by abstract reasoning. In writing I can proceed
step by step, as in climbing a mountain. To a mountain climber
the whole ascent looks impossible from the valley. But one can
always take the step, and with the step there is that much gained.
Because of my dislike of hurting those who had trusted me, I
wanted to remain where I was as long as I could do so conscien­
tiously. If only the customary Anglican argument against Rome
might continue to appeal to me, I would hold my ground, even
though disillusioned and disheartened.
One by one these arguments have broken in my hands. I came
to see that St. Peter had undeniably been given by our Lord the
position of supremacy in the apostolic college. As I read over once
more the history of the early Church I became convinced that the
Petrine tradition was carried on by the Bishops of Rome, and that
on this ground their supremacy was everywhere recognized. I dis­
covered that the Church in Rome from the very beginning became
the regulative norm for the whole Church, in doctrine, in dis­
cipline, in the orders of the ministry, and in the formation of the
Canon of Scripture. I learned that the general councils became
ecumenical only when confirmed by the Bishop of Rome. I had
to admit that the infallibility of the Catholic Church necessarily
carried with it the infallibility of her chief Bishop. Finally, I was
driven to the conclusion that for one hundred years after the
Reformation no valid orders were conferred in the Church of
England, and that therefore she lost the apostolic succession. That
meant that I was not a priest, and never had been.
After coming to such a conclusion, there was only one course
open for me. Immediately after the close of the Diocesan Conven­
tion, I called upon Father Ford, the Catholic Chaplain of Colum­
bia University, and told him of my decision. Through his kind
offices an interview was arranged with Cardinal Hayes. His Em­

The Infallibility of the Pope

20)

inence received me most graciously, and after listening patiently
to my story, told me the steps that I should take. 1 then resigned
from my parish, wrote to Bishop Manning renouncing the min
istry of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and left for a ten-day
retreat in the Benedictine Priory at Portsmouth, R. I. There my
old friend. Father Sargent (now Dom Leonard), gave me instruc­
tions preparatory to my reception into the Catholic Church. 1
was received by Monsignor McMahon in the Church of Our Lüdy
of Lourdes, on the Feast of St. John the Baptist.

CHAPTER X

The Teaching Authority
in Action

THE Church teaches the content of divine revelation infallibly
in two distinct ways: ordinarily or solemnly. The reason should
be apparent from all that has been said up to the present. Christ
bestowed authority to teach, govern and sanctify all mankind
upon the apostles and their successors, the bishops of his Church.
He bestowed supreme authority over the whole Church in this
threefold task upon St. Peter and his successors, the bishops of
Rome. The twofold manner in which the Church exercises its in­
fallible teaching authority flows directly from the hierarchical
and monarchic nature of the Church as founded by Christ him­
self. In one case the Church is said to exercise its ordinary
“magisterium,” or teaching power; in the other, its solemn
"magisterium."

I.

THE ORDINARY MAGISTERIUM

The ordinary magisterium or teaching office of the Church is
exercised through the day-to-day instruction given to the faithful
throughout the world by the competent authorities in the
Church. These are the bishops, the successors of the Apostles.
They carry out their teaching office personally as well as through
their priests and other competent delegates. Thus the Pope and
the other bishops of the Church, in union with him and subject
to him, make up what is called the ecclesia docens, the teaching
Church. The other members of the Church, that is to say, all who
3°1

The Teaching Authority in Action

205

are subject to the bishops, constitute the so-called ecclesia discens,
the Church which learns.
The individual bishop is not infallible in his statements on
faith and morals; it is possible for him to err even on these mat
ters. However, the episcopal college, as a body and as united to
the supreme bishop, the Pope, does possess infallible teaching au­
thority. When they as a whole, though each in his own diocese,
teach a doctrine as contained in divine revelation, then there is
no possibility of error. This conclusion flows necessarily from the
infallibility of the Church.
The doctrines taught by the ordinary magisterium of the
Church are made manifest in: i) the official or liturgical prayers
of the Church; 2) the symbols or formularies or creeds, 3) the
approved cathechisms and theological manuals, 4) the pastoral in­
structions of the bishops and certain papal documents.
The liturgical prayers are the petitions which the Church, the
mystical body of Christ, makes to God for those things which we
hope to possess through God’s merciful omnipotence. But the
things which we hope to obtain are precisely those which have
been made known to us through tire doctrines which we accept
by divine faith. Since the liturgical prayers are the official prayers
of the universal Church, their doctrinal content is clearly the
work of the ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The symbols, formularies or creeds, likewise, manifest what is
taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church. From her
earliest days the Church has expressed her basic beliefs in such
forms. They are many: for example, the Apostles' Creed, the
Nicene Creed, the Creed of Constantinople, the Creed of Toledo,
the professions of faith of the Council of Trent, St. Pius X's
Oath against Modernism, etc.
Catechisms and other books of Christian doctrine which have
been approved by the bishops of the Church for teaching die
content of divine revelation to the faithful manifest, to the extent
that they are unanimous, the doctrines taught infallibily by the
ordinary magisterium of the Church.
The doctrines taught universally in the pastoral instructions
of bishops, in the diocesan, provincial and plenary councils and
in certain allocutions and letters of the Roman Pontiff must like­
wise be considered as the fruit of the ordinary magisterium of
the Church and, therefore, as infallibly true.

Evidence for Our Faith

306
II.

THE SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM

The magisterium or infallible teaching authority of the Church
may also be exercised in a solemn manner and this indeed in
two ways. The Roman Pontiff may speak ex cathedra, using the
fulness of his power in teaching the universal Church on matters
of faith and morals. Or, an ecumenical council, in union with
and subject to the Roman Pontiff, may speak definitively to the
universal Church on these same matters.
A. The Roman Pontiff
As the bishop of Rome, the Pope is the successor of St. Peter
and the vicar of Christ on earth. By virtue of this office he has all
the powers bestowed upon St. Peter and his successors, the au­
thority to rule over the whole Church, his fellow bishops as well
as the faithful. Thus the Pope is the supreme teacher and the pri­
mary guardian of the deposit of the faith. All the teaching author­
ity inherent in the Church is centered in his person; he is, as it
were, the mouthpiece of its infallible teaching power. This au­
thority he exercises in two ways: positively, by defining what is
true, and negatively, by condemning what is false.
' An excellent example of the way in which a positive statement
of the truth is presented to the faithful is found in the encyclical
"Ineffabilis Deus," of December 8, 1854, in which Pope Pius IX
defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. The various
aspects of a solemn definition are brought out clearly in the heart
of this encyclical. The purpose of the declaration is stated: “For
the honor of the holy and undivided Trinity, for the honor and
glory of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the
Catholic faith and the growth of the Christian religion . .
The
power which the Pope is exercising is also stated here: ". . . by
the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul and by our own authority . .
The nature of
the papal decision is likewise affirmed: . we declare, pro­
nounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most
blessed virgin Mary was at the first instant of her conception,
by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God preserved
free from all stain of original sin because of the merits of Jesus
Christ the Saviour of the human race, is revealed by God and
therefore is to be believed by all the faithful firmly and con-

Ï

The Teaching Authority in Action

507

stantly." Finally the consequences of the denial of the doctrine
are stated: "... Therefore, should any person presume, which
God forbid, to think in their hearts otherwise than as we have de­
fined, let them know and realize that they are condemned by their
own judgment, that they have suffered shipwreck about the faith
and that they have fallen from the unity of the Church. More­
over, if they dare to manifest what they think by word, in writ­
ing or in any other way externally, they are subject to the penal­
ties prescribed by law for that very fact."
The Pope may use his infallible teaching authority negatively
in the condemnation of error. He does so by attaching a theologi­
cal censure either to a false doctrine or to the form in which a
true doctrine is expressed. The most important and strongest
censures are those which are pronounced against false doctrines.
Of these the most serious is the citing of a doctrine as heretical.
When the Pope condemns a statement as heretical, he defines that
its contradictory is true. In other words, a statement is qualified
as heresy only when it involves a direct and immediate contradic­
tion to a truth taught by the ordinary or solemn magisterium of
the Church. The next important censure of a statement is the
qualification proximate to heresy. Such a statement denies a
proposition which, at the present moment in the development
of the doctrine of the Church, has not actually been defined but
is ready to be defined, for the preparatory theological investiga­
tion of the doctrine has already been completed. The censure
savoring of heresy indicates that a statement is dangerously am­
biguous. Such a statement could be taken in an orthodox man­
ner but, all things being taken into consideration, could just
as easily be interpreted in an heretical sense.
When a statement does not directly deny the doctrine taught
by the Church as divinely devealed but offers an incorrect ex­
planation of the dogmatic formula in which that doctrine is ex­
pressed it is censured as erroneous. A milder censure of this type
is rash or temerarious: it is used against the denial of a theologi­
cal conclusion which, because it is solidly founded, has gained
wide acceptance in the Church.
Over and above these censures for doctrinal inaccuracies, there
are others which are aimed at the form in which the doctrine is
expressed. Such are captious (misleading), offensive to pious ears,
ill sounding, and so on.

2o8

Evidence for Our Faith

The Pope exercises his teaching office in many different ways.
Usually he does so through letters and through documents known
as encyclicals, bulls, pontifical constitutions. At times he teaches
orally through "allocutions" given to those whom he wishes to
instruct. Or he may speak through the various congregations,—
agencies like the Holy Office, the Biblical Commission, the Con­
gregation of Rites, and so on,—which assist him in the direction
of the affairs of the Church. Quite obviously his infallible teach­
ing cannot be delegated to these agencies. But even when he
speaks directly to the Church, by letter or by means of an allocu­
tion, he does not always use the fulness of his infallible teaching
authority. For he can teach, even officially, in such a way as not
to demand a definitive acceptance of the doctrine from all the
faithful throughout the world.1
B. The Ecumenical Council

The second organ of the solemn magisterium of the Church is
the general or ecumenical council, that is to say, of all the bishops
who, in union with the Pope and subject to his authority, con­
stitute the ecclesia docens. In such a council the hierarchy acts
as corporate unit and, doing so, can define infallibly when it
teaches the universal Church on matters of faith and morals.
In order that a general council may fulfill the requirements
of an ecumenical council, it must be called together by the Pope;
it must be presided over by him, either personally or through his
appointed delegates; and, finally and above all, its proceedings
must be approved by the Pope. If this last requirement is lacking
the decisions of the council cannot be regarded as the solemn
teaching of the Church. Furthermore, the bishops of the Church
throughout the world are invited and enough of them do take
part in the discussions and in the voting processes so that the
ensuing definitions can be said to express the mind of the episco­
pal college.
Twenty councils are recognized as ecumenical. In temporal
sequence and under the Roman Pontiff reigning at the time, they
are:
i. The Pope may be a theologian and nothing prevents him from acting
as such if and when he pleases. In doing so, he is not exercising his papal
teaching authority. His writings in this capacity depend, in their value, upon
his competence as a theologian.

The Teaching Authority in Action

209

!. Nicea, 325, Pope St. Sylvester.
2. First Constantinople, 381, Pope St. Damasus.
g. Ephesus, 431, Pope St. Celestine I.
4. Chalcedon, 451, Pope St. Leo I.
5. Second Constantinople, 553, Pope Vigilius.
6. Third Constantinople, 680-81, Pope St. Agatho.
7. Second Nicea, 787, Pope Adrian I.
8. Fourth Constantinople, 869-70, Pope Adrian II.
9. First Lateran, 1123, Pope Callistus II.
10. Second Lateran, 1139, Pope Innocent II.
11. Third Lateran, 1179, Pope Alexander III.
12. Fourth Lateran, 1215, Pope Innocent III.
13. First Lyons, 1245, Pope Innocent IV.
14. Second Lyons, 1274, Pope St. Gregory X.
15. Vienne, 1311-12, Pope Clement V.
16. Constance, 1414-18, Pope Martin V.
17. Florence, 1438-45, Pope Eugenius IV.
18. Fifth Lateran, 1512-17, Pope Leo X.
19. Trent, 1545-63, Popes Paul III, Jujius III, and Pius IV.
20. Vatican, 1870-?, Pope Pius IX? '/

Not all of these councils recognized by the Church as ecumeni­
cal councils actually possessed all the requirements noted above.
For example, the First and Second Councils of Constantinople
were, in themselves, icgional rather than ecumenical councils; the
bishops of the western Church were not even invited. They were
given the status of ecumenical councils by the Roman Pontiff who
accepted their decisions as expressive of the beliefs of the universal
hierarchy of Christ’s infallible Church. Moreover, not all of the
decisions of all twenty councils are valid, because the Roman
Pontiff can withhold, and has actually done so on occasion, his
ratification of a certain conciliar decision. This happened, for
example, in the case of the eighth canon of the council of Chalce­
don.
Although only the bishops of the Church take part in an
ecumenical council by divine right, it has been the custom for
centuries to invite others not belonging to the episcopal college.
Among those invited are cardinals who are not bishops, abbots
who have a territorial jurisdiction like that of a bishop in his
2. The Vatican Council has not yet been officially closed.

Evidence for Our Faith

aro

diocese, vicars apostolic and prefects apostolic. Moreover, the
superiors-gencral of the great religious communities of the Church
can also attend and exercise the voting privilege in such a coun­
cil.
The doctrinal decisions of such ecumenical councils, like those
of the Roman Pontiff, are presented positively or negatively.
Sometimes the positive teaching on the content of divine revela­
tion is expressed in a symbol or creed, as was the case in the first
councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Usually it is expressed in
instructions given to all the faithful. The negative teaching con­
sists in the condemnation of heretical teachings, and the anathe­
matization of the proponents of such teachings.
Against the whole idea of these ecumenical councils a number
of objections could be, and have been, presented. First of all,
there is no essential difference between a papal and a conciliar
definition. Secondly, Christ, the founder of the Church, did not
make them a matter of precept; no such command is to be found
in Scripture or Tradition. Again, the holding of such ecumenical
councils is fraught with difficulties: the long journeys by the
bishops and the time lost from their pastoral duties, the great ex­
penses involved, the opposition which civil governments some­
times offer, and so on. In answer to these objections, the Church
affirms that, even if such ecumenical councils are not absolutely
necessary, they are very useful. First of all, by their erudition, pru­
dence and experience the bishops are of great assistance to the
Roman Pontiff in determining doctrinal truth and in using the
means to establish those laws which are best for the universal
Church, all the circumstances of time and place being taken into
consideration. Again, they are an efficacious means of settling any
differences within the Church in a safe and expeditious manner.
Finally, while an ecumenical council presided over by the Pope
has no greater intrinsic authority than the Pope, acting officially
as the head of the Church and as the Vicar of Christ on earth,
yet the external and human authority of the pronouncements is
enhanced by the great solemnity surrounding an ecumenical
council.
III.

CONCLUSION

It is clear, from all that has been said, that there is an element
of truth in the two opinions which admit that Christ founded a

The Teaching Authority in Action

arr

visible Church, that He bestowed infallible teaching authority
upon it but which disagree with us upon the question: who exer­
cises this infallible teaching authority?3 The opinion of the
Separated Eastern Churches and the high-church Episcopalians
has its element of truth: the bishops of the Church, as a college,
do possess infallible teaching authority but we would add this
qualification, namely, only if they are in communion with the
supreme bishop, the Roman Pontiff. It is quite obvious, then, that
the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church could not, in con­
science, sit down in an ecumenical council with the bishops of
the Separated Eastern Churches and the high-church Episcopalian
bishops who, at best, concede only a primacy of honor to the
Roman Pontiff.
On the other hand, the second opinion which would attribute
supreme spiritual authority in the Church to the faithful as a
body, or to their representatives, would—or, at least, should *—
admit that this body possesses infallible teaching authority. There
is a certain element of truth even in this opinion. We distinguish
between the active infallibility of the teachers, the ecclesia docens,
and the passive infallibility of the taught, the ecclesia discens. It
is the teaching of the Church that the faithful as a whole possess
passive infallibility. This teaching is based on the belief that the
Holy Spirit, the soul of the Mystical Body, moves the teachers
to teach only what is true and the faithful to accept only what is
true. Thus, the agreement of the faithful—if it is certain and
clear, if it is explicitly manifested, at least in some public and
constant practice or custom, and if it is morally unanimous—is a
sure sign of the truth of a doctrine.
3. See above, p. 68, footnote 1.
4. This conclusion follows from our discussion on the infallibility of the
Church. See above, pp. 62-63.

PART III

THE SOURCES
Our third and last problem is this: from what sources does
the Church derive its doctrines? One could answer the question
very simply by saying: from tradition. For, while there has been
a progressive increase in the body of revealed truths throughout
Old Testament times and while this increase continued under
the influence of the Holy Ghost even after our Lord s ascension
into heaven, it ended forever with the death of St. John, the last
of the apostles. "For the Holy Spirit," says the Vatican Council,1
"was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revela­
tion they might make known new doctrine, but that by His as­
sistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the
revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the apostles."
At the last supper Our Lord said to his apostles: "These things
I have spoken to you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom
the Father will send in my name, he will teach you ail things,
and bring to your mind whatever I have said to you . . . Many
things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
But when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will teach you all
the truth." 2 Upon the successors of the apostles the obligation
was imposed of guarding this body of truth as a sacred trust. "O
Timothy," warns St. Paul, "guard the trust and keep free from
profane novelties in speech and the contradictions of so-called
knowledge, which some have professed and have fallen away from
I. Vatican Council, Session 4, Chapter 4, D. 1836.
S. John 14, «6; 16, is-ij.

aI^

Evidence for Our Faith

the faith."’ "For I know whom I have believed, and I am cer­
tain that he is able to guard the trust committed to me against
that day. Hold to the form of sound teaching which thou hast
heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus." *
"Beloved, while I was making every endeavor to write to you
about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to
you to contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to
the saints.” ·
While it can be said quite truthfully, then, that the Church
derives its doctrines from tradition alone, it would be more cor­
rect to say that there are two sources of divine revelation. The
Vatican Council referred to them in these words: "This super­
natural revelation ... is contained in the written books, and
in the unwritten traditions which have come down to us. Hav­
ing been received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ him­
self, or from the apostles themselves by dictation of the Holy
Spirit, they have been transmitted, as it were, from hand to
hand." · In this final stage of our investigation into the founda­
tions of our faith we will examine these two sources, the writ­
ten books and the unwritten traditions, from which the Church
derives its doctrines.
j. I Tim. 6, 20-21.
4. 2 Tim. 1, 12-14.
5- Jude 3.
6. Vaucan Council, Session 3, Chapter 2, D. 1787.

CHAPTER XI

Holy Scripture and Tradition

THE proximate rule of faith for a Roman Catholic is the teach­
ing authority of the Church established by Jesus Christ. But the
ultimate rule of faith for a Roman Catholic is the teaching au­
thority of God. Why do I believe the mystery of the Blessed
Trinity? Because the Church teaches it. But why does the
Church teach it? Because this doctrine is contained in Cod’s
revelation to mankind. But where do 1 find God’s revealed word?
In Holy Scripture, the written word, and in Tradition, the un­
written word.
I.

HOLY SCRIPTURE

Holy Scripture is known to all as the Bible. The Bible is
divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament.1 The
Old Testament is by far the larger part of the Bible, covering,
in 46 books, the time from the beginning of the world down to the
Christian era. These books are of three kinds. Some are historical,
such as the Pentateuch (the first five), Ruth, Kings, Tobias, etc.;
these treat the history of God's chosen people, and of certain
special personages. Other books are didactical, such as Job,
Psalms, Proverbs, etc.; these deal with ethical or moral instruc­
1. Λ testament here signifies a pact or covenant between Cod and man.
The Old Testament was a covenant between Cod and the Hebrew nation. It
was concluded through their representative, Moses, on Mount Sinai. The
New Testament is a covenant between Cod and man which was concluded
through the representative of mankind, Jesus Christ.

3Ι(ί

Evidence for Our Faith

tion. Others, finally, arc prophetic, such as Isaias, Jeremias,
E/cchiel. Daniel, etc.; these treat mainly of the coming Messias
and the messianic age. These three types of books are arranged
in this same order: the historical books come first; they are fol­
lowed by the didactical books, and the prophetic books are put in
the last place.’
The New Testament comprises twenty-seven books. There are
four apostolic accounts of the life of Christ: Matthew and John
were apostles; Mark wrote for St. Peter and Luke for St. Paul.
Besides these four Gospels, there is the account of apostolic times,
the Acts of the Apostles, then the letters of the apostles, twentyone letters of epistles in all, and, finally, the Apocalypse, the
only prophetic book of the New Testament. The sequence, as
is obvious, is the same as in the Old Testament: first, the five
historical books; then, twenty-one didactical books; and, finally,
one prophetic book.
Now the Catholic Church teaches that all the books of the
Bible were inspired by God. In saying this, the Church means
that they were written under a special divine influence. In other
words, in the production of these books God was the principal
cause, while the human authors acted as instrumental causes. To
understand what this statement implies we must get some idea
of these two types of causality. A principal cause is one that
moves another cause, called the instrumental cause, towards the
production of an effect which surpasses the natural powers of
the instrumental cause. In the production of an ordinary book,
for example, an author uses, as instrumental causes, a pen, a
pencil, a typewriter, or even a secretary. In this case the book is
attributed to the human author as to the principal cause. But
the books of the Bible present a message which God Himself
wished to communicate to mankind. It is clearly beyond the
natural power of any human being to act as the principal cause in
the expression of a divine message. God, therefore, was the
principal cause in the production of the books of the Bible; their
human authors acted as instrumental causes under his influence.
It is important to distinguish clearly between revelation, in­
spiration, and infallibility, since each implies a special divine in­
fluence. When we say that the Popes are infallible we simply
t. The only exceptions are the two historical books, the First and Second
Machabees, which are placed at the very end of the Old Testament.

Holy Scripture and Tradition

ay

mean that, if and when a Pope, as head of the Church. teaches
the whole Church on some point of faith or morals, God will see
to it that he will not teach error. Thus we say that a Pope, when
he defines a doctrine, is guided, not inspired. As Ronald A. Knox
says: "The difference between inspiration and guidance is the
difference between a schoolmaster who should control the hand
of a pupil while he wrote, and that of a schoolmaster who should
stand by, ready to intervene if he saw him about to go wrong.” ’
Inspiration implies a positive divine influence whereas infalli­
bility, of itself alone, only implies a negative divine influence.
Divine revelation is quite distinct from both infallibility and in­
spiration. It involves an actual communication of truths, previ­
ously unknown to us, by God Himself. Now inspiration does not
necessarily presuppose a divine revelation. For the human writer
who is inspired by God need not necessarily have received by
way of a divine revelation the truths which he tvrites down acting
as God’s instrument. He may set down truths which he has come
to know by purely natural means. For example, the writers of
the historical books of the Bible recounted events which they
had seen themselves or about which they could have learned from
actual eyewitnesses. The same holds true of infallible guidance:
it does not necessarily presuppose a divine revelation. God could
see to it that a writer would not teach error in the communication
of knowledge that he had acquired by natural means.
That the books of the Bible were inspired by God is clear
from Holy Scripture itself. For the inspiration of the Old Testa­
ment several arguments can be drawn from the books themselves.
First of all, the writers were prophets, in the sense that they spoke
in God’s name and were his interpreters? Some felt a divine im­
pulse to speak which they could not resist.® Others foretold future
events and their predictions actually were fulfilled.· Secondly,
the prophets were often commanded by God to tvrite down their
utterances. Finally, the writings of the prophets were given such
significant names as "The book of Jahweh," “The Book of the
Law of Jahweh," "The Law of Jahweh," or "The Sacred Books."
There are two passages in the New Testament which explicitly
j
4.
5.
6.

Knox, The Churth on Earth. New York (Macmillan). 1919. p 40.
Cf. Exodus. 3Π.
Cf. Jeremiah so. 9.
Cf. Isaias. Jeremiah, Daniel, etc

aIS

Evidence for Our Faith

refer to the Old Testament as inspired. "All Scripture," says St.
Paul, "is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving,
for correcting, for instructing injustice; that the man of God
may be perfect, equipped for every good work." 7 This passage
speaks of the fact of inspiration, of an inspiration that extends
to the origin of the Old Testament, as well as to the New Testa­
ment. “This, then,” says St. Peter, "you must understand first of
all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpreta ­
tion. For not by will of man was prophecy brought at any time;
but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy
Spirit.”8 This passage explains more fully the nature of inspira­
tion. The words of the prophets are not the products of their
own minds nor can mere human interpretation explain them;
their words are of divine origin.
While the New Testament has no explicit indications of its
own inspiration, two texts can be cited for it. "Therefore, be­
loved," says St. Peter, "while you look for these things, endeavor
to be found by him without spot and blameless, in peace. And
regard the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation. Just as our
most dear brother Pau) also, according to the wisdom given him,
has written to you, as indeed he did in all his epistles, speaking
in them of these things. In these epistles there are certain things
difficult to understand, which the unlearned and the unstable dis­
tort, just as they do the rest of the Scriptures also, to their own
destruction.” 8 The phrase "according to the wisdom given him”
seems to refer to the charism of inspiration given to St. Paul.
"For the Scripture says, ‘Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads
out the grain,’ and ‘The laborer is worthy of his wages.’ ” lu The
phrase "For the Scripture says" seems to refer to both of the
texts cited, Deuteronomy 25, 4 and Luke 10, 7.
The Fathers of the Church clearly teach the inspiration of the
Bible. They speak of these books as containing indisputable
truth,11 as inspired by God,12 as having God as their author.1*
η. t Tim. 3, 16.
8. 2 Pei. 1, 20-ÏI.
9. 2 Pet. 8· 14-16. This was written about A.D. 66-67. when the first three
Gospels and nearly all of St. Paul's Epistles were already in circulation.
10. 1 Tim. 5, 18.
11. St. Justin, St. Irenaeus, St. John Chrysostom, etc.
12. St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nyssa,
etc.
13. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory the Great, etc.

Holy Scripture and Tradition

ng

They say that God dictated the Bible and spoke to us through
its books,1415
16
that God used the sacred writers as his instruments.'*

11.

TRADITION

Tradition is distinguished from Holy Scripture as the spoken
word from the written word. Protestant Christians *· recognize
only one source of divine revelation, the Bible; the Catholic
Church recognizes Tradition as a source distinct from Holy
Scripture.
That everything Christ said and did is not recorded in the
New Testament is clear from the New Testament itself. St. Paul
says to the Thessalonians: "So, then, brethren, stand firm, and
hold the teachings that you have learned, whether by word or
by letter of ours.” 17 As a matter of fact, the Apostles do not
usually refer the faithful to the books written by themselves. At
Christ’s command, they appointed ministers who were to be the
custodians of the deposit of faith handed on to them, who were
to be teachers through the Holy Spirit who was given them and
who will remain in them; they admonish the faithful to hold
firm to those things that they have learned by hearing. St. Paul’s
exhortation to Timothy is: “O Timothy, guard the trust and
keep free from profane novelties in speech and the contradictions
of so-called knowledge, which some have professed and have
fallen away." 18* Again, writing to Timothy, he says: "Hold to
the form of sound teaching which thou hast heard from me, in
the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard the good
trust through the Holy Spirit, who dwells in us." 18 And again he
says: "Therefore, my child, be strengthened in the grace which
is in Christ Jesus, and the things that thou hast heard from me
through many witnesses, commend to trustworthy men who shall
be competent in turn to teach others.” 20 And again: "If anyone
14. St. Irenaeus, St. Jerome. St. Augustine, etc
15. St. Justin Martyr, St. Jerome, St. Gregory the Great, etc.
16. The high-diurch Episcopalians and the Orthodox Churches are ex­
ceptions. All other Protestants, at least in theory, reject tradition: for them
the Bible alone is the rule of faith. Moreover, while Conservative Protestants
defend the inspiration of the Bible, Liberal Protestants deny it.
17. s Theas, a. 14.
18. 1 Tim. 6, ao.
ig. a Tim. 1, 13-14·

aao

Evidence for Our Faith

preach a gospel to you other than that which you have received,
let him be anathema."2'
St. John, as he completes his Gospel, says: "But there arc many
other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every
one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the
books that should be written." 22 We know that Christ gave the
Apostles many instructions after his resurrection from the dead,
during the forty days that preceded his ascension into heaven.
And then the Church went on following his instructions. Thus,
from what the Church did, we can learn what Christ told it to
do. After all, the primitive Church was functioning for some
decades before the first Gospel was written, and almost four
hundred years before all the inspired books of the New Testa­
ment were collected together into one book.
In the course of time those things that had been handed down
by word of mouth were eventually written down. We find them
recorded in the writings of the Fathers of the Church. The
Fathers of the Church are all those ancient, holy, orthodox
writers who have been approved by the Church, the guardian of
both Scripture and Tradition. They are called ancient, because
the title is restricted to men who lived in the early ages of the
Church, in the infancy of the Church. Theologians commonly
name St. John of Damascus (d. 754) the last of the Fathers in the
East and St. Isidore of Seville (d. 636) the last in the West. Many
of the Fathers were bishops; Ephraem the Syrian (d. 373) was a
deacon; Justin Martyr (d. 165) and Prosper of Aquitaine (d. 463)
were laymen. They are called holy, because all of them were con­
spicuous for the sanctity of their lives. They are called orthodox,
because they have been unswerving witnesses of the Catholic
faith. Those ancient writers, like Origen (d. 254), Tertullian
(d. 220), Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), and others, who were
lacking either in eminent holiness or complete orthodoxy, are
not numbered among the Fathers of the Church; they are referred
to as "ecclesiastical writers.”
We must confess that there is much ignorance among Catholics
with regard to this important source of divine revelation which is
called Tradition. Few indeed have read much, if any, of the
magnificent Christian literature of these early days of the Church.
si. Cal. 1, 9.
ss. John si, 25·

Holy Scripture and Tradition

221

And yet it is far-reaching in its scope. In the standard collection
of the writings of the Fathers by Migne, we have 217 large vol­
umes in Latin, and 161 large volumes in Greek.23 These writings
include magnificent sermons, letters, theological treatises and
discussions by such renowned men as Augustine, Ignatius of
Antioch, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory the Great, Gregory of
Nyssa, Ambrose, and many others.24
To give a brief example of the kind of information that can
be found in Tradition, rather than in Holy Scripture, take the
following passage from the "Teaching (didache) of the Twelve
Apostles," a Greek document written shortly after St. John’s
Gospel, and only rediscovered a few decades ago. “Meet together
on the Lord’s Day (Sunday—as opposed to the Jewish Sabbath)
and break bread and celebrate the Eucharist, having confessed
your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. Let no one
who is at variance with his neighbor join you until he is recon­
ciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled. For this is that sacri­
fice that was spoken of by the Lord, 'In every place and time of­
fer me a pure sacrifice.' " (Didache, Chap. 14). Here we find men­
tion of a communal worship on Sunday, of the celebration of
Mass and of the forgiveness of sins through confession; we are
given information on the life of the Church in these early days.
In fact, the writings of the Fathers of the Church are a mine of
information that supplements and completes Holy Scripture.
III.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE

For a Roman Catholic, the proximate rule of faith is the teach­
ing authority of the Church established by Christ; the ultimate
rule of faith is the teaching authority of God as manifested to us in
Holy Scripture and Tradition. Our last problem is this: are all
the truths taught by the Church contained in Holy Scripture and
Tradition in exactly the same way? They are not. It is the failure
to understand this point and its consequences that is the cause
of ill-feeling on the part of Protestant Christians. Whenever the
Church solemnly defines a doctrine, as it does from time to
time, a cry of protest is raised that it is making up "new" doc23. The larger part of the patristic writings is in these two languages. But
many important texts have come down to us in Syriac, Coptic, and Armenian.
24. Migne’» collection of writings actually extends much beyond the patris­
tic period properly so called.

aaa

Evidence for Our Faith

trines, doctrines not contained in divine revelation. It is impor­
tant, then, to get a clear picture of how the Church derives its
teachings from divine revelation.
Some of the truths taught by the Church are derived wholly
from divine revelation. Of these, some are contained therein ex­
plicitly. That Christ conferred authority upon His apostles to
forgive sins is explicitly stated in the text: "Whose sins you shall
forgive they are forgiven them." 2B Other truths are contained in
divine revelation only implicitly. Such, for example, is the doc­
trine of the Immaculate Conception, the doctrine which states
that Mary, the Mother of the incarnate Son of God. was, by a
unique privilege, preserved free from the stain of original sin at
the moment of her conception. There are other truths that are
not derived wholly from divine revelation but rather partly from
divine revelation and partly from reason. In other words, the
truth flows from two premises, one divinely revealed and the
other known naturally. The fact that Christ’s human intellect
possessed infused knowledge while he was on earth is a truth of
this kind. The premise from divine revelation is this: Christ
merited for us from the very beginning as man. The premise from
reason is this: In order to merit, to have a right to a reward, one
must know what one is doing and do it freely. Therefore, if
Christ began to merit for us at the very moment of his coming
into the world, i.e., before he could gain knowledge through ex­
perience, his human intellect must have had infused knowledge,
knowledge "poured into" his mind by God.
Is there any such thing, then, as a development of doctrine in
the Church? There is and there is not. A development of doctrine
in the sense of an addition of new doctrines properly so called?
Not at alll Divine revelation ceased, as substantially complete,
with the death of St. John, the last of the Apostles. But that in
no way eliminates all development of doctrine. First of all, those
truths which are derived wholly from divine revelation wherein
they are found explicitly are subject to more careful formulation,
to a development, not in the doctrine itself but in its expression.
One of the reasons for this increased precision of terminology
in which the doctrine is expressed arises from the need to com­
bat heresy. One of the favorite tactics of heretics has been to use
orthodox terms in an unorthodox meaning. For example, the
15. John so, ij-

Holy Scripture and Tradition

aaj

Church had always taught that there was only one will in Christ,
in the sense of a moral unity between his human will and the
divine will; that his human will was always in complete con­
formity with the divine will. The Monothelites taught that there
was only one will in Christ in an entirely different sense; they
denied that he possessed a human will.2·
Secondly, those truths which arc derived wholly from divine
revelation wherein they are contained only implicitly become ex­
plicit in the course of time. The early Christians believed in the
doctrine of the Immaculate Conception implicitly; they be­
lieved that Mary was, by a special privilege in view of the divine
Maternity, preserved free from all sin. As the Church penetrated
more deeply into the doctrine of original sin as contained in
divine revelation, it became clear that if Mary had been preserved
free from all sin, then she must have been preserved from the
stain of original sin. But a major difficulty then arose. This no­
tion seemed to be incompatible with the doctrine of the Church
that all the descendants of Adam and Eve, without exception,
have to be redeemed through the merits of Christ. After centuries
of debate on this and other problems, Duns Scotus, the famous
Franciscan theologian, presented an answer which was accepted
by the Church. The two doctrines are not incompatible. Mary
was redeemed through the merits of her divine Son but in a man­
ner different from the ordinary, a more perfect manner. Mary’s
redemption was by anticipation; she was preserved from con­
tracting the stain of original sin which she normally would have
contracted at her conception. Her redemption then was preven­
tive, rather than curative. Christ, Our Redeemer cures us from
the effects of original sin; he prevented his mother from contract­
ing the sin. Both of these actions are redemptive, so he is still the
universal Redeemer. From then on the doctrine of the Immacu­
late Conception moved slowly but steadily on towards its solemn
definition by the Church. When the Council of Trent proclaimed
the universality of original sin in its decrees of 1546, it made an
explicit exception for the Mother of God, without formally de­
fining, however, that she was conceived without the stain of origi­
nal sin. It was not until December 8, 1854, that Pius IX solemnly
defined this doctrine.
Thirdly and lastly, those truths which are derived partly from
26. See above, pp. 199-200.

224

Evidence for Our Faith

divine revelation and partly from reason (such truths are said to
be contained only "virtually·· in divine revelation) become ac­
tually known in the course of time. There are two sources of de­
velopment here. These truths are conclusions from two premises,
one drawn from divine revelation, one known with certainty by
human reason, and both these sources offer occasion for a develop­
ment of doctrine. On the one hand, as the implicit truths of divine
revelation become explicit in the course of time, they can be
linked up with truths known with certainty by human reason. On
the other hand, there is a slow but real progress in Catholic
philosophical thought, a progress which permits of an ever-deep­
ening penetration into the necessary consequences of the revealed
truths, into those truths that are only virtually contained in divine
revelation.
This idea of the development of doctrine within the Church
brings us back to the idea that there is, in a sense, only one source
of Christian doctrine, namely, tradition. In its fullest and richest
sense, tradition can only be the total deposit of faith that Christ
entrusted to the living Church which he founded two thousand
years ago. And precisely because his Church is a living Church,
the truth within it is also a living truth. Just as the mind of man
naturally seeks an ever deeper and more complete understanding
of reality, so also does the mind of the living Church, moved by
the Holy Spirit, pursue an increasingly more penetrating and com­
prehensive understanding of the deposit of faith.27

t"). Many Conservative Protestants find this "a hard saying.” Over and
above their denial that Christ founded his Church as a visible society and
that he conferred infallible teaching authority upon it, two other obstacles
stand in the way of an acceptance of any doctrinal development. First of all,
the Bible is their sole rule of faith. Secondly, they show a strong tendency to
accept only those truths that are contained explicitly in the Bible. Nor can
we rule out their traditional suspicion of human reason: Conservative Protes­
tants have always protested against the intrusion of philosophy into theology.

APPENDIX

Philosophical Presuppositions

JUST as professors of Cartography must presuppose some knowl­
edge of Geometry, so also must professors of Theology presup­
pose some knowledge of Philosophy, of that science which seeks
an explanation of all things in their ultimate causes as known by
unaided human reason. However, a brief review of some of the
philosophical notions may be helpful.
I.

HUMAN REASON AND GOD
A.

God’s Existence

In his greatest work, the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas pre­
sents five proofs for the existence of God.1 Although they begin
with the observation of different sensible facts, they are closely
related. In fact, they perfect and complement one another. In
every respect they are reasonable. Indeed, they are so perfectly
reasonable that for centuries no one has been able to improve
upon them. Here we will consider only one of the proofs. We do
not have time for more. Before we study this proof, however, we
should recall Pascal’s famous wager.

i. Pascal’s Wager Argument
Pascal addresses his argument to the typical man of the world
who regards making money and amusing himself, not as a means
to the end, but the real purpose of existence. Even if he refuses
i. Otto Karrer, Religions of Mankind, New York (Sheet! St Ward), 1956,
PP· >3·—«S3· «35-'8θ·

a3g

Evidence for Our Faith

to consider his ultimate destiny, Pascal maintains such a man
cannot avoid wagering about it. In practice, he must stake every­
thing on one of two propositions, either A) that there is a purpose
in life (God made us for life with him); or B) there is not. Man
cannot refuse to wager for by doing so he implies that there is
no purpose in life.2
Under one disguise or another, human selfishness is always
urging man to stake everything on “B.” Pascal tries to show that
it is far more reasonable—even from the viewpoint of self-interest
—to stake all on "A." If you bet everything on "B" and “A”
is the truth, you lose an eternal good. But if you stake all on
"A” and "B" is the truth, you lose only a few temporal pleas­
ures.’
Pascal describes the thoughts of the typical man in these words:
2. “This is the momentous truth, and there is none more disturbing to the
consciousness of die world today, nor possibly indeed, to the consciousness
of all ages. The problem of his destiny is so propounded to man that, what­
ever he may do, he cannot remain in suspense about it, he cannot be neutral.
Suppose that a man is drowning; if I hesitate to save him, I have decided
against it. If I remain indifferent when brought face to face with truth, I
decide against it, ‘for he who thinks that he can remain neutral is a sceptic
par excellence; this neutrality is the very essence of the sect.' If I remain in­
different with regard to death and the hereafter, I am acting as if I had not
an immortal soul; I am deciding against. It is not then a voluntary choice;
we must wager, and he who does not wager for God wagers against Him. lie
who does not renounce self, renounces God. There is one point settled; you
have to wager one way or another." Chevalier, Pascal, London (Longmans,
Green & Co.), «930, pp. 245-246.
3. "And what do you risk by taking the chance? What evil can happen to
you? You will have lived uprightly; you will have renounced corrupt pleas­
ures, but you will have gained others of inestimable value, and you will not
have risked your eternal life. Perhaps you will object: it is uncertain whether
I shall win, and it is certain that I am taking a risk. But every gambler stakes
a certainty to gain an uncertainly, and it is not unreasonable to act thus. All
men do so; all are working for an uncertainty as long as they do not know
the reason for it; it is thus with sea voyages, commerce, battles. If we did not
work for an uncertainly, we should do nothing at all. Religion is not certain,
you say. 1 agree with you. But there is more certainty in religion than in the
knowledge that tomorrow will dawn for us; nevertheless we arc all working as
if tomorrow were a certainty, and this is sensible, and what we ought to do,
according to the rule of chances that has been demonstrated. Now if it is not
a sin against reason to risk the finite with certainty to gain the uncertain
finite, ought we not to risk the finite with certainty when the stake is infinity?
Ibid., 247-248.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions

237

I know not whence I came or whether I go. 1 only know that on quitting
this world, 1 shall fall forever either into nothingness or into the hands
of an angry God. . . . And yet I conclude that I should pass all the
days of my life without bothering to inquire into what must happen to
me. Perhaps I might find some solution to my doubts, but 1 do not want
to take the trouble. ... I intend to go forward without looking ahead
and without fear towards this great event, facing death carelessly, still
uncertain as to the eternity of my future state.
Pascal adds: "Truly it is a glory to religion that it has such
unreasonable men among its enemies." *
In other words, Pascal thinks it is not merely a moral tragedy
but an intellectual blunder to wager on "B," that is, to refuse to
recognize a purpose in life. He feels sure the typical man would
soon have faith if he renounces pleasure.5 At least, he should
search for the truth. "According to the doctrine of chance, you
should search earnestly for the truth; for if you die without wor­
shipping the True Cause, you are lost. ‘But,’ you say, ‘if God had
wished me to worship him, he would have left me signs of his
will.’ Indeed, God has done so; but you ignore them.” ·

2.

The Proof

from

Contingency

The proof from the contingent character of our own selves and
of the creatures that surround us runs like this:
Every existing thing must either
a) exist of itself (then it is called self-existent), or
b) have received its existence from another (then it is called
"contingent" or “dependent" because it depends for its
existence on another.)
From experience we know many things that have received their
existence from some other being. Although they now exist, they
once did not. They are contingent.
Evidently, any such being could not be the cause of its own
existence. Otherwise it would have to exist before itself. In other
words, some other thing must have existed in order that it may
exist.
Now if you consider two such contingent beings it is clear that
the one (A) might have conferred existence on the other (B), or
4. Pascal, Pensees, III, 194.
5. Cf- ibid,. III, 140.
6. Ibid., Ill, 236.

aaS

Evidence for Our Faith

vice versa, but either one could not have conferred existence on
both. Otherwise it would have existed before itself.
The same reasoning applies to any number of contingent be­
ings. If you wish to explain their existence, you have to search
outside them. No one of them can possibly confer existence on
all. Otherwise it would have to exist before itself.
Thus you do not explain fully the existence of A by saying that
it has received existence from B, for the question immediately
comes to mind—where does B get its existence? Nor does it fully
explain the existence of A to say that it has received its existence
from a billion or more contingent beings. That is only putting off
the all-important question. For what we are interested in is not
the existence of any one contingent being but the very existence
of existence; the source of the existence of the totality of con­
tingent beings. Indeed, the greater the number of contingent be­
ings, the greater the problem.
Ultimately, you must make a choice. Either the existence of all
things springs from nothing ortKere is a self-existent being whom
men call Cod.7 Obviously, the first answer is foolish. Common
sense alone tells us that "something doesn’t come from nothing."
If a person told you his new Buick "popped out" of nowhere, as
he was walking down the street, you would laugh at him. Either
he takes you for a fool or he is a fool. The same may be said of
those who maintain that all things come from nothing.
Of course, it is possible to avoid any answer by mumbling, "I
don’t know." But, as Chesterton said, that “is to give up the rid­
dle, and to give it up, not because you cannot find the answer, but
because you have found the answer, and have found it unpalata­
ble."
A rough analogy may clarify this point. Suppose a person
asked you to explain why a box car on a railroad track begins
to move. And you reply, "Whyl that’s simple. It's moved by
the next box car." Obviously, that is not a satisfactory answer.
Without doubt he will ask you to explain the motion of the sec­
ond car. If you attribute its motion to the third car you still are
not giving him an adequate explanation. Increasing the number
of cars does not account for the movement. In fact, it does not
make any difference how many box cars there are—they may ex7. In other words, if anything exists, then self-existent Being must exist; if
self-existent Being does not exist, nothing can exist.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions

229

tend from New York to San Francisco and back a«.iiii-you do
not explain how one begins to move until you come to some en­
gine or propelling force. Indeed, the greater the numlser of box
cars moving, the greater the necessity for a powerful motive force.
Thus you cannot fully explain the existence of any contingent
being by pointing to the next contingent being or to any series of
them. For the greater the number of contingent beings, the
greater the need for some self-existent being to explain them. As
we said, this self-existent being men call God.
Evidently, it always existed; it has existence of itself. And just
as it is foolish to inquire why a circle is round for it is round of
its very nature, so it is foolish to inquire why the self-existent
being exists, for it exists of its very nature.’
B.

God’s Nature and Attributes

What can reason tell us about this Supreme Being, this God?
Our mind, St. Thomas replies, cannot be led by sense $0 far as to
see the essence of God; because the sensible effects of God do
not equal the power of God as their cause. Hence from the
knowledge of sensible things the whole power of God cannot be
known; nor therefore can his essence be seen. But because they
are his effects and depend on their cause, we can be led from
them so far as to know of God whether he exists, and to know of
him what must necessarily belong to him, as the first cause of all
things, exceeding all things caused by him.·
In other tvords we build up a complex mental picture of God
8. "In the hands of St. Thomas the argument does not simply assert that
the proposition ‘Necessary Being exists- is a logical consequence of the propo­
sition ‘Contingent being exists,’ but maintains that contingent being derives
its own existence from Necessary Being; in other words, that we are not con­
cerned just with logical relations between propositions, but with metaphysical
or ontological relations between existent beings.
"What is necessary, in short, if we are to pass from a belief in the existence
or finite beings to a belief in the existence of Cod is not so much that we
should thoroughly instruct ourselves in the laws and procedures of formal
logic as that we should thoroughly acquaint ourselves with finite beings and
learn to know them as they really are . . .
“But their real value is in stimulating the mind to examine finite beings
with such attention and understandings that it grasps them in their true
ontological nature as dependent upon God, and so grasps Cod's existence as
their Creator." F. L. Mascall, He Who Is, New York (Longmans, Green), i<>jj.
p. 73 and p. 80.
9. St. Thomas. Summa Theologica, I, q. 1», a. 1».

ajo

Evidence for Our Faith

by going from creatures as his effects to God as their cause. We
do this in three ways. First of all, we attribute to him all the
perfections possessed by his creatures which do not involve any
imperfection. Secondly, we assert that they exist in God in a
preeminent, infinite manner, whereas no creature, no matter how
perfect, possesses them except in a limited, finite manner. Thirdly,
we deny that the imperfections of creatures exist in God. This,
in general, is the threefold process by which we are able to
build up a complex picture of God. Using it, we come to a very
imperfect knowledge of the Godhead, but some knowledge, no
matter how imperfect, is better than none.
But, you may well ask, to what concept of God does this
process lead? Let us examine some of the conclusions to which
we must come.
The cause of my personality, for example, cannot have less
personality than I have. He can only lack my limitations. Since
we can know and love, God must know and love in a way im­
measurably higher. In other words, God is personal for a person is
"a being who knows and loves.”
Secondly, reason tells us that God is simple. By simple is meant
"not composed.” If God were composed, there would have to be
a composer. But this is impossible since God is the First Cause.
Therefore he is simple. (Note that any material thing necessarily
owes its existence to another.)
Thirdly, God is spiritual. This means he is an "active, intelli­
gent, immaterial being—without extension.” Since matter has
parts and is not simple, God is not material. Yet he must be an
Active, Intelligent Being for he is the First Cause of all things.
Therefore, God is a Spirit.
Fourthly, reason tells us God is infinite. This means he is un­
limited. In created things, existence (a perfection) is always
limited by the nature (the capacity) in which it is received. But
God, unlike contingent beings, does not receive existence. Since
he is self-existent, his nature is to exist. Thus his existence has
no principle of limitation so that he is truly infinite.10 This im­
plies that he possesses every perfection in its highest form.
10. “Consider how immeasurable a difference this makes between God and
all contingent beings. They may exist or may not. God must exist. He cannot
non-exist. Their nature is to be able to exist. God's nature is to exist. They
can have existence. God is existence." F. J. Sheed, Theology and Sanity, New
York (Sheed & Ward), 1946, p. 34·

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions

231

In the fifth place, God is one. If there were two infinities, one
would be outside the power of the other and hence neither would
be infinite. They would, as it were, bump shoulders. Obviously,
it is impossible that each one should independently possess all
perfections.
In the sixth place, God is immutable. Immutable means
changeless, or unchanging. Since God has all perfections (infinite),
he cannot acquire any more. And if he were to lose a perfection,
he would no longer be God. Therefore God is immutable.
In the seventh place, reason informs us that God is eternal.
Eternity does not mean unlimited time, but the plentitude of ex­
istence. Since God is infinite, he is eternal—possessing the plenti­
tude of existence.
Since God is infinite, all conceivable perfections are found in
him in their purest, highest and most intense degree. He is all­
good, all-beautiful, all-truth. He is omnipotent, omnipresent
and omniscient.
Of course, we do not mean that God possesses these perfections
just as we do. He is not a sort of super-man. These perfections are
found in him in an infinitely higher manner. In some incompre­
hensible way all perfections are identical with his nature. These
questions will be discussed at length in Natural Theology and
Dogma. In Apologetics we merely wish to indicate how a man can
reason to the attributes of God; what reason tells us about God.

C.

Common Objections

Some men are atheists or agnostics for moral reasons. They
wish to salve their consciences for they live as if there were no
God. Often they are vociferous about their atheism like small
boys who whistle in the dark to conceal their fears. Others are
troubled by the common objections against the existence of God.
Sometimes all they have heard about God are these objections.
And to a man who does not think about them they may seem
quite unanswerable. As Belloc says:

Those who have replied and do reply "No God.” have the immediate
certitudes in their favor. One might draw a comparison here between
the man who affirms that die earth is fiat, against the man who affirms
that the earth is round. The first man, who says it is flat, has on the face
of it a solid case, and a case apparently more agreeable to the most ini
mediate evidence than the second. The earth certainly seems flat as we
go about on it.

2j3

Evidence for Our Faith

In the same way there seems at first sight to be no God, so far as
human reason is concerned."
i.

Misleading Image

of

God

When some people think of God, they picture him as a vener­
able old man with a beard. Even though they are not conscious
of its influence, this misleading image of God colors all their
judgments about him just as illustrations in a novel often affect
our ideas of characters in the book. As a result, they tend to
think of God either as an equal or as an extra.12
Often they speak of God as if he were another man to whom
they could offer suggestions. Or they admit his existence as if it
was the "proper thing" to do. But they think no more about him.
He is ignored as a remote and impotent figurehead. In other
words, they become practical atheists. No doubt, this misleading
image of God is not the sole cause of their ignorance. But it is a
contributing factor in many cases. This false concept of God
should be dispelled by the proofs for his existence.
2.

The Problem of Evil

The fact of evil in the world leads some to deny the existence
of God. They have heard it said that God is infinitely good. Yet
they feel there is much needless suffering in the world. At times
they are appalled by the vast amount of pain, disease, and de­
struction which does not seem to serve any purpose. Above all,
they feel that, if God is infinitely just, he should bestow good or
ill fortune according to our merits here and now. This, however,
is not the case. As a result, they conclude that the postulate of God
is false.
Because they tend to think of God as an equal, the problem
of evil seems insoluble. Unfortunately they lack intellectual hu­
mility. While they live in a moment of time and witness a frag­
ment of reality, they feel competent to judge the whole scheme of
things. Unconsciously, they make themselves equal to God, at
least, in knowledge. Usually they judge things without regard to
a future life. No wonder they deny God.
ii.

Hilaire Belloc, The Question and the Answer, Milwaukee (Bruce), 193s,

PP- «3-»4·
1». C(. Sheed, Theology and Sanity, New York (Sheed & Ward), 1946, pp.

17-29.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions ajj
Moreover, they make a gratuitous assumption when they sup­
pose the purpose of an all-good God must be to give us present
delights and spare us present pain at all costs. Surely we would
not praise a father who makes this his supreme principle in the
treatment of his children. How much more unworthy would such
conduct be of a God who is all-good and all-wise? Indeed, a God
who would gratify all our indiscrimate wishes would not be all­
good. And once you grant that some suffering is not inconsistent
with divine goodness, who is to determine the limits? As A. E.
Taylor says: "There is no limit to the amount of suffering on the
part of individuals which we might not see to be compatible with
the wisdom and goodness of our Creator, if we knew, as we
do not, what is won by it in the end for the sufferer and for
others. If it should be the price of 'eternal life'?" ”
In other words, the fact of evil in this world should not
lead men to deny the existence of God. Until we know the whole
scheme of things, we are in no position to judge. Nor may we
assume that a good God must bestow happiness and unhappiness
in this world according to our merits. The answer to this difficult
problem of evil, of course, is found in the revelation of Christ; but
it cannot even be outlined here.14

3.

Science Versus God

Some people are under the impression that “science" has killed
God. Most scientists are amused by the idea for the very nature
of the methods of experimental science precludes them from
considering religious questions at all. Basically, all "scientific
problems” are of one type. Some hypothesis is proposed concern­
ing the existence of a certain uniformity in space-time processes.
Now scientists think that if the suggested "law" is a true one, cer­
tain definite effects will follow under given conditions, whereas if
it is false, these effects will not follow. If the effects are not per­
ceived, when experiments are conducted under the specified con­
ditions, then the hypothesis is disproved. If they are perceived,
they hypothesis is not necesarily proved, but it is not yet dis­
proved. In other words, it remains a legitimate scientific hypothe­
sis until it is proved false by exactly ascertained fact.
13. Taylor, op. cit., p. 166.
14. Cf. M- J- Scheeben, The Mysteries of Christianity, St. Louis (Herder),
1946, pp. 243-3‘3-

ay

Evidence for Our Faith

According to these principles, a scientist who wishes to disprove
the existence of God must be in a position to say, "if God exists,
certain space-time events must occur, which we know do not oc­
cur." But no scientist can say that. There is no space-time event
of which a scientist can say. “this event must be perceived under
certain conditions if there is a God." Thus, experimental scien­
tists as scientists are not qualified to discuss any religious ques­
tion. As scientists, they arc exclusively concerned with the de­
tection of uniformities of sequence in the course of events. They
discover that whenever certain definitely measurable events occur,
some other measurable event will also be found to happen. Ob­
viously, they can tell us nothing about the existence of God.15
18
17
16
Unfortunately some scientists have felt omniscient. And many
pseudo-scientists, who write popular "scientific" articles and
books, have posed as scientists. Inspired by the "scientific spirit"
these men spoke with infallible authority on every department
of social activity from Sociology to Architecture and from Archi­
tecture to Law.18 In every field, they attacked Christian civiliza­
tion and the Catholic Church. If the Church answered them, they
accused it of obstructing science. Without doubt, these scien­
tists and pseudo-scientists have deceived and continue to deceive
many.”
15. Cf. Taylor, op. cit., pp. 8-10. J. Arthur Thomson wrote: "There is no
possible way in which science could disprove God. . . . We must not try to
look out of two windows at onccl We must not mix our concepts. . . . There
is no alternative—‘God or Darwinism'; no alternative—"Man as a child of
God or man as the highest mammal'; no alternative—‘divine creation or
cosmic evolution.' For all of these express confusion of thought. The alterna­
tive is—'science only or science and the vision of God.' " Concerning Evolu­
tion, New Haven (Yale Univ. Press). 1925, pp. 230-232.
16. Some years ago many people thought that scientists had destroyed the
value of Sacred Scripture when they emphasized what Catholic theologians
had known for centuries, that the author of the Book of Genesis did not
know die principles of astronomy, geology, paleontology, etc. No doubt, this
was a shock to those people who regarded the Bible as the infallible source
of all truth. But it was nothing new to Catholic scholars. As Catholic scrip­
tural scholars had reiterated, die author of Genesis did not intend to give a
scientific account of creation but merely a popular account to teach basic
religious trudis.
17. Belloc says: "It is no good protesting that the True Scientist is nothing
of all this: that he does no more than patiendy observe, never allirms a thing
to be proved unit! it is, humbly rejects any claim to talk on things that are

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions 275

In recent years, however, their influence is diminishing. Many
people have become conscious of their self contradictions, their
extravagances, their arrogance, and the imperfection of their
method.18 The explosion of the first atomic bombs awakened
many more to the realization that no "scientific" principles can
save us from the destruction with which science threatens us.
Moreover, intelligent men are beginning to see again that experi­
mental science and knowledge are not co extensive; that experi­
mental science is a highly specialized and limited field of knowl­
edge. Now when scientists claim that no methods except those of
the experimental laboratory will lead to truth, someone may ask
how scientists can test the truth of that assertion in a laboratory.

II. REASON AND RELIGION
The natural virtue of religion is discussed in Moral Philosophy
or Ethics, in other words, in that part of Philosophy which studies
the rules of conduct laid down by right reason for men.’· Apolo­
getics must presuppose such knowledge. However, a brief review
of the leading ideas may be helpful, before we discuss the relia­
bility of unaided reason as a guide in religion and the theory of
evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of
religion.

A.

Reason Tells Us Some Duties Towards God

From what reason tells us about God it is easy to figure out
some of our duties toward him. Reason, for example, informs us
that we are absolutely dependent upon God for our existence. Of
ourselves we have no title, no right to it. Each moment we receive
it from him. Our body, our soul, our whole being depend upon
his sustaining power. If he ceased to will us even for an instant, we
would lapse into nothingness. Thus reason leads us to acknowl­
edge God’s supreme dominion and our own dependence upon
him. And that is the heart of all religion, for the virtue of religion
is defined as a habit of mind by which man acknowledges the su·
beyond him. Obviously the ideal scientist would behave so. But the human
scientist, belonging as he does to a fallen race, didn't behave so." Survivals
and New Arrivals, New York (Macmillan), 1929, p. 94.
18. Cf. ibid., p. 96.
19. Moral Theology, on the other hand, studies the rules of conduct laid
down in divine revelation for the fallen and redeemed sons of God.

Evidence for Our Faith
preme dominion of God and his own dependence upon him.-n Of
course, religion may also be considered objectively and defined as
the complex of truths and duties by which human life is ordered
to God.
Thus reason alone leads man to practice religion for it points
out his duties towards God. Since God who is a Personal Being
is our Supreme Lord we ought to pay him the respect and honor
(adoration) that is his due. Because he is all-good and all-powerful
we should not hesitate to ask him for the many favors we all de­
sire. Since he has been so generous to us we naturally wish to show
our gratitude; to please him in any way we can. In his presence,
we are conscious of our own sinfulness. Naturally we wish to do
penance.
Evidently we may please God by prayer, sacrifice, and a good
life. Prayer is the elevation of man's heart and mind to God. It is
conversing with God, talking to him, and listening to him. Since
we are continually in God's presence, it seems foolish not to speak
to him. Sacrifice is simply a form of prayer that ordinarily involves
a victim. A life pleasing to God is a life in accord with the end or
purpose for which he made us. Fortunately, God has endowed
man with a natural guide, a conscience, that ordinarily dictates
what is in accord with right reason and what is not; what is pleas­
ing to God and what is not. It points out his duties towards God
and towards his fellow men. By the principle of the divine owner­
ship of all things reason clarifies our duties towards ourselves and
our neighbors.
Ordinarily, we express our interior convictions and feelings
exteriorly. Indeed, it is so natural for us to show them outwardly
that we have to make an effort to conceal them. Since there is no
reason to hide our religious convictions we should express them
by interior and exterior acts.
So far we have considered man only as an individual. Man,
so. "For only a God who is, in St. Anselm’s phrase, ’something than which
nothing greater can be thought,’ or, as St. Thomas put it, ‘subsistent Being
itself,’ can be the adequate object of Christian devotion, which has always
believed itself to reach its climax in the sheer adoration in which the creature,
knowing its own entire insufficiency and its relative nothingness, casts itself
in complete abasement before the majesty and holiness of a God whom it
recognizes as being altogether complete without it and yet as conferring upon
it its very existence and tending it with the most gentle and intimate love."
Mascall, op. cit., p. 196.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions a?7
however, is a social animal. He belongs to one or more societies
(domestic, political, economic, ecclesiastical). As a member of
society, he has certain duties towards God. Since each society (a
moral person) is a creature of God, it is absolutely dependent upon
him. It needs his protection and blessing. Thus the members of
the society should perceive their obligation to honor, petition,
and thank God as a group. By "religion" people ordinarily mean
these public and social forms of expressing religious convictions.
Thus if we have a true notion of God, it is easy to figure out our
duties towards him. For reason perceives a natural bond or rela­
tionship between God and us which is closer than the bond or
relationship between a child and its parent; a relationship which
no human declaration of independence can sever. On account
of this relationship we are obliged to worship him. Reason like­
wise bids us to petition and thank God. It makes us conscious of
these obligations both as individuals and as members of society,
and of our responsibilities towards ourselves and our fellow men.
In other words, reason alone leads us to practice religion.21

B.

The Reliability of Reason Alone
as a Guide in Religion

So far we have "glorified” the role of reason. We have pointed
out what reason alone might do. What it has done is another ques­
tion. To discover what reason unaided by divine revelation can
actually do, we must study the religions existing prior to Christ
for, needless to say, our reasoning at the present day is aided and
perfected by the guidance of divine revelation.
In practice, reason has proved a reliable guide in so far as it
has led men to acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being
(or Beings) who is concerned with them. As a result, man has
always been naturally religious. As far as the light of history
reaches, we find men, apparently without any revelation, acknowl­
edging the existence of a God or Gods.22 Everywhere they have
offered some form of external, social worship through prayer and
ai. Natural religion is the worship prescribed by reason unaided by revela­
tion. When the truths and duties are learned from a divine revelation, the
religion is called supernatural.
22. Cf. Karrer, Religions of Mankind, New York (Sheed Sc Ward). 1938.
pp. 16. 73· and l00· Dawson· Progress and Religion, New York (Sheed Jfc
Ward). 1937· P- 88·

ajg

Evidence for Our Faith

sacrifice; a worship that is based on a doctrinal and moral code.
Atheists have always been a very small minority. They arc like
boys who whistle in the dark; men who "protest" too much.
It has been difficult, however, for man without the aid of reve­
lation to form correct notions about the nature of God. In this
regard reason has proved an unreliable guide. Although almost all
men have admitted his existence, they have differed widely as to
their notions about him. Indeed, the vast majority were lost in
error. As a result, their worship and morals were more or less de­
graded. Any history of religions will verify this.28
Thus practically all the great pagan religions were polytheistic.
Although they acknowledged the existence of a Supreme Being,
they did not realize that he is One. The Hindus worshipped not
only Brahma, but also Vishnu, Siva, and Krishna. The Japanese
adored Ainaterasu, Goddess of the Sun, and also many lesser gods
and goddesses. The Babylonians adored Marduk, Nabu, Ishtar and
many others.
Similarly, most men failed to recognize the spiritual nature of
God. They imagined him to be material. Consequently, they
adored every sort of idol. Even when pagan Greece and Rome
were at their zenith in culture, they did not realize that God is a
spirit. Moreover, they had a perverted notion of his other attri­
butes. The Romans, for example, "created” a god as patron for
every kind of vice.23
24
Naturally, superstition, puerility and obscenity found a place
in their worship, for there is an intimate connection between
man's concept of God and the worship he offers him. Also, moral
conduct was at a low ebb. Since the gods themselves were immoral,
vice paraded as virtue. Even Plato favored a community of wives
23. We are so used to thinking of God in a Christian sense that we imagine
it is the most common conception in the world. "If men believe in God." we
ask. "what other kind of God would they believe in?" "But," as C. S. Lewis
remarks, "the answer of history is. ‘Almost any other kind.' We mistake our
privileges for our instincts; just as one meets ladies who believe their own
refined manners to be natural to them. They don't remember being taught."
Miracles, London (The Centenary Press), 1947, p. 13g.
24. In India today, there are over two million married "women," and one
hundred thousand widows under ten years of age. Prostitution flourishes in
the Hindu Temples. About one-fourth of the Hindus are pariahs. A pious
Hindu would prefer to be reborn a pig than a pariah. Cf. Karrer, op. cit.,
pp. 25-26.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions 359

in his ideal state. Aristotle regarded slaves as mere beasts who
could be tortured and put to death by their owners. If the leading
philosophers of Greece were so badly mistaken, it is not surprising
that ordinary men were wrong.
In truth, the vast majority of mankind seemed totally and hope­
lessly at sea. Although reason under ideal conditions could lead
them to a true concept of God, a true worship, and good morals,
it never did in practice. Reason alone, therefore, proved an un­
reliable guide.
Some of the causes of reason’s failure are apparent. First of all.
to figure out all the attributes of God by reason without the aid
of revelation would require a good deal of ability and a lot of
time. Most men did not have the ability to think consistently, nor
the time, for they had to earn a living.
Secondly, the human mind is rather inert and lazy—hesitating
before such a tremendous task. Thinking hurts. Most men pre­
ferred to take somebody’s opinion. Or else they give free rein to
their imaginations. And in this matter imagination is the mother
of error and superstition.
Thirdly, when a man did reason out some truths about God he
never felt certain. It did not take much to change him.
Finally, errors and prejudices hampered him. If you were
brought up to believe in forty-nine gods, it would be hard to con­
clude dial there is only one. If we were taught to picture God as
an enormous giant of a man, it would be difficult to realize that he
is a spirit. Besides, most men were not anxious to know the truth.
As a result of original sin, their passions and feelings influenced
their thinking. Often they used reason to justify their immorality
for “if you don’t live as you think, you’ll think as you live." The
very idea of a personal God who will reward or punish them for
their deeds was abhorrent to them.20
25. "The truth about divine things which is attainable by reason is fittingly
proposed to man as an object of belief. Three disadvantages would result if
this truth were left solely to the inquiry of reason. One is that few men would
have knowledge of God, . . . for three reasons. Some indeed on account of an
indisposition of temperament, by reason of which many are naturally indis­
posed to knowledge. . . . Some are hindered by the needs of household
affairs. . . - And some arc hindered by laziness. . . . First, because chi» truth
is so profound. . . . Secondly, because many things are required beforehand.
. . . Thirdly, because at the time of youth, the mind, when tossed about by
the various movements of the passions, is not fit for the knowledge of so

Evidence for Our Faith

ajo

After such consideration a person is no longer surprised at the
great variety of natural religions. Obviously, the religion of an
individual, tribe, or nation was affected by any number of factors.
All of them help to make reason alone an unrealiable guide. Evi­
dently, men are rational but not too rational in religion unless
they are guided by a better light than reason.
C.

Evolution in Religion

After Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, some "arm­
chair scientists” imagined that it applied in every field. And so
they attempted to describe the evolution of religion as a progres­
sive development from the less perfect to the more perfect forms
of religion. In their opinion, the early primitives believed in
magicism, animism and totemism because these seemed farthest
removed from monotheism and a high moral standard of conduct.
The later primitives showed a marked improvement in so far as
they were merely polytheistic and less immoral. And as the cen­
turies rolled by, men became less polytheistic and better morally
until at the present stage of evolution most men are monotheistic
and have a high standard of morality. Among the innumerable
natural religions they "discovered” examples to fit their theories.
As a result, they fooled a lot of people.
Unfortunately, they were more anxious to confirm their the­
ories than to ascertain the truth. This was soon apparent, for
archaeologists who had spent their lives studying the early primi­
tives declared that most of them did not believe in magicism,
animism, or totemism. In fact, the majority of them were mono­
theistic and had rather high moral standards. Probably, they were
still guided by a primitive revelation given to Adam and Eve.
According to the archaeologists, magicism, animism, and to­
temism were degenerate forms of religion spreading among the
later primitives. In fact, magic docs not play an important role in
religion until the time of the Egyptian and Babylonian empires.
By the time of Christ, most nations were polytheistic or panthe­
istic and very immoral. Certainly, Greece and Rome were. If
sublime a truth. . . . The third disadvantage it that much falsehood is min­
gled with the investigations of human reason, on account of the weakness of
our intellect in forming its judgments, and by reason of the admixture of
phantasms." St. Thomas, Contra Cent., lib. I, c. 4.

Appendix: Philosophical Presuppositions

241

there had been any religious "progress,” it was in the wrong
direction.
Moreover, some Christian scholars like SchmidtM instead of
theorizing in armchairs went out and lived among peoples who
still have a primitive culture. After careful study, they found that
the Pygmy tribes of Africa, the Bushmen of Australia, the natives
of Tierra del Fuego, and the Arctic peoples are monotheistic. Al­
though some of them honor a number of superior beings, they
worship one as supreme. This is clear from the names and attri­
butes they reserve for him. Some of them recognize his spiritual
nature; others adore him as creator; still others regard him as a
person.
Thus as far as we know today the early primitives were mostly
monotheistic and had better moral standards than Hollywood.
There is no factual proof of any evolution in religion. Of course,
we will continue to read about it in ‘'sensational·· magazines and
Sunday supplements.
26. Cf. W. Schmidt, The Origin and Growth of Religion, New York (Dial
Press), 1931.

Supplementary Readings

THE EXISTENCE OF GOD 1
The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
e
The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is
certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some dungs are in
motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another, for nothing can
be moved except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is moved;
whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act. For motion is nothing
else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.
But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by
something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as
fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and
thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same
thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same
respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot
simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially
cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same
way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move
itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another, if
that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs
be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go
on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, con­
sequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only
inasmuch as they arc moved by the first mover; as the staff moves only
because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at
a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be
God.
The second way is from the nature of efficient cause. In the world
of sensible things we find there is ah order of efficient causes. There is
no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found
to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself,
which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on
1. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1, q. a, a. 3.

Supplementary Readings

341

to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first
is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the
cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several,
or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effert
Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be
no ultimate nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is
possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither
will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes
all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first
efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
The third way is taken from contingency and necessity, and runs
thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be,
since they are found to be generated, and to be corrupted, and conse­
quently, it is possible for them to be and not to be. But it is impossible
for the totality of existent beinç to be of this type. Therefore, if every­
thing can not-be, then at one time there was nothing in existence, be­
cause that which does not exist begins to exist only through something
already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it
would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist: and
thus even now nothing would be in existence—which is absurd. There­
fore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something
the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either
has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go
on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by
another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. There­
fore we cannot but admit the existence of some being having of itself
its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather caus­
ing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be_found in things.
Among beings there are some more and some less goodTtrue, noble,
and the like. But "more'' or "less” are predicated of different things
according as they resemble in their different ways something which is
the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more
nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which
is truest, something best, something noblest, and consequently, some­
thing which is most being, for those things that are greatest in truth
are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii. Now the maximum
in any genus is the cause of all in that genus, as fire which is the maxi­
mum of heat, is the cause of all hot things, as is said in the same book.
Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the
cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this
being we call God.
The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that
things which lack intelligence, sucfFas nâtûTaHwdtes. act for an end.
and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly alwavs, in (he
same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that they
achieve their end, not fortuitously, but designedly. Now whatever la
intelligence cannot move towards an end. unless it be directed by so
being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is
reeled by the archer. Therefore some inte "
all natural beings are directed to their end

*41

Evidence for Our Faith

BOYS' PHILOSOPHIES1
I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am go­
ing to begin by telling you one thing that Christians don't need to be­
lieve. If you are a Christian you don't have to believe that all the other
religions are simply wrong all through. If you arc an atheist you do
have to believe trial the main point in all the religions of the whole
world is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free
to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at
least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to per­
suade myself that the whole human race were pretty good fools until
about one hundred years ago; when I became a Christian I was able
to take a more liberal view. But of course, being a Christian does
mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions,
Christianity is right and they are wrong. Like in arithmetic—tnere's
only one right answer to a sum. and all other answers are wrong; but
some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.
The first big division of humanity is into the majority, who believe
in some kind of God or gods, and the minority who don’t. On this
point, Christianity lines up with the majority—lines up with ancient
Greeks and Romans, modern savages, Stoics, Platonists, Hindoos,
Mohammedans, etc., against the modern Western European materi­
alist. There are all sorts of different reasons for believing in God, and
here I'll mention only one. It is this. Supposing there was no intelli­
gence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case nobody
designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when
the atoms inside my skull nappen for physical or chemical reasons to
arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product,
the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own think­
ing to be true? It's like upsetting a milk-jug and hoping that the way
the splash arranges itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't
trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading
to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything
else. Unless I believe in God, I can't believe in thought: so I can never
use thought to disbelieve in God.
Now 1 go on to the next big division. People who all believe in God
can be divided according to the sort of God they believe in. There are
two very different ideas on this subject. One of them is the idea that
He is beyond good and evil. We call one thing good and another thing
bad. But according to some people that's merely our human point of
view. These people would say that the wiser you become the less you’d
want to call anything good or bad, and the more clearly you'd see
that everything is good in one way and bad in another, and that noth­
ing could have been different. Consequently, these people think that
long before you got anywhere near the divine point of view the distinc­
tion would have disappeared altogether. We call a cancer bad, they'd
say, because it kills a man; but you might just as well call a successfuli.

i. C. S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity, New York (Macmillan Co.),
1948, pp. 31-36.

Supplementary Readings

245

surgeon bad because he kills a cancer. It ail depends on the point of
view. The other and opposite idea is that God is quite acfinitcly
■'good” or "righteous,” a God who takes sides, who loves love and hates
hatred, who wants us to believe in one way and not in another. The
first of these views—the one that thinks God beyond good and evil—
is called Pantheism. It was held by the great Prussian philosopher
Hegel and, as far as 1 can understand them, by the Hindoos. The other
view is held by Jews, Mohammedans and Christians.
And with this big difference between Pantheism and the Christian
idea of God, there usually goes another. Pantheists usually believe that
God, so to speak, animates the universe as you animate your body:
that the universe almost is God, so that if it didn't exist He wouldn't
exist either, and anything you find in the universe is a part of God. The
Christian idea is quite different. They think God made the universe—
like a man making a picture or composing a tune. A painter isn't a
picture, and he doesn't die if his picture is destroyed. You may say.
"He's put a lot of himself into it," but that only means that all its
beauty and interest has come out of his head. His skill isn't in the pic­
ture in the same way that it’s in his head, or even in his hands. I ex­
pect you see how this difference between Pantheists and Christians
hangs together with the other one. If you don't take the distinction
between good and bad very seriously, then it's easy to say that any­
thing you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you
think some things really bad, and God really good, then you can’t
talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world
and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Con­
fronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheists can say, "If you could
only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this
also is God.” The Christian replies, "Don't talk damned nonsense."
For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world—
that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colon and tastes, and
all the animals and vegetables, are things that God "made up out of
His head" as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great
many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that
God insists, and insists very loudly, on our putting them right again.
And of course, that raises a very big question. If a good God made
the world why has it gone wrong? And for many years I simply
wouldn't listen to the Christian answers to this question, because I kept
on feeling "whatever you say, and however clever your arguments are.
isn't it much simpler and easier to say that the world was not made by
an intelligent power? Aren't all your arguments simply a complicated
attempt to avoid the obvious?” But then that threw me back into those
difficulties about atheism which I spoke of a moment ago. And soon
I saw another difficulty.
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and
unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man doesn't
call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was
I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole
show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did 1. who
was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in sucn violent re­
action against it? A man feels wet when he fails into water, because man

Evidence for Our Faith

v

isn’t a water animal: a fish wouldn’t feel wet. Of course I could have
given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea
of my own. Hut if I did that then my argument against God collapsed
too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really
unjust, not that it just didn’t happen to please my private fancies.
Thus in the vary act of trying to prove that God didn't exist—in other
words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced
to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full
of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole
universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has
no meaning: just as if there were no light in the universe and there­
fore no creatures with eyes we should never know it was dark. Dark
would be a word without meaning.
Very well then, atheism is too simple. And I'll tell you another view
that is also too simple. It’s the view I call Christianity-and-water, the
view1 that just says there’s a good God in Heaven and everything is all
right—leaving out all the difficult and terrible doctrines about sin
and hell and the devil, and the redemption. Both these are boys’
philosophies.
It is no good asking for a simple religion. After all. real things aren't
simple. They look simple, but they're not. The table I'm sitting at
looks simple: but ask a scientist to tell you what it’s really made of—
all about the atoms and how the light waves rebound from them and
hit my eye and what they do to the optic nerve and what it does to
my brain—and, of course, you find that what we call "seeing a table”
lands you in mysteries and complications which you can hardly get to
the end of. A child, saying a child's prayer, looks simple. And if you’re
content to stop there, well and good. But if you’re not—and the mod­
ern world usually isn't—if you want to go on and ask what’s really
happening—then you must be prepared for something difficult. If we
ask for something more than simplicity, it’s silly then to complain
that the something more isn’t simple.
THE RELIGION OF THE PRIMITIVE ‘
As the material collected by ethnologists proves, the primitive con­
ceives God not only as the mighty, wise and benevolent creator or
generator of life, but also as the "seer’’ who searches the heart, the
Holy One who imposes commands and the Merciful One who pardons
the guilty who ask His forgiveness. This picture of God is not confined
to the Biblical account of man's origins, but is to be found in the tradi­
tions of primitive peoples all the world over, indeed of mankind as
a whole, and influences man's practical thought and conduct to this
day.
For Newman it was a fundamental principle that "as we have our
initial knowledge of the universe through sense, so do we in the first
instance begin to learn about its Lord and God from conscience.”
Every man, whether bom into the blessings of higher culture or in
the reed huts or pile dwellings of the primitive, bears in his heart a
i. Otto Karrer, Religions o/ Mankind, New York (Sliced & Ward), 1936,
pp- >8*~l83· »85-'S6·

Supplementary Readings

a^7

mysterious yet compelling clear command "Thou shall.” He did not
give it t<> himself and he cannot get rid of it. We may agree with
Scheier that it is innate in man as such. The apprehension of moral
values is as native to him as his capacity for truth. We experience,
and the primitive also experiences, goodness as a value, in fact, as the
supreme value. We call conduct "good" when the choice which in­
spires it has decided in favor of the higher against the lower value,
and we call a man good when the fundamental direction of hi-, will is
towards the good. Until a man possesses this moral sensibility he is
no man. He is as little a man as a being incapable of intellectual
knowledge and apprehension.
From this point of view the particular content of an individual's
moral judgment is indifferent. We have not to enquire whether the
primitive and the civilized man agree in all respects in their judgment
of what is good or our duty, but simply whether we can discover in
the former distinctively moral judgments of any description. The
answer is not doubtful. The "formal" morality is to be found in the
primitive equally with the member of an advanced civilization. He
is conscious of a law in his heart, a voice speaking with authority
which forbids certain actions and commands others. He regards it as
wrong to do to another what he would not have done to himself,
acknowledges a duty to be just, hospitable, ready to help his neighbor,
grateful, respectful to elders, faithful in marriage. What is his rea­
son? He has not made these laws, nor any man in authority over him,
nor yet any human authority of the past. He is well aware of the
distinction between the commands of man and those imposed by the
inner voice of conscience.
The fact of conscience, however, this sense of right, the feeling of sat­
isfaction when a man does right, of guilt when he does what he knows
to be wrong, strikes the childlike primitive with "awe.” Here too "awe"
is the primary emotion. The man who retains the child's simplicity
and does not attempt to explain his experience away by some forced
interpretation, finds himself compelled to regard the obligation im­
posed from within as the echo of a supreme invisible will. And the
tendency to personification characteristic of the primitive makes it
impossible for him to be content with the abstract conception of a law
or order. His experiences of conscience force upon the primitive the
conclusion that there is a spiritual Being, a supreme and holy Lord,
who has imposed a law upon him. No doubt he makes the mistake of
conceiving the author of this "obligation" too anthropomorphically.
But this is of minor significance. The important point is that the
obligation is “the will of the absolute Being. " Conscience is His voice.
The tribal ordinances transmitted by education from generation to
generation are the historic social precipitates of this aboriginal intui­
tion of conscience. In short, as Newman sums it up. "the phenomena
of Conscience, as a dictate, avail to impress the imagination with the
picture of a Supreme Governor, a Judge, holy, just, powerful, allseeing, retributive.” In other words, "they explain the origin of the
moral conception of God."
Once conceived in the mind of the primitive, the notion of the
"holy” God develops. It deepens, strengthens and enriches those

a^S

Evidence for Our Faith

original emotions from which itself arose. Awe becomes ■•reverence."
For the Being who not only bestowed life in his goodness, but de­
mands moral goodness, must Himself possess the most sublime purity.
Man cannot bitt revere Him. It is a token of this reverence that He
is mentioned with great awe. with trembling and in low tones. Indeed,
to avoid profanation, the primitive even conceals his knowledge of
Him by a secret name known only to the initiate. He has nothing but
contempt for the strangers who speak of Him so lightly. With tears
of heartfelt emotion he receives His laws delivered in His name by
the elders of the tribe, and yields a willing obedience to the commands
of One whom he may address as his lord anti father. Surely we must
believe that in this attitude the sentiments of the ancestors have
survived, as they handed them on to their children.
This reverence is mingled with "love." For this Divine Being is
good, perfectly good—because He commands goodness, and to prac­
tice the goodness which He commands produces an inner satisfaction,
while at the same time bringing a blessing upon the tribe and shield­
ing it from misfortune. We cannot therefore help loving the Supreme
Being. For it is the nature of goodness to evoke love. The testimony
of this is the powerful aspiration to be united to Him, and share
mystically His oliss. The prayer of the primitive is a further witness.
At initiation, above all, and by the grave of the dead, the primitive
prays. Though some tribes are without the custom of daily prayer, all
pray on solemn occasions or in the hours of need or peril. Primitive
Îrayer resembles somewhat the conversation of a child with his father.
here is little scope for premeditation. The prayer is the heartfelt ut­
terance of a child's unieflecting confidence and trust, "Now He will
look down upon us, our Father. Thanks, my Father. Thanks, thou
kind old one." These and similar ejaculations are the customary
prayers of the Yaman of Tierra del Fuego. . . .
The innocent diild-man was, indeed, also acquainted with a right­
eous Deity. But he was purely the friend who rewarded good conduct
and instilled peace into the soul. The man conscious of guilt discovers
another aspect of His nature. He knows God as the angry and aveng­
ing Deity of retribution. This knowledge gives rise to the melancholy
and gloomy features in the religions of mankind. Not only in this
life is the wicked man punished by God, say the Andamanese; every­
one is also judged at death. The same belief is held by the natives
of Malacca, the Australians and the Negrillos. We may, if we like,
dub it superstition when the primitive sees in the storm and lightning
threatening signs of the Divine wrath. But what shall we say of the
hecatombs of bloody sacrifice or the self-torture of crowds to which in
all para of the world men submit to appease their God? All these
expressions of religious feeling though too often barbarities, claim our
respect when we consider their fundamental motive. Most commonly,
or at least very frequently, it is a sense of guilt which craves assurance
of pardon. And in Newman’s opinion "they who are not superstitious
without the Gospel, will not be religious with it."
Among the surviving primitive peoples it is true, the Kamilaroi of
Australia, for example, we occasionally find the belief that the wicked
man, the kogil as the Kamilaroi term him, is beyond pardon. But the

Supplementary Readings

249

conviction predominant among the primitive people* i* "tru*t in a
merciful God” who forgives the repentant sinner. This is the belief,
amongst others, of the Andamanese, the Semang, the Senoi of Malacca,
the Batak of Sumatra, the Dagari, Ewe and Mkulwe negroes, and 'he
Eastern Malagasy. "I am guilty," the Ewe confesses to the Sky god.
"Lo, 1 bring tnee the gift thou wilt have at my hands that thou mayest
be wroth with me no longer. Therefore take me back into thy care as
in the past." He will never sin against thee again," the priest pleads on
behalf of his client. The Batak who falls ill, convinced that he has
offended the tondi, the spirit of life, makes his confession: "Thus and
thus” (the sins are specified) "have I sinned against Thee. I will
amend. This offering is earnest money, the acknowledgment of my
guilt." Here also the priest intercedes. "Have compassion upon him,
impute it not to him." ?\nd in Dufaure Island a misfortune occasions
an examination of conscience. "Ye are wroth with me. In your anger
have ye taken our child from us. Be satisfied and bury your wrath . . ."
"Be not wroth with me, hate me not, be merciful to me, have compas­
sion on me," the Karens pray. After a detailed public confession and
act of contrition the Mkulwe throw chips of wood and straws, sym­
bols of their sins, into the air, with these words: “Now all my sins are
blown away by the wind.” In short, man believes in the mercy of
God as he believes in His severity and holiness.
This conviction and confidence inspired by faith mankind has
never wholly lost in the course of its history. Confession of sin in trust
of pardon has been shown by Pettazzoni to be an almost universal
feature of religion, as it has found expression throughout human
history. "When shall I with joyful countenance behold Thy mercy?"
prays the Indian penitent to Varuna. "I, thy bondservant, in bitter
Cains call upon Thee—but if Thou regardest a man with friendship
e recovers,” is the refrain taken up by the Babylonian.
It is the same with the Egyptians, Creeks and Buddhists. Though
outside the Bible the expectation of deliverance is not completely or
exclusively religious, it is part of the faith of humanity down the
ages, and as A. Jeremias has shown, is in many respects comparable
with the Messianic expectation of the Old Testament.

Select Bibliography

Adam, K. The Spirit of Catholicism (rev. cd.). New York: Macmillan 1946.
------- . The Son of Cod. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1934.
------- . One and Holy. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951.
Albright, W. From the Stone Age to Christianity (and ed.). Baltimore: Johns
Hopkin». 1946.
------- . Archeology and the Religion of Israel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1942.
------- . The Archeology of Palestine and the Bible (3rd ed.). New York: Revell,
>9S5·
Algermisscn, K. Christian Denominations. St. Louis: Herder, 1945.
Allport, G. The Individual and His Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1950.
Amann, E. The Church of the Early Centuries. St. Louis: Herder, 1930.
Arcndrcn, J. The Gospels: Fact, Myth, or Legend! St. Louis: Herder, 1924.
------- . Prophets, Priests and Publicans. London: Sands, 1926.
------- . Whom Do You Say! (2nd ed.). New York: Sheed 8c Ward, 1941.
Altwatcr, D. The Christian Churches of the East (a vols., rev. ed.). Milwaukee:
Bruce, 1946.
Aubert, R. Le Problème de L'Acte de Foi. Louvain: Warny, 1945.
Bainvcl, J. Faith and the Act of Faith. St. Louis: Herder, >926.
------- . Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church! St. Louis: Herder, 1917.
Barry, W. The Coining Age and the Catholic Church. London: Cassell, 1929.
Batiffol, P. Cathedra Petri. Paris: Cerf, 1938.
------- . Catholicism and Papacy. London: Sands, 1926.
------- . The Credibility of the Gospel. New York: Longmans, Green, 1912.
------- . Primitive Catholicism. New York: Longmans, Green, 1911.
Bell, H. Recent Discoveries of Biblical Papyri. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937.
------- . and Sheat, T. (cds.). Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and Other Early
Christian Papyri. London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1935.
Belloc, H. The Catholic Church and History. New York: Macmillan, 1926.
------- . Essays of a Catholic. New York: Macmillan. 1931.
------- . Europe and the Faith. New York: Paulist Press, 1920.
------- . The Great Heresies. New York: Sliced and Ward. 1938.
------- . The Question and the Answer. Milwaukee: Bruce, >932.
------- . Survivals and New Arrsvals. London: Macmillan, 1929.
ayo

Select Bibliography
Benson. R- Christ in the Church. St. Louis: Herder, 1911.
_____ Confessions of a Convert. New York: Longmans, Green. 1913.
_____ . Non-Catholic Denominations. New York: Ixmgmans. Green, 1910.
_____. paradoxes of Catholicism. New York: Longmans, Green, 1913.
Berdiacv, N. The End of Our Time. New York: Sheed k Ward. 1933.
Bettenson. H. (ed.). Documents of the Christian Church. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press, 1943·
Bonsirven. J. Juifs et Chrétiens. Paris: Flammarion. 1936.
On the Ruins of the Temple. London: Burns, Oates & Washboume. 1931.
Braun, F. Oü en est le Problème de Jésusf Paris: Gahalda, 1932.
--------. L'Evangile devant les Temps Présents. Paris: Desclée, 1938.
Brunhes. G. Faith and its Rational Justification. St. Louis: Herder. 1931.
Butler, E. The Vatican Council (2 vols.). New York: Longmans, Green, 1930.
Cayre, F. Manual of Patrology (2 vols.). Paris: Desclée, 1927.
Chapman, J. Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims. New York: Longmans, 1905.
■
The Four Gospels. New York: Sheed fc Ward, 1944.
-------- . Studies on the Early Papacy. New York: Beniigcr, 1928.
Chesterton. G. K. Autobiography. New York: Sheed & Ward. 1936.
-------- . The Catholic Church and Conversion. New York: Macmillan. 1926.
-------- . The Everlasting Man. New York: Dodd. Mead, 1937.
-------- . Orthodoxy. New York: Dodd, Mead, 194g.
------- . The Thing—Why I Am a Catholic. New York: Dodd, Mead. 1930.
Chevalier, J. Pascal. New York: Longmans. Green. 1930.
Civardi, L. A Manual of Catholic Action. London: Sheed it Ward. 1935.
Claudel, P. Letters to a Doubter. New York: Boni. 1927.
-------- . IVays and Crossways. New York: Sheed 3c Ward. 1933.
Conway, B. The Question Box (New ed,). New York: Paulist Press. 192g.
Cyprian, St. On the Unity of the Catholic Church. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
D'Arcy, M. Mirage and Truth. New York: Macmillan. 1935.
-------- . The Nature of Belief. London: Sheed & Ward, 1931.
Dawson, C. The Age of the Gods. New York: Sheed & Ward. 1933.
-------- . Beyond Politics. New York: Sheed & Ward, 193g.
-------- . Progress and Religion. London: Sheed fc Ward. 1929.
--------. Religion and Culture. London: Sheed & Ward. 1948.
Delany, S. Rome From Within. Milwaukee: Bruce, 1935.
-------- . Why Rome/ New York: Dial Press. 1930.
Denzinger, H. Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationem (21-23 **Μ·
Friburgi Brisgoviae: Herder, 1937.
Dictionnaire Apologétique (6 vols. 4th ed.). edited by A. D'Alcs. Paris: Beauchesne.
■ guff.
Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (15 vols.), edited by Vacant, Mangenot. and
Amann. Paris: Letouzey, 1903(7.
Duchesne. L. Early History of the Christian Church. (4 vols. 4th ed.). New York:
Longmans, Green. 1925.
Dunne, G. Religion and American Democracy. New York: America. 194g.
Dwight, T. Thoughts of a Catholic Anatomist. New York: Longmans. Green,
1927.
Eusebius The Ecclesiastical History (2 vols.). New York: Putnam's. 1928-32.
Eymieu. A. Two Arguments for Catholicism. New York: Benriger, 1927.
Fanfani. A. Catholicism, Protestantism, and Capitalism. London: Sheed it Ward.
>935·

aja

Evidence for Our Faith

The Fathen of the Church, edited by Schopp and Deferrarl. New York: Father»
of the Church, Inc., 1947ft.
Ancient Christian Writers, edited by QitMten and Plumpc. Westminster: Newman.
igfOff.
The Ante-Nieene Christian Library (04 vols.), edited by Roberts and Donaldson.
Edinburgh: Clark. 1866-72.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers (sa vols). American reprint of the Edinburgh cd., re­
vised by Coxc. New York: Scribner's. 192.5.
A Library of the Fathers (45 vols.), edited by Pusey. Keble and Newman. Oxford:
Parker: Rivington. 1838-88
A Select Library of Nieene anil Posl-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church (28
vol».). edited by Scliaff and Wacc. New York: Scribner's. 1925.
Felder. H. Christ and the Critics (2 vols.). London: Burns, Oates fc Washboume,
■9*4Ferm, V. (cd.). Religion in the Twentieth Century. New York: The Philosophical
Library, 1948.
Fillion, L. The Life of Christ (3 vols.). St. Louis: Herder, 1927-29.
------- . Les Miracles de Notre-Seigneur (2 vols.). Paris, 1935.
Finlay. P. The Church of Christ. New York: Longmans, Green, 1922.
Fitzsimons, J. The Christian in a Changing World. South Bend: Fides, 1950.
Fortescue, A. The Early Papacy. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne, 1920.
Gardeil, A. La Credibility et L'Apologclique (2nd cd.). Paris: Gabalda, 1912.
Garrigou-Lagrangc, R. De Revelatione (2 vols., 4th cd.). Rome: Ferrari, 1945.
------- . Dieu, Son Existence et Sa Nature. Paris: Bcauchcsne. 1923.
Gibbons, Card. The Faith of Our Fathers. Baltimore: Murphy. 1892.
Graham. A. The Christ of Catholicism. New York: Longmans, Green, 1947.
Grandmaison, L. Jesus Christ, His Person, His Message, His Credentials (3 vols.).
London: Sheed Ik Ward. 1930-32.
Hastings. J. A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels (2 vols.). New York: Scribners,
1906-08.
Hertzler, J. Social Institutions. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1946.
Hoffman, R. J. Restoration. New York: Sliced & Ward. 1934.
Huby, J. The Church and the Gospels. New York: Holt, 1931.
------- . Christus: Manuel d'Histoire des Religions. Paris: Bcauchcsne, 1912.
Huge!. F. von. Some Notes on Petrine Claims. London: Sheed & Ward. 1930.
Hughes, P. History of the Church (4 vols.). New York: Sheed & Ward. 1934-36.
Janin. R. Les Eglises Orientales et les Rites Orientaux. Paris: Bloud & Gay, 1935.
Karrer, O. Religions of Mankind. London: Sheed & Ward, 1936.
Kenyon, F. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.). New York: Harper,
■ 948.
King. A. The Rites of Eastern Christendom (2 vols.). Rome: Catholic Book
Agency. 1947.
Knox, R. The Belief of Catholics. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1940.
------- . Broadcast Minds. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1933.
------- . The Church on Earth. New York: Macmillan, 1929.
------- . God and the Atom. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1945.
------- . The New Testament in English. New York: Sliced & Ward, >947.
------- . and Lunn. A. Difficulties. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. 193».
Koesters, L. The Believer's Christ. St. Louis: Herder, 193g.
------- . The Church: Its Divine Authority. St. Louis: Herder, 1938.
Krull, V. Christian Denominations. (141I1 ed.). Chicago: Donohue. 1936.

Select Bibliography
Lagrange. M. Christ and Renan. London: Bcnriger. 1928.
_____ Introduction Λ L'Elude du Nouveau Testament. Pari»: Gabalda. tgga.
.------- . The Meaning of Christianity. New York: Longmans. Green, igao.
-------- The Gospel of Jesus Christ (» vol·.). Westminster: Newman. 1938.
Lattey, C. (ed.). The Church. Cambridge: Heffer, 1928.
_____ . The Papacy. Cambridge: Heffer. 1924.
-------- . The Pre-Nicene Church. London: Bum·. Gate· & Washboume. 1935.
Lebrelon. J. The Life and Teaching of Jesus Christ Our Lord (a vol».). Milwau­
kee: Bruce. 1935.
--------, and Zeiller. J. The History of the Primitive Church (» vol·.). New York:
Macmillan. 1949.
Lelotte, F. Fundamental Principles of Catholic Action. Montreal: Fide·. 1947.
Le Roy. A. Religion of the Primitives. New York: Macmillan, igaa.
Lewi·. C. S. Miracles. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1947.
Luce, C. "The ‘Real' Reason." McCalls, LXXIV (1947), 5, 6, 7.
Lunn, A. Now I See. New York: Sheed & Ward. 1934.
-------- . The Third Day. Westminster: Newman, 1945.
— —■ Within That City. London: Sheed & Ward. 1936.
-------- . and Joad, C. Is Christianity True! Philadelphia: Lippincott. 1933.
Mascall, E. He Who Is. London: Longmans. Green, 1943.
Maritain, J. The Things That Are Not Caesar's. London: Scribner's, 1931.
McNabb. V. Infallibility. St. Louis: Herder. 1927.
Messenger. E. (ed.). Studies in Comparative Religion (5 vols.). London: Catholic
Truth Society, 1935.
Murray, J. "The Roman Catholic Church,” The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 256 (1948), 36-42.
Newman, J. Apologia pro Vita Sua. New York: Sheed & Ward. 1946.
--------. Certain Difficulties Felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching Considered (1
vols.). London: Longmans, Green, 1901.
-------- . The Church of the Fathers. London: Bums & Oates, 18C8.
-------- . Essays and Sketches (3 vols.). New York: Longmans. Green, 1948.
-------- . Present Position of Catholics. New York: Longmans, Green, 1935.
-------- . Two Essays on Biblical and on Ecclesiaslical Miracles. London: Long­
mans, Green. 1907.
O'Brien. J. The Faith of Millions. Huntington: Our Sunday Visitor. 1938.
-------- . Truths Men Live By. New York: Macmillan, 1946.
O'Neill, J. Catholicism and American Freedom. New York: Harper, 1952.
Patrologia Graeca (162 vols.). Paris: Migne. 1857-66.
Palrologia Latina (221 vols.). Paris: Migne, 1844-55.
Phelan, M. The Straight Path; or Marks of the True Church. New York: Long­
mans, Green, 1935.
Pinard de la Boullaye, H. L'Elude Comparée des Religions (* vols.). Paris:
Beauchesne, 1922-25.
Pope, H. The Catholic Church and the Bible. New York: Macmillan. 1928.
Prat, F. Jesus Christ (2 vols.). Milwaukee: Bruce, 1950.
Ricciotti, G. The Life of Christ. Milwaukee: Bruce. 1947.
Ring, G. Gods of the Gentiles. Milwaukee: Bruce. 1929.
Salaville, P. An Introduction to the Study of Eastern Liturgies. London: Sands,
*93®·
Schmidt. W. The Origin and Growth of Religion. New York: The Dial Press,
>93*·

ajj

Evidence for Our Faith

Schmidt, W. Primitive Revelation. St. Louis: Herder. 1939.
Sertillange», A. Le Miracle de L'Eglise. Pari»: Spe», 1933.
Shccd. F. A Map of Life. New York: Sliced & Ward. 1933.
------- . Theology and Sanity. New York: Sheed & Ward, »946.
Sheen, F. Religion without God. New York: Longmans, Green, 1938.
Stcinmucller, J. A Companion to Scripture Studies (3 vols.). New York: Wagner,
•94>-43Stoddard, J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. New York: Kenedy, igaa.
Tawney, R. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
igafi.
Taylor, A. E. Does God Exist! New York: Macmillan. 1947.
Thomas, St. Summa Theologica. (Part I, QQ. I-XXVL). London: Burns, Oates
A- Washboume, igao.
de Tonquédcc, J. Introduction ά L'Etude du Merveilleux et du Miracle (3rd cd.).
Paris: Beauchesne, 1923.
Vatsall-Phillips, O. Catholic Christianity. London: Washbournc, 1916.
Vcrmecrsdi, A. Tolerance. London: Washbourne, 1913.
Ward, L. The Catholic Church and the Appeal to Reason. New York: Macmillan,
1926.
Ward, M. and Sheed, F. Catholic Evidence Training Outlines (3rd cd.). London:
Shccd & Ward, 1934.
Watkin, E. The Bow in the Clouds. New York: Macmillan, 193a.
------- . Some Thoughts on Catholic Apologetics. St. Louis: Herder, 1915.
William, F. The Life of Christ. St. Louis: Herder, 1936.
Woodlock, T. The Catholic Pattern. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1943.

Index

Eastern Catholic Churches, 147
Epistles of St. Paul:
historicity of, 62-63
Evidence:
external, 50
internal, 50

Acts o£ the Apostles:
historicity o£, 62-63
Apostles:
authority of, 114
and resurrection of Christ, 9&-9
Bible, see Scripture, Holy
Buddhism, 8-9

Fathers of Church:
definition of: 60
on infallibility of Pope, 190-195
on primacy of Pope, 137-,4S

Catholic Church:
apostolirity of, 175_,7®
catholicity of, 164-165. >75
founded by Christ, 108-146
fruitfulness of, 159-161
growth of, 149-153
holiness of. 153-159
ignorance of, 177
infallibility of, 183-187
stability of, 165-166
unity of, 162-163. 175
Christ:
claimed to be God. 30-41
claimed to be Messiah. 27-28
credibility of claims. 70-106
Censures, 207
Christ's Church:
Protestant views of, 111-113
Roman Catholic view of, 110-111
Communism, 12-13
Councils, General, 208-210

Genuineness of Gospels, 51-55
Gospels:
apocryphal. 63
critics. 44-49· 64-7°
date of composition of, 4&-49
genuineness of. 51-55
integrity of. 56-62
trustworthiness of. 55-56

Hallucination theory. 94“95· 1O3”IO6
Hinduism. 7-8
Historicity, see Gospels or Epistles
Holiness of Catholic Church, i5J-*59
Infallibility:
how exercised. 204-211
of the Church. 183-187
of the Pope. 188-203
Indifferentium 178-17·
Inspiration of the Bible. 216-219

Deism. 45

355

3f6

Intregrlty of the Gospels, 56-6»
lilam. ιι-it
Jew», history of, 15-25

Magisterium of Church:
ordinary. «04-205
solemn. «06-210
Mark· of the Church, 167-178
Messiah:
Christ claimed to be, »7-28
prophecies about, 70-72
Jewish idea of. 25
Miracles of Chinn:
apologetical fact of, 82
historical fact of, 75-78
supernatural fact of, 78-82
New Testament, »16
Old Testament, 15, 215-216
Orthodox Churches, 147
Paul, St.:
authority of, 118-119
reprimands St. Peter, 134 insee Epistles of,
Peter, St.:
bestowal of primacy. ·3*—>33
exercise of primacy. 134-136
promise of primacy, 125-132
Pharisees, 21-22
Philosophical presuppositions, 228-252
Pope:
primacy of, 125-146
infallibility of, 188-203

Index
Proofs of God's existence:
from contingency. 230-232
in Summa Théologien, 245-246
wager argument. 229-230
Prophecies:
alunit Messiah. 70-72
of Christ, 82-86
fulfilled by Christ. 70-73
Prophets, 24-25

Reason as a guide, 240-243
Religion:
definition of. 238-239
evolution in religion, 243-244
Resurrection:
Coma theory of. 86
Deception theory of. 89-90
Hallucination theory of. 94-95. 103106
vs. other "resurrections," 99-102
Resurrection appearances, 91-96
Sadducees, 22-23
Science vs. God. 236-238
Scripture. Holy:
content of, 215-216
inspiration of, 216-219
Shintoism, 11
Stability of Catholic Church, 165-166

Taoism. 9-10
Tests of Historicity, 49-50
Tradition:
meaning of, 219
and the Fathers. 220
Trustworthiness of Gospels, 55-56
Unity of the Catholic Church. 162-164